We are in the midst of war, as the harrowing picture above just in from NCF Chief in Gaza, Adel Zaanoon, reminds us. But should we lose sight of peace? Or is this moment just a precursor to more misery as represented by the status quo?
The Israel-Palestine Peace Process refers to a series of prolonged and multifaceted discussions held and mediated by varying parties since 1948 in an attempt to resolve the ongoing territorial and social dispute between the states of Israel and Palestine. Largely, the efforts for peace have been US-led in an attempt to bring about ‘Peace in the Middle East’. Several agreements and accords have been reached over the past 30 years – most notably the Oslo I & II accords, and the Wye River Memorandum, of which this detailed overview has been written, with the hope that it might provide some clarity for future prospects of peace between the two parties.
Oslo I and II – The Revitalisation of Peace Prospects
Considered the most significant steps within the Israeli-Palestine peace process, the Oslo I and II Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995 respectively, began the steps to establish both fixed borders for Israel and Palestine, through the separation of land into Areas A, B and C, as well as a Palestinian self-governing authority within the region.
So, what were the key agreements of the Oslo Accords?:
Oslo I:
- Agreed to the creation of a Palestinian Self-Government Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding 5 years, leading to a permanent settlement based on SC resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). ARTICLE I
- Agreed that Gaza and the West Bank were under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council. ARTICLE IV (4)
- Israel agreed to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Jericho areas for during the five-year transitional period. ARTICLE V (5).
Oslo II:
- Areas A, B, and C of the West Bank are defined as the following:
- Area A (18%) where the PA administers civil and security matters,
- Area B (22%) where the PA administers only civil matters,
- Area C (60%) where Israel maintains full control.
- Now covers 61% of the West Bank and is administered by the Judea and Samaria Area administration.
- As of 2015, it is home to 150,000 Palestinians in 532 residential areas, and 400,000 Israelis in 135 settlements and 100 unrecognised outposts.
- Area C contains most of the West Bank’s natural resources and open spaces.
- Both sides agreed to maintain “existing quantities of utilization from the resources” in regard to water and other natural resources.
Whilst both of these Accords were instrumental and reigniting the peace process between the two conflicting parties, it is worth noting that the agreements reached in Oslo were designed to be interim agreements and not permanent, with the five-year transitional period ending in May 1999 without a comprehensive and permanent peace agreement being reached. There are a variety of reasons the Oslo Accords failed, from the lack of Israel’s recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state throughout the peace process, the perceived American bias towards Israel, disregarding of Palestinian interests, and perhaps most significantly, the continued expansion of Israel’s settlements post-1995 into Area B land, including the Amona settlement, areas near Esh Kodesh and Mitzpeh Ahiya, as well as through the settlers of Ma’ale Rehav’am having expanded an Israel’s settlement into a nature reserve established under the Wye River Memorandum.
The Wye River Memorandum and Prospects for Peace
The Wye River Memorandum was an agreement formed at a summit between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at Wye River, Maryland held between the 15th and 23rd of October 1998, and exists as perhaps the most influential peace accord between Israel and Palestine post-Oslo. The Memorandum was an attempt by both parties, and by the United States, who mediated the discussions, to resume the implementation of the 1995 Oslo II Accords, otherwise known as the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and was signed by at the time, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian National Authority (PNA) leader Yasser Arafat in the presence of Bill Clinton.
The Memorandum lists incremental steps to be taken by each side to fulfill the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a 3-month period and existed alongside the 1997 Hebron Protocol which saw the withdrawal of Israel’s forces from 80% of Hebron and its division into two distinct areas. Whilst the agreement largely focuses on the transfer of Israeli-controlled territory to Palestinian control, the documents also contain provisions for reciprocal responsibilities in relation to security actions, security cooperation, and the charter of the PLO.
Redeployments within Wye River
The Wye River Memorandum lists ‘The Further Redeployments’, which refers to three distinct phases within Appendix I of Annex I within the Oslo II accords, where phases 1 and 2 refer to the transfer of 13% of Israeli-controlled Area C to specified parts of Areas A and B, and shifts of small parts of Area B to Area A. Such redeployment was divided into three distinct phases to be carried out within the 12-week period and constituted the transfer of 13% from Area C:
- Stage I (November 1998) – 2% from Area C to B; 7.1% from Area B to A
- Stage II (December 1998) – 5% from Area C to B
- Stage III (January 1999) – 5% from Area C to B; 1% from Area C to A; 7.1% from Area B to A.
Under the proposed redeployment, Area B would increase by 13% and Area A by 14%. Within Area B, 3% of the 13% was to be designated as Green Areas of Nature Reserves, whereby no new Palestinian Construction would be permitted and where Israel would retain responsibility for security. In total, this would grant Palestinians complete or shared control of 40% of the West Bank, and complete control of 18.2%.
Further Provisions
Whilst Wye River predominantly focuses on the transfer of land from Israel’s control to Palestinian Authority jurisdiction and joint control, the Memorandum also legislates both parties to take all means necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, crime, and hostilities. Within this security framework:
- Terrorism – Palestine was to make known its policy of zero tolerance for terror and violence against Israel and Israel’s citizens; an anti-terror plan was to be developed by Palestine and shared with the United States; a US-Palestine committee would meet bi-weekly to review terrorist threats originating within Palestine; members of Hamas would be apprehended by Palestinian authorities and would be prosecuted in due course.
- Prohibiting illegal weapons – Palestine was to ensure a legal framework was in place to criminalize the importation, manufacturing, acquisition, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or weapons in areas under Palestinian jurisdiction; Palestine would establish a programme for the collection and appropriate handling of prohibited weapons.
- Prevention of incitement – Palestine would issue a decree prohibiting all forms of incitement to violence and terror, whilst establishing mechanisms for acting against such threats of violence and terror – similar to existing Israeli legislation; A US-Palestine-Israel committee word meet regularly to monitor cases of incitement violence and terror, with each party appointing a media specialist, law enforcement representative, educational specialist and an elected official to the committee (such a committee was indeed established by US special envoy Ambassador John Wolf – the anti-incitement committee, but despite US calls to reestablish it, bizarrely, was disbanded by Israel).
Further provisions were agreed upon in the area of bilateral, trilateral (including the US) and forensic cooperation, as well as furthering of cooperation between the Palestinian police force and Israeli/US law enforcements, as well as the rewriting of the PLO charter to allow for the removal of provisions that were inconsistent with the Wye River Memorandum as well as previous agreements such as the Oslo Accords.
In spite of this agreement, efforts for peace post-Wye River collapsed following the Second Intifada – a major Palestinian uprising in Israeli-occupied territories between 2000 and 2005, and Operation Defensive Shield – an Israeli counter-offensive to take back control in previously Israel-occupied areas of the West Bank. The Second Intifada is largely seen as a result of the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000, in which a permanent and final agreement on the Israel-Palestine Conflict was expected to be reached. Post-Wye River, Israel only withdrew from 2% of Area B despite agreeing to withdraw from 14%, and within Operation Defensive Shield, Israel re-occupied this territory as well as additional areas within the West Bank, signalling the collapse of the Wye-River Memorandum.
Next Steps – The Resurrection of Oslo and Wye River?
There is vastly differing consensus over whether the Oslo Accords in particular are resurrectable given the events since their signing – take the rise of Hamas since the turn of the 21st century and the continued encroachment of Israel’s settlers onto what has been designated as Palestinian land or mutually controlled and protected land. Many on both sides argue that a one-state solution remains impossible given the divisions between these two states, and many others argue that neither Israel nor Palestine would accept a two-state solution given the disputes over the sovereignty of land, specifically in regard to Jerusalem. What remains clear though, is that it is a necessity for both Israel and Palestine to recognise the other as a sovereign actor before any further peace talks become a reality.
4 Responses
Thank you for this thorough and clear explanation of the Oslo Accords and their implications.
You rightly say “There is vastly differing consensus over whether the Oslo Accords in particular are resurrectable given the events since their signing.” Surely the most profound and far-reaching events since that time are those occurring right now? The victims of Hamas terrorism are still being recovered, identified and laid to rest. Israel’s retribution will be mighty, we have seen only a fraction so far. None of us knows how this ends. Most commentators and media outlets have (in my view) failed to grasp the scale of what has happened and the extent of Israel’s resolve.
We are in a new reality. I don’t personally see how a two-state solution can be achieved after this. It was once possible; if different choices had been made following Oslo, we could perhaps have had three decades of peace. But no longer. The next step will not be ‘resurrecting’ Oslo; we will need a new paradigm.
Thank you so much my dear friend. A new paradigm is an interesting idea. But what? The status quo has led to atrocity after atrocity and has failed. It also destroys the soul of Israel as it requires retribution on a scale greater than the crime, and a subject population under Israel’s hegemony which becomes a form of colonialism at best, apartheid at worst. Maybe that is the answer. Colonialism with all the responsibility that demands. The Palestinians being ruled directly by Israel, What would you suggest?
Thank you William, I hesitate to suggest anything, given my lack of expertise and background in such a complex area. Having personally been more familiar with the Palestinian perspective, I am listening and learning from Israeli voices, such as this 19-year old resident of Kibbutz Be’eri https://twitter.com/BenzionSanders/status/1713255988608848069 and historian Yuval Noah Harari interviewed on The Rest is Politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qaxYQqmzIg both of which I found instructive and moving.
I don’t personally see how any solution can come while the current cast of actors are still on the stage. When progress was made in other long-running conflicts (Northern Ireland, South Africa) it was often because individuals came to power who were willing to reach out and take risks with their own side, for the sake of peace. I am sure these individuals exist, indeed you may know some of them, but they are not in Hamas or the current Israeli administration.
The second factor that was vital in both Northern Ireland and South Africa was genuinely supportive intervention from outside – the Northern Ireland peace process could not have succeeded without the United States, for example. Here, we have the opposite. It is clear I think that the interests of Iran, Russia and Hamas are aligned in favour of division and bloodshed. They wish to prevent the normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world and to provoke maximum Israeli retribution so as to make reconciliation impossible. My personal view is that change in Tehran is necessary before other conflicts in the region can be resolved.
To answer your question, no I don’t believe colonialism is the answer, or if it is we are probably asking the wrong question! If we are agreed that Gaza is not a viable nation state, then the territory needs to be administered by an authority that has the necessary resources and legitimacy. That does not have to mean Israel alone. Surely Egypt must have a role to play, alongside those elected by the residents of Gaza themselves. Power-sharing in Northern Ireland has not been an unqualified success, but it has been much better than what went before. As with Northern Ireland, I could imagine a wave of overseas investment into Gaza once stability was achieved, transforming the economy and people’s lives.
Finally, I come back to timing. The current war has its own momentum and in my view is now unstoppable. It needs to work itself out before there can be realistic talk of a peace settlement. The convening work that NCF does is so important, bringing parties together that would not otherwise meet, creating understanding and bonds of shared humanity. I suspect this work may not bear fruit for some time, but bear fruit it will.
Thank you Francis
I am much troubled at the moment and am grateful for your thoughtful reply. I disagree with little you say. I certainly agree with, “The second factor that was vital in both Northern Ireland and South Africa was genuinely supportive intervention from outside”. The US and indeed even the UK (because bit players can play a part e.g. Norway and Oslo or Spain and Madrid) have done little to make a constructive effort since – well since Clinton really – who for all his serious sins tried hard and actually achieved a great deal. The last peace process “deal” signed by all sides was Wye River in 1998 signed by Netanyahu for Israel on Clinton’s watch. That’s 25 years ago. No wonder we are all going to hell in a hand cart. Here in the West we weep crocodile tears but the consequences of events in the Middle East affect us all.
Yours ever
William