In light of the recent Oslo Accord Two, signed the 28th of September, 1995, many journalists and peacemakers, and others have come to examine the motives behind the Òcontracts,Ó (Oslo #1 and #2) and what significance they will have on the possibility for real change in the relationships between Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East. The concern that I will attempt to address in this article is the presence of third-party mediation in these cumulative events, and how that has or will affect peace processes.
One of the aspects of my research that I have found disturbing is the derth of information that includes the viewpoints of both, and/or all sides of the present conflict. I have struggled to hear the voices of both fronts, and all the other interacting parties involved (ergo:U.S.,Norway,etc...), but my own biases may surface throughout. One preoccupation that I did come across throughout, howver, was the role of the United States in the peace talks. One critic states of the Oslo Accord Two that Washington was Òtrying to upstage them,Ó(p.1-Hadar) that is, the two warring parties: Israel and Palestine. A critical view of America's role in the conflict is discussed extensively in the documents of the Cato Institute This view characterizes in many ways the effects of US interests in the matter. Although the actual body of the agreement was not negotiated by the Americans, (Clinton) we stole the show with our infamous signature of Òblessing.Ó(p.1-Hadar) Our influence in the conflict, therefore, has been unwieldy, even though this was not demonstrated in the accord(s). Many would agree that our powerplays in Arab-Israeli conflict has been unrestrained, and that we have contributed to the Òdeath of the peace process.Ó(p.6-Curtiss) Primarily, there is the fact that US participation has meant, according to The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs that ÒIsrael can count on U.S. military and financial support at whatever level it needs, and can count on political support in the U.S. media whenever it is required.Ó(p.6-Curtiss) The strength of the American Jewish community has led the media to represent the Israelis in a biased manner, while often portraying Palestinians as passive; as the group who must prove their loyalty to the world, as is depicted in an article upholding the Israeli viewpoint:Ò And Now Everything Depends on ArafatÓ: ÓArafat will have to convince us, with time, that he (they) will be capable of controlling effectively the additional land that he has received.Ó(p.1-Samet) The general perspective represented in the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not supportive of the humanity of their (the Israeli's) neighbors, and inferiorizes their capability for independence and therefore, peace. Ironically, as is indicated later in the same work, Palestinians and IsraelisÕ have never been so dependent on one another for survival. Yet, how can they truly be interdependent without sharing a terms of economic and political equality?
Through the support of Israel via arms and professed political clout, the United States has perpetuated the naive hope that the Òland for peace agreementÓ (p.6-Curtiss) was and will be enough to satisfy the demands of the Palestinian faction. What has not been addressed is the fact that economic and political realities are hope-lessly intertwined. The Oslo Accord Two proposes the necessity for democractic elections, so that the ÒPalestinian people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may govern themselves,Ó(p.2-Oslo Accord) but does not appoint a corresponding stable economy at the forefront of the future for this self-governing people. As Michael Jansen muses on the subject:ÓThe Palestinians are acheiving control over only four per cent of their land and authority over only 23 per cent.Ó(p.1-Jansen) Can the small portion of land that Palestine received out of the bargain allow for independence from Israeli surveillance? Can a people acheive nationhood without their own sufficient territory? Jansens thinks not. He sites that ÒOslo 2 provides for continued Israeli control over...the Palestinians,Ó(p.1) and furthermore a continued trend of Òthe perpetuation of occupation...a traditional policy of Ôdenying developmentÕ to the occupied territories.Ó(p.1-Jansen) An analisis of the fundamental structural obstacles to peace in the Middle East and beyond, is dealt with in the stimulating archives of the Gemini News Service An artical from Peaceworks (see Earlham's homepage/Peace and Global Studies dept.) also confronts this dilemma in itsÕ recognition of the power of economical status in the journey towards peace:Óthe only hope for peace is the creation of a bona fide Palestinian nation state...(yet) under the present arrangements (Palestinians) can only look forward to a life of poverty and unemployment-a life that drives them to terrorism.Ó(p.8-Peaceworks) To reitterate, the economics and the politics of the conflict are nearly inseparable.
As both Oslo accords propound the desire for a united peace amongst all the states and peoples of the Middle East, the United States should own up to itsÕ part in the negation of a viable peace. By increasing the probability for ÒIsraelÕs continuing economic stronghold on the West Bank,Ó(p.21-Mayhew) the United States is denying the unmediated interaction of Israeli and Palestinian officials, and by creating an ever widening economic estrangement between them, makes the duration of the day when both sects can speak frankly face to face in peaceful dialogue, as nations and as peoples, seem very distant. As Leon Hadar suggests, ÒUnited States should minimize its financial commitment to Israel and the emerging Palestinian entity and encourage economic cooperation between Israel and the Arab states, which could be the foundation for an interdependent Middle Eastern economy. Regional prosperity will advance peace far more effectively than American payoffs to prop up an artificial pax Americana.Ó(p.1-Hadar-) It is therefore important to note the hindrance that the United Sates has been in the move towards positive peace, and this delineates the point that third parties cannot solve the problems of others, they (we) can only try to bring them to the light so that mutual comprehension can take place.
Send responses and inquiries to ,A HREF="jacoban@earlham.edu">Anaelisa Sophia Vanegas-Farrara.
To return to the homepage!
For an integrated approach to peace activism, flick to Tikkun Magazine online (alternative Jewish American publication)!