Israeli views of the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Encyclopedia
This article examines Israeli views of the peace process that is ongoing concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
. There are a multitude of opinions and views of the peace process
elicited at various points during Israel
’s history and by a variety of people. A popular understanding of the origins of the conflict from the Israeli point of view is that it began following the 1967 Six Day War with Israel’s occupation of the territories and consequently the peace process negotiations should stem from this. However, there are other understandings of the conflict and therefore the solution for peace
, including some Israeli academic’s and peace activist’s
understanding that a much longer history is involved, differing from the popular narrative often recited. Suggestions for how to achieve peace in the region include a two state solution where an Israeli sovereign
state
and a Palestinian sovereign state exist side by side, or the suggestion of a one state secular solution where power is shared by Israelis and Palestinians. Hardliners believe that Israel should maintain sovereignty over the land it currently occupies and give no concessions to Palestinians, others believe keeping up the military campaign, occupation of the Gaza Strip
and the West Bank
and separation from Palestinians is the only current way forward. There is also a note of despair and uncertainness as to how to proceed among some, particularly following the failure of peace summits in the 1990s and early 21st century and the second Intifada, as Kaufman et al. have stated; “there is a growing consensus that the current political leadership are not able to build a stable peace and resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people”. As Cowen says “almost everyone wants peace [but] on his or her terms” and this is the crux of the problem.
The article looks at the views demonstrated in Israel following particular attempts to create peace between Israel and Palestinian groups; such as the Oslo Accords
, the Camp David 2000 summit
and the Road Map for Peace
. Also scrutinized are the views of key Israeli political figures
and public opinions at particular points. This article intentionally only focuses on Israeli points of view and not Palestinian views (see: Palestinian views of the peace process
), it is not a history of the peace process (see: peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
) or the conflict (see: history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
) and it specifically looks at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and peace process and not Israel’s relations more generally with the Arab
world (see: Arab-Israeli conflict; history of the Arab-Israeli conflict
).
Almost every Israeli prime minister has called for peace talks with moderate Arab leaders over the years.
’ and Pappe calls the ‘common version’ essentially refer to where Israelis place themselves in relation to Palestinians and the wider Arab world and in a particular version of past events. This ‘traditional’ or ‘common’ narrative, as the terms suggest, is both popular and well established in the mindset of many Israelis, both civilians and politicians alike and others outside of the state, particularly in the West
. The narrative broadly holds that in the 1940s the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate and it was they who instructed their people to flee in 1948 creating the refugee problem that persists today. That there are a group of Palestinians who are terrorists who wish to destroy Israel and that the Palestinians are too demanding in their peace negotiations which reflects extremism within Palestinian society, and although the destruction of Israel was initially an aim of groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and remains one for some such as Hamas
, just as the idea of creating an Israeli state covering the occupied territories remains an aim for some Israelis, this has largely been rejected as an aim now and the PLO officially recognised Israel in 1988. Part of this traditional narrative is the belief that the causes of the conflict lie in the 1967 Six Day War and consequently peace discussions should form around the discussion of territorial negotiation. Such a narrative leads to certain assumptions about what is acceptable in peace creation and influences how Israelis who hold this perception view the peace process. Slater goes as far as to say that, in his opinion, the conflict continues partly as a result of this ‘mythology’ of Israel’s situation in the Middle East and the Palestinian ‘other’.
and towards Zionism
’s insistence on creating a Jewish state in Palestine for example, and consequently views the peace process differently; less fearfully of Palestinian intentions and more sympathetically to Palestinian wishes.
for details of the agreement.
The agreement made in Oslo
in August 1993 between Israel and the PLO was seen as a great step forward by many, although views of the Accords were not homogeneous. Some hailed Rabin
’s concession to consider the option of Palestinian self rule as a welcome move towards peace and away from his hardliner background, others, both within rightwing Israeli politics and sections of society saw it as too great a concession on Israel’s behalf. This view is demonstrated by the assassination of Rabin in 1995 by a rightwing radical Yigal Amir
who opposed his signing the Oslo Accords and served to highlight the differences in opinion held within Israeli society as to the direction the peace process and consequently Israel should take. Suspicion of the reason for Palestinian agreement was held by a few who maintained the view that Palestinians wanted to destroy the state of Israel and that they would not attempt to keep the peace. The continued and increased attacks by some sectors of Palestinian society did nothing to aid the view that the Palestinians would not keep their side of the deal.
Israeli commentators lay blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords at Yasser Arafat’s door believing his leadership to be corrupt and dictatorial rather than looking at events of Israel’s making. The Oslo Accords, like previous talks had avoided key issues and the view of peace put forward by Israeli negotiators remained based on the notion of limited sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank without resolving the right to return of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 conflict avoided the longer term view of the causes of the conflict. The issue of Israeli settlements was not concluded, and the extensive building that took place following the Oslo Accords was cited as evidence that the views of Rabin and Israelis in power who did not act in the “spirit of Oslo”. The issue of settlements throws up the particular and fairly extreme view of the religious-right in Israel at the time that believed negotiating over territory and the possibility of Palestinian self rule in the religiously symbolic territories undermined what it meant to be Israeli. Settlers also viewed the peace process at this point as a threat due to the possibility that their homes and livelihoods would be at risk. The initial building of settlements and the continuation of such schemes, despite the Oslo Accords rhetoric demonstrates that those at the top of Israeli politics did not seriously envisage creating a viable Palestinian state as part of the peace process. For citizens outside the nationalist right the period around the Oslo Accords represented a time when negotiation over territory became acceptable on the understanding that the alternative was the probability that Israel would have to lose either its liberal democracy or Zionist identity.
for detail of the summit.
The Camp David summit in the summer of 2000 involving United States President Bill Clinton
, Ehud Barak
and Yasser Arafat, was an attempt to agree a deal to finalise issues that would create a peace settlement. Its outcome however was a deadlock and a rejection by Arafat of Barak’s offer which offered most of Arafat's demands, withholding only the demand for sole Arab control over the temple mount, the demand for complete repatriation of millions of Arabs into Israel proper, and about 30% of the contested territory. According to Ben-Ami the left in Israel believed Barak and his team had not offered enough to the Palestinian’s to make it a viable option, and the right believed too many concessions were offered and that the failure of the peace process was what they had expected. A conflict of views on the peace process was clearly evident within Israel due mainly to traditional views on the character of Israel as a Jewish state, and a new found desperation among some for peace at any cost.
Israeli left wing analysts have since put forward a version of events that imply Barak and his team did not go far enough to allow Arafat to comply and that far from blaming Arafat for rejecting a reasonable offer they hold empathy with the Palestinian predicament. Slater’s view is that: “despite the widespread misrepresentation that Ehud Barak offered Palestinians ‘generous’ peace proposals at Camp David, Israel is still resisting the creation of a genuinely viable and independent Palestinian state.” Highlighting the consistency throughout the peace process for him of a desire to maintain control over any threat to a Jewish state the Palestinians might have by controlling them. Barak did not acknowledge the role of Israel in the Palestinian refugee situation, highlighting his view of the peace process remains based in the traditional narrative understandings discussed at the top of this article. The collapse of the peace talks and the subsequent Second Intifada uprising left many Israelis to view the peace process as failing and having led to lives of greater insecurity and an increasing sense that the Palestinians ask for too much and offer violence in return and thus the two state solution with Israel’s withdrawal to something like the 1967 borders that had seemed to be becoming a possibility became far more unlikely save for some academics and peace activists.
for detail of the negotiations.
The Road Map for Peace was introduced by George W. Bush
’s administration in co-operation with Russia
, the European Union
and the United Nations
to try and instigate a phased path to peace. However the Road Map receive little genuine attention from either side of the conflict, other than, as Ben-Ami says, to keep the Americans onside, the real gain Israel received was the assurance of a removal of the military threats from other states in the region. Sharon’s rightwing government were not keen to see a true revival of the peace process after a couple of years of the violence of the Second Intifada and paid it little more than lipservice.
, Israeli Prime Minister from 1983-84 and again from 1986-1992 following a two year spell as part of a coalition government between his Likud
Party and the Labor Party
, is considered one of the most hard-line Prime Ministers Israel has had. Accordingly, in a period of time where relations between Israel and other Arab states were beginning to shift and global changes were being witnessed towards the end of the Cold War
, Shamir opposed shifts or compromise on the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His view of the peace process at a time when the PLO were moving towards recognition of Israel and a two state solution was that territory should not be part of the negotiation and consequently with the moving times and relations obvious at the peace talks in Madrid he felt both under siege and indifference according to Ben-Ami.
, a hardliner who had two terms as Prime Minister, was instrumental in the continuation of settlements and did not wish for the peace process to go in the direction of Israeli and Palestinian states existing next door to each other. However it was he who suggested an exchange of an end to the first intifada in return for Palestinian autonomy at the end of the 1980s. When Prime Minister for the second time, it was also his role in negotiations at Oslo that led to the so-called breakthrough in the peace process, acknowledging the PLO and the move towards Israeli withdrawal from the territories. His plans after the Oslo accords of continued settlement and road building in the occupied territories demonstrated his true views on the peace process; not a desire to return to 1967 borders but a separation in some form of Palestinians from Israelis. However it is suggested by Slater that towards the end of his life he was moving toward the idea of some kind of Palestinian state. Rabin also saw peace as essential for Israel to build up its economy and not only that but peace to increase regional development and standards of living not just in Israel.
has held many posts within Israeli politics, including the role of Prime Minister. He is credited as being a key instigator in the occurrence of the Oslo Accords and held many similar views towards the peace process as Rabin.
The Camp David negotiations in 2000 brought Peres’ criticism for the making of too many concessions for the Palestinians. For he held that a viable Palestinian state should not be formed and consequently stepped up the move to build inroads into Palestinian territories.
became Prime Minister as leader of the Likud Party in 1996 and had an immediate affect, and an adverse one according to Yakan, on the peace process. He attempted to slow down the Oslo process in order to create better security and due to his severe reservations of it. Netanyahu is a recognised opponent of territorial negotiation and land for peace deals and he wanted results rather than declarations. The regard he and other Likud members held Rabin and Peres in following their negotiations with the PLO during the Oslo process demonstrates his view of the peace process as undesirable and as abandoning the notion of what Israel should be. He, like his successors in office, Barak and Sharon, believed that if the creation of some form of Palestinian state was completely unavoidable it should only be in the Gaza Strip, part of the West Bank, and Israel should remain the military and sovereign ruler over the settlements, all of Jerusalem and important points such as the aquifers.
took office as Prime Minister in 1999 as leader of the Labor Party. His time in office and the decisions he made have been described as “Schizoid” by Slater for the apparent changes in direction he took. He went further than any other Israeli Prime Minister in the deals he offered the Palestinians at Camp David, but he has himself described his loyalties to the rightwing - he had opposed the Oslo agreements - only making such peace offers out of pragmatism for the knowledge that controlling Palestinians was only going to lead to continued violence. After the failed negotiations and the concessions he offered, he continued to make reference to his desire for a Greater Israel
. His view of the peace process therefore seem fairly contradictory and included placing importance on dealing with Israel’s relations with its neighbours such as Syria
over dealing directly with Israel’s relations with the Palestinians in a hope that the Palestinians would become isolated if peace was secured between Israel and Syria. It was only once this channel was exhausted that Barak would deal with Arafat and the Palestinians. An important view point of Barak’s regarding the peace process is that there were no preconceived solutions to the process and negotiations; for him there was not an expectation that Israel would definitely withdraw to the 1967 borders for example, everything was under discussion in an open ended process.
Ariel Sharon
succeeded Barak as Prime Minister in 2001 and brought with him a rightwing government in the face of the violent period of the second intifada. His reluctance to implement the goals of the ‘Road Map for Peace’ demonstrated his unwillingness to negotiate and make gestures towards developments in the peace process. Indeed, Ben-Ami says that Sharon has always harboured a hidden agenda: “the sterilization of the Palestinian national movement…and the confinement of a Palestinian homeland within scattered enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements, strategic military areas and a network of bypass roads for the exclusive use of the Israeli occupier.” As Sharon views a Palestinian national movement as a threat to Israel and its ‘Jewishness’ and consequently would rather allow an independent state, although militarily weak. The dismantling of settlements in Gaza, instigated by Sharon, represents not only an unprecedented step by Israel but also that Sharon had decided unilateral action rather than a two state negotiation was the way forward to move towards peace.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between Jewish and Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman or...
. There are a multitude of opinions and views of the peace process
Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East and an "all or nothing" attitude about a lasting peace, "which prevailed for most of the twentieth century"...
elicited at various points during Israel
Israel
The State of Israel is a parliamentary republic located in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea...
’s history and by a variety of people. A popular understanding of the origins of the conflict from the Israeli point of view is that it began following the 1967 Six Day War with Israel’s occupation of the territories and consequently the peace process negotiations should stem from this. However, there are other understandings of the conflict and therefore the solution for peace
Peace
Peace is a state of harmony characterized by the lack of violent conflict. Commonly understood as the absence of hostility, peace also suggests the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the...
, including some Israeli academic’s and peace activist’s
Peace activist
This list of peace activists includes people who proactively advocate diplomatic, non-military resolution of political disputes, usually through nonviolent means.A peace activist is an activist of the peace movement.*Jane Addams*Martti Ahtisaari...
understanding that a much longer history is involved, differing from the popular narrative often recited. Suggestions for how to achieve peace in the region include a two state solution where an Israeli sovereign
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided...
state
Sovereign state
A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither...
and a Palestinian sovereign state exist side by side, or the suggestion of a one state secular solution where power is shared by Israelis and Palestinians. Hardliners believe that Israel should maintain sovereignty over the land it currently occupies and give no concessions to Palestinians, others believe keeping up the military campaign, occupation of the Gaza Strip
Gaza Strip
thumb|Gaza city skylineThe Gaza Strip lies on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The Strip borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the south, east and north. It is about long, and between 6 and 12 kilometres wide, with a total area of...
and the West Bank
West Bank
The West Bank ) of the Jordan River is the landlocked geographical eastern part of the Palestinian territories located in Western Asia. To the west, north, and south, the West Bank shares borders with the state of Israel. To the east, across the Jordan River, lies the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan...
and separation from Palestinians is the only current way forward. There is also a note of despair and uncertainness as to how to proceed among some, particularly following the failure of peace summits in the 1990s and early 21st century and the second Intifada, as Kaufman et al. have stated; “there is a growing consensus that the current political leadership are not able to build a stable peace and resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people”. As Cowen says “almost everyone wants peace [but] on his or her terms” and this is the crux of the problem.
The article looks at the views demonstrated in Israel following particular attempts to create peace between Israel and Palestinian groups; such as the Oslo Accords
Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles , was an attempt to resolve the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict...
, the Camp David 2000 summit
Camp David 2000 Summit
The Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David of July 2000 took place between United States President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat...
and the Road Map for Peace
Road map for peace
The roadmap for peace or "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. The principles of the plan, originally drafted by U.S. Foreign Service...
. Also scrutinized are the views of key Israeli political figures
Politics of Israel
The Israeli system of government is based on parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister of Israel is the head of government and leader of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in the Knesset. The Judiciary is independent of the executive...
and public opinions at particular points. This article intentionally only focuses on Israeli points of view and not Palestinian views (see: Palestinian views of the peace process
Palestinian views of the peace process
Palestinian views of the peace process refer to the views of Palestinians in the ongoing peace talks with Israel. While some Palestinian leaders say that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel, others maintain that their goal is to destroy Israel.-Hamas...
), it is not a history of the peace process (see: peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East and an "all or nothing" attitude about a lasting peace, "which prevailed for most of the twentieth century"...
) or the conflict (see: history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict covers from the end of the 19th century to the present day. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict centers on conflicting, often mutually exclusive claims to the area called Palestine by the Palestinians and the Land of Israel by Israeli Jews.- Historical...
) and it specifically looks at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and peace process and not Israel’s relations more generally with the Arab
Arab
Arab people, also known as Arabs , are a panethnicity primarily living in the Arab world, which is located in Western Asia and North Africa. They are identified as such on one or more of genealogical, linguistic, or cultural grounds, with tribal affiliations, and intra-tribal relationships playing...
world (see: Arab-Israeli conflict; history of the Arab-Israeli conflict
History of the Arab-Israeli conflict
The Arab–Israeli conflict is a modern phenomenon, which has its roots in the end of the 19th century. The conflict became a major international issue with the birth of Israel in 1948. The Arab-Israeli conflict has resulted in at least five major wars and a number of minor conflicts...
).
Almost every Israeli prime minister has called for peace talks with moderate Arab leaders over the years.
Narratives of the conflict
The understanding given to the history of events between Israelis and Palestinians has a bearing on the solutions sought for peace and how far each side is prepared to compromise to create a peace deal.Traditional narrative
What Slater terms the ‘traditional narrativeNarrative
A narrative is a constructive format that describes a sequence of non-fictional or fictional events. The word derives from the Latin verb narrare, "to recount", and is related to the adjective gnarus, "knowing" or "skilled"...
’ and Pappe calls the ‘common version’ essentially refer to where Israelis place themselves in relation to Palestinians and the wider Arab world and in a particular version of past events. This ‘traditional’ or ‘common’ narrative, as the terms suggest, is both popular and well established in the mindset of many Israelis, both civilians and politicians alike and others outside of the state, particularly in the West
Western world
The Western world, also known as the West and the Occident , is a term referring to the countries of Western Europe , the countries of the Americas, as well all countries of Northern and Central Europe, Australia and New Zealand...
. The narrative broadly holds that in the 1940s the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate and it was they who instructed their people to flee in 1948 creating the refugee problem that persists today. That there are a group of Palestinians who are terrorists who wish to destroy Israel and that the Palestinians are too demanding in their peace negotiations which reflects extremism within Palestinian society, and although the destruction of Israel was initially an aim of groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and remains one for some such as Hamas
Hamas
Hamas is the Palestinian Sunni Islamic or Islamist political party that governs the Gaza Strip. Hamas also has a military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades...
, just as the idea of creating an Israeli state covering the occupied territories remains an aim for some Israelis, this has largely been rejected as an aim now and the PLO officially recognised Israel in 1988. Part of this traditional narrative is the belief that the causes of the conflict lie in the 1967 Six Day War and consequently peace discussions should form around the discussion of territorial negotiation. Such a narrative leads to certain assumptions about what is acceptable in peace creation and influences how Israelis who hold this perception view the peace process. Slater goes as far as to say that, in his opinion, the conflict continues partly as a result of this ‘mythology’ of Israel’s situation in the Middle East and the Palestinian ‘other’.
New narrative
There is an alternative to this traditional narrative: a growing scholarship from Israeli academics and peace activists looking at the history of relations between Israel and Palestine has developed what has become known as a ‘new history’. Ilan Pappe’s work referenced here can be considered part of this trend. It has reassessed Israel’s role in conflict creation and continuation, demonstrating an awareness of both Israeli and Palestinian roles in the process. As a result of its understanding that the conflict reaches back beyond the Six Day War, the narrative recognises different causes for the conflict to be beyond Palestinian anti-SemitismAnti-Semitism
Antisemitism is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. According to a 2005 U.S...
and towards Zionism
Zionism
Zionism is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state...
’s insistence on creating a Jewish state in Palestine for example, and consequently views the peace process differently; less fearfully of Palestinian intentions and more sympathetically to Palestinian wishes.
Responses to peace attempts
The response by Israeli politicians and the general public to high profile peace attempts give an indication of how these events, and therefore the peace process, have been viewed. Although separated here these peace process events are part of an ongoing process of negotiations, changing events and opinions.The Oslo Accords
See Oslo AccordsOslo Accords
The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles , was an attempt to resolve the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict...
for details of the agreement.
Oslo
Oslo is a municipality, as well as the capital and most populous city in Norway. As a municipality , it was established on 1 January 1838. Founded around 1048 by King Harald III of Norway, the city was largely destroyed by fire in 1624. The city was moved under the reign of Denmark–Norway's King...
in August 1993 between Israel and the PLO was seen as a great step forward by many, although views of the Accords were not homogeneous. Some hailed Rabin
Rabin
Rąbiń is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Krzywiń, within Kościan County, Greater Poland Voivodeship, in west-central Poland. It lies approximately north of Krzywiń, east of Kościan, and south of the regional capital Poznań....
’s concession to consider the option of Palestinian self rule as a welcome move towards peace and away from his hardliner background, others, both within rightwing Israeli politics and sections of society saw it as too great a concession on Israel’s behalf. This view is demonstrated by the assassination of Rabin in 1995 by a rightwing radical Yigal Amir
Yigal Amir
Yigal Amir is the Israeli assassin of Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin. The assassination took place on November 4, 1995 at the conclusion of a rally in Tel Aviv. Amir is currently serving a life sentence for murder plus six years for injuring Rabin's bodyguard, Yoram Rubin, under...
who opposed his signing the Oslo Accords and served to highlight the differences in opinion held within Israeli society as to the direction the peace process and consequently Israel should take. Suspicion of the reason for Palestinian agreement was held by a few who maintained the view that Palestinians wanted to destroy the state of Israel and that they would not attempt to keep the peace. The continued and increased attacks by some sectors of Palestinian society did nothing to aid the view that the Palestinians would not keep their side of the deal.
Israeli commentators lay blame for the failure of the Oslo Accords at Yasser Arafat’s door believing his leadership to be corrupt and dictatorial rather than looking at events of Israel’s making. The Oslo Accords, like previous talks had avoided key issues and the view of peace put forward by Israeli negotiators remained based on the notion of limited sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank without resolving the right to return of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 conflict avoided the longer term view of the causes of the conflict. The issue of Israeli settlements was not concluded, and the extensive building that took place following the Oslo Accords was cited as evidence that the views of Rabin and Israelis in power who did not act in the “spirit of Oslo”. The issue of settlements throws up the particular and fairly extreme view of the religious-right in Israel at the time that believed negotiating over territory and the possibility of Palestinian self rule in the religiously symbolic territories undermined what it meant to be Israeli. Settlers also viewed the peace process at this point as a threat due to the possibility that their homes and livelihoods would be at risk. The initial building of settlements and the continuation of such schemes, despite the Oslo Accords rhetoric demonstrates that those at the top of Israeli politics did not seriously envisage creating a viable Palestinian state as part of the peace process. For citizens outside the nationalist right the period around the Oslo Accords represented a time when negotiation over territory became acceptable on the understanding that the alternative was the probability that Israel would have to lose either its liberal democracy or Zionist identity.
Camp David 2000 Summit
See Camp David 2000 SummitCamp David 2000 Summit
The Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David of July 2000 took place between United States President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat...
for detail of the summit.
The Camp David summit in the summer of 2000 involving United States President Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton
William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Inaugurated at age 46, he was the third-youngest president. He took office at the end of the Cold War, and was the first president of the baby boomer generation...
, Ehud Barak
Ehud Barak
Ehud Barak is an Israeli politician who served as Prime Minister from 1999 until 2001. He was leader of the Labor Party until January 2011 and holds the posts of Minister of Defense and Deputy Prime Minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government....
and Yasser Arafat, was an attempt to agree a deal to finalise issues that would create a peace settlement. Its outcome however was a deadlock and a rejection by Arafat of Barak’s offer which offered most of Arafat's demands, withholding only the demand for sole Arab control over the temple mount, the demand for complete repatriation of millions of Arabs into Israel proper, and about 30% of the contested territory. According to Ben-Ami the left in Israel believed Barak and his team had not offered enough to the Palestinian’s to make it a viable option, and the right believed too many concessions were offered and that the failure of the peace process was what they had expected. A conflict of views on the peace process was clearly evident within Israel due mainly to traditional views on the character of Israel as a Jewish state, and a new found desperation among some for peace at any cost.
Israeli left wing analysts have since put forward a version of events that imply Barak and his team did not go far enough to allow Arafat to comply and that far from blaming Arafat for rejecting a reasonable offer they hold empathy with the Palestinian predicament. Slater’s view is that: “despite the widespread misrepresentation that Ehud Barak offered Palestinians ‘generous’ peace proposals at Camp David, Israel is still resisting the creation of a genuinely viable and independent Palestinian state.” Highlighting the consistency throughout the peace process for him of a desire to maintain control over any threat to a Jewish state the Palestinians might have by controlling them. Barak did not acknowledge the role of Israel in the Palestinian refugee situation, highlighting his view of the peace process remains based in the traditional narrative understandings discussed at the top of this article. The collapse of the peace talks and the subsequent Second Intifada uprising left many Israelis to view the peace process as failing and having led to lives of greater insecurity and an increasing sense that the Palestinians ask for too much and offer violence in return and thus the two state solution with Israel’s withdrawal to something like the 1967 borders that had seemed to be becoming a possibility became far more unlikely save for some academics and peace activists.
Road Map for Peace
See Road Map for PeaceRoad map for peace
The roadmap for peace or "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. The principles of the plan, originally drafted by U.S. Foreign Service...
for detail of the negotiations.
The Road Map for Peace was introduced by George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000....
’s administration in co-operation with Russia
Russia
Russia or , officially known as both Russia and the Russian Federation , is a country in northern Eurasia. It is a federal semi-presidential republic, comprising 83 federal subjects...
, the European Union
European Union
The European Union is an economic and political union of 27 independent member states which are located primarily in Europe. The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community , formed by six countries in 1958...
and the United Nations
United Nations
The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace...
to try and instigate a phased path to peace. However the Road Map receive little genuine attention from either side of the conflict, other than, as Ben-Ami says, to keep the Americans onside, the real gain Israel received was the assurance of a removal of the military threats from other states in the region. Sharon’s rightwing government were not keen to see a true revival of the peace process after a couple of years of the violence of the Second Intifada and paid it little more than lipservice.
Political figures' view points
The views of the peace process held by these figures, articulated by their political action or inaction, all of whom have held the office of Israeli Prime Minister, complement and contrast with each other, often while working in conjunction with each other at the top of Israeli politics.Shamir
Yitzhak ShamirYitzhak Shamir
' is a former Israeli politician, the seventh Prime Minister of Israel, in 1983–84 and 1986–92.-Biography:Icchak Jeziernicky was born in Ruzhany , Russian Empire . He studied at a Hebrew High School in Białystok, Poland. As a youth he joined Betar, the Revisionist Zionist youth movement...
, Israeli Prime Minister from 1983-84 and again from 1986-1992 following a two year spell as part of a coalition government between his Likud
Likud
Likud is the major center-right political party in Israel. It was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin in an alliance with several right-wing and liberal parties. Likud's victory in the 1977 elections was a major turning point in the country's political history, marking the first time the left had...
Party and the Labor Party
Labor (Israel)
The Israeli Labor Party , commonly known as HaAvoda , is a social-democratic and labour Zionist political party in Israel. The party is an observer member of both Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists. The Israeli Labor Party was established in 1968 by a merger of Mapai,...
, is considered one of the most hard-line Prime Ministers Israel has had. Accordingly, in a period of time where relations between Israel and other Arab states were beginning to shift and global changes were being witnessed towards the end of the Cold War
Cold War
The Cold War was the continuing state from roughly 1946 to 1991 of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition between the Communist World—primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies—and the powers of the Western world, primarily the United States...
, Shamir opposed shifts or compromise on the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His view of the peace process at a time when the PLO were moving towards recognition of Israel and a two state solution was that territory should not be part of the negotiation and consequently with the moving times and relations obvious at the peace talks in Madrid he felt both under siege and indifference according to Ben-Ami.
Rabin
Yitzhak RabinYitzhak Rabin
' was an Israeli politician, statesman and general. He was the fifth Prime Minister of Israel, serving two terms in office, 1974–77 and 1992 until his assassination in 1995....
, a hardliner who had two terms as Prime Minister, was instrumental in the continuation of settlements and did not wish for the peace process to go in the direction of Israeli and Palestinian states existing next door to each other. However it was he who suggested an exchange of an end to the first intifada in return for Palestinian autonomy at the end of the 1980s. When Prime Minister for the second time, it was also his role in negotiations at Oslo that led to the so-called breakthrough in the peace process, acknowledging the PLO and the move towards Israeli withdrawal from the territories. His plans after the Oslo accords of continued settlement and road building in the occupied territories demonstrated his true views on the peace process; not a desire to return to 1967 borders but a separation in some form of Palestinians from Israelis. However it is suggested by Slater that towards the end of his life he was moving toward the idea of some kind of Palestinian state. Rabin also saw peace as essential for Israel to build up its economy and not only that but peace to increase regional development and standards of living not just in Israel.
Peres
Shimon PeresShimon Peres
GCMG is the ninth President of the State of Israel. Peres served twice as the eighth Prime Minister of Israel and once as Interim Prime Minister, and has been a member of 12 cabinets in a political career spanning over 66 years...
has held many posts within Israeli politics, including the role of Prime Minister. He is credited as being a key instigator in the occurrence of the Oslo Accords and held many similar views towards the peace process as Rabin.
The Camp David negotiations in 2000 brought Peres’ criticism for the making of too many concessions for the Palestinians. For he held that a viable Palestinian state should not be formed and consequently stepped up the move to build inroads into Palestinian territories.
Netanyahu
Benjamin NetanyahuBenjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is the current Prime Minister of Israel. He serves also as the Chairman of the Likud Party, as a Knesset member, as the Health Minister of Israel, as the Pensioner Affairs Minister of Israel and as the Economic Strategy Minister of Israel.Netanyahu is the first and, to...
became Prime Minister as leader of the Likud Party in 1996 and had an immediate affect, and an adverse one according to Yakan, on the peace process. He attempted to slow down the Oslo process in order to create better security and due to his severe reservations of it. Netanyahu is a recognised opponent of territorial negotiation and land for peace deals and he wanted results rather than declarations. The regard he and other Likud members held Rabin and Peres in following their negotiations with the PLO during the Oslo process demonstrates his view of the peace process as undesirable and as abandoning the notion of what Israel should be. He, like his successors in office, Barak and Sharon, believed that if the creation of some form of Palestinian state was completely unavoidable it should only be in the Gaza Strip, part of the West Bank, and Israel should remain the military and sovereign ruler over the settlements, all of Jerusalem and important points such as the aquifers.
Barak
Ehud BarakEhud Barak
Ehud Barak is an Israeli politician who served as Prime Minister from 1999 until 2001. He was leader of the Labor Party until January 2011 and holds the posts of Minister of Defense and Deputy Prime Minister in Binyamin Netanyahu's government....
took office as Prime Minister in 1999 as leader of the Labor Party. His time in office and the decisions he made have been described as “Schizoid” by Slater for the apparent changes in direction he took. He went further than any other Israeli Prime Minister in the deals he offered the Palestinians at Camp David, but he has himself described his loyalties to the rightwing - he had opposed the Oslo agreements - only making such peace offers out of pragmatism for the knowledge that controlling Palestinians was only going to lead to continued violence. After the failed negotiations and the concessions he offered, he continued to make reference to his desire for a Greater Israel
Greater Israel
Greater Israel is a controversial expression with several different Biblical and political meanings over time.Currently, the most common definition of the land encompassed by the term is the territory of the State of Israel together with the Palestinian territories...
. His view of the peace process therefore seem fairly contradictory and included placing importance on dealing with Israel’s relations with its neighbours such as Syria
Syria
Syria , officially the Syrian Arab Republic , is a country in Western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea to the West, Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan to the south, and Israel to the southwest....
over dealing directly with Israel’s relations with the Palestinians in a hope that the Palestinians would become isolated if peace was secured between Israel and Syria. It was only once this channel was exhausted that Barak would deal with Arafat and the Palestinians. An important view point of Barak’s regarding the peace process is that there were no preconceived solutions to the process and negotiations; for him there was not an expectation that Israel would definitely withdraw to the 1967 borders for example, everything was under discussion in an open ended process.
Sharon
Ariel Sharon
Ariel Sharon is an Israeli statesman and retired general, who served as Israel’s 11th Prime Minister. He has been in a permanent vegetative state since suffering a stroke on 4 January 2006....
succeeded Barak as Prime Minister in 2001 and brought with him a rightwing government in the face of the violent period of the second intifada. His reluctance to implement the goals of the ‘Road Map for Peace’ demonstrated his unwillingness to negotiate and make gestures towards developments in the peace process. Indeed, Ben-Ami says that Sharon has always harboured a hidden agenda: “the sterilization of the Palestinian national movement…and the confinement of a Palestinian homeland within scattered enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements, strategic military areas and a network of bypass roads for the exclusive use of the Israeli occupier.” As Sharon views a Palestinian national movement as a threat to Israel and its ‘Jewishness’ and consequently would rather allow an independent state, although militarily weak. The dismantling of settlements in Gaza, instigated by Sharon, represents not only an unprecedented step by Israel but also that Sharon had decided unilateral action rather than a two state negotiation was the way forward to move towards peace.
Views from Israeli society
Israel is characterised by a multitude of opinions and views of the peace process that vary across time as well as across society. There are right-wing opinions (both secular and religious) which believe Israel should not concede to Palestinian demands and instead should maintain the original Zionist vision of Israel. There are those that hold left-wing viewpoints that believe Palestinians should have a sovereign state and Israel needs to go further in compromising to create peace; and there is a spread of people in between with varied views. For example, Israeli elites wanted peace in the 1990s so as to build Israel’s economy and integrate into the global economy that was opening up in the post-Cold War period. The slowing down and deterioration of peace relations with Palestinians under Netanyahu’s leadership frustrated many Israelis who view peace as a path to stability. Public opinions change, as Slater says, the notion of a withdrawal from the territories and Palestinians gaining their own state was unthinkable in most circles prior to the 1990s, however a decade later it was an accepted central theme of the peace process for many. The violence of the second intifada however has altered this opinion to a popular belief that this may no longer be a viable solution as military responses rather than negotiation has taken precedence.See also
- Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflictPeace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflictThe peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East and an "all or nothing" attitude about a lasting peace, "which prevailed for most of the twentieth century"...
- Palestinian views of the peace processPalestinian views of the peace processPalestinian views of the peace process refer to the views of Palestinians in the ongoing peace talks with Israel. While some Palestinian leaders say that the peace process is intended to achieve a permanent peace with the State of Israel, others maintain that their goal is to destroy Israel.-Hamas...
- Israeli-Palestinian conflictIsraeli-Palestinian conflictThe Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between Jewish and Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman or...
- History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflictHistory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflictThe history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict covers from the end of the 19th century to the present day. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict centers on conflicting, often mutually exclusive claims to the area called Palestine by the Palestinians and the Land of Israel by Israeli Jews.- Historical...
- Oslo AccordsOslo AccordsThe Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles , was an attempt to resolve the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict...
- Camp David 2000 summitCamp David 2000 SummitThe Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David of July 2000 took place between United States President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat...
- Road Map for PeaceRoad map for peaceThe roadmap for peace or "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. The principles of the plan, originally drafted by U.S. Foreign Service...