On October 7, Hamas initiated a large-scale military operation against Israel, launching thousands of rockets and employing land, air, and sea attacks, which led to significant Israeli casualties, horrendous acts of violence, and the capture of hostages. The ensuing retaliation from Israel has yet to abate. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has raged for decades, claiming thousands of lives in repetitive cycles of violence. Numerous attempts have been made to broker a lasting peace agreement between the two sides. However, a comprehensive final status accord continues to remain elusive despite intense diplomatic efforts by various parties over the years. Though not comprehensive, the following analysis of significant peace overtures over the years is to provide the readers with the extent of international efforts and complexity of the task.
1982 Reagan Plan
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the aim of expelling PLO forces that had been launching attacks from there. As the war escalated, US President Ronald Reagan put forward a new Middle East peace plan to end the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Reagan Plan called for a five-year transitional period of Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan. This would be followed by negotiations for a final status agreement. The Plan also called for a freeze on Israeli settlements in occupied territories during this transition period. However, the initiative failed to get off the ground.
The Israelis rejected the Reagan Plan as they did not want to relinquish control over the West Bank. The Israeli government led by Menachem Begin wanted to retain permanent control over the occupied territories, which they viewed as vital for Israel's security.
The Palestinians also rejected the Reagan Plan. From their perspective, the plan did not go far enough - it did not guarantee full Palestinian statehood or return of refugees.
Key Arab states like Syria also rejected the plan, undermining wider Arab support.
The refusal of both Israelis and Palestinians to engage led the Reagan initiative to quickly flounder.
The Madrid Conference in 1991
This peace initiative was the first time Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and Syrians came together for direct public negotiations aimed at achieving peace in the Middle East. However, significant gaps remained between the parties on the core issues:
Borders - There were major disagreements over borders. The Palestinians and Arab states wanted Israel to withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967. But Israel wanted to retain control over much of the West Bank for security purposes.
Settlements - The issue of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories was contentious. Palestinians demanded a freeze on settlement construction, which Israel rejected.
Jerusalem - There were conflicting claims to Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel claimed united Jerusalem as its capital. Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem for their future state's capital.
Refugees - There were vast differences over the right of return for Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and 1967. Israel rejected a large-scale return as demographically threatening.
Security - Israel demanded concrete security guarantees and arrangements with its Arab neighbors as part of any peace deal. The Arab parties were vague on security commitments.
Recognition - Some Arab parties were unwilling to fully recognize Israel's right to exist, only agreeing to negotiate with it.
Interim vs Final Deal - Israel wanted phased interim agreements. The Arab side demanded a comprehensive final status accord.
In the end, the Madrid conference did not produce any substantive breakthroughs or agreements due to these unbridgeable gaps after decades of conflict and mistrust between the parties. The core issues remained unresolved.
1993 Oslo Accords
After the outbreak of the first Palestinian intifada or uprising in 1987, the PLO under Yasser Arafat began hinting at recognizing Israel's right to exist. This opened the door for backchannel negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Norway. These secret talks eventually led to the 1993 Oslo Accords, signed at the White House between Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Arafat.
The Oslo Accords established mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. It created the Palestinian Authority with limited self-government in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. It was meant as an interim arrangement, with a permanent status Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement to be reached within 5 years. Key issues like borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees would be resolved in final status talks.
Arab states had mixed reactions to the Oslo Accords between their traditional ally the PLO and long-time rival Israel. Egypt and Jordan welcomed the agreement after some initial hesitation. However, Syria and Lebanon strongly opposed it. Hardline Arab states saw the PLO as giving up too much while getting too little in return at Oslo.
The Oslo peace process suffered severe setbacks in subsequent years. Over 2,800 Palestinians and 450 Israelis were killed in political violence between 1993-2000 during the interim period, eroding trust on both sides. The assassination of Rabin by an Israeli extremist in 1995 was a major blow, taking away a committed partner on the Israeli side. Disagreements over Israeli settlements and sporadic attacks disillusioned both sides. The five year deadline for final status talks passed without result. A make-or-break summit between Israeli PM Ehud Barak and Arafat at Camp David in 2000 failed to reach a comprehensive deal.
2000 Camp David Summit
The 2000 Camp David talks between Barak and Arafat were an ambitious attempt mediated by US President Bill Clinton to finally reach a final status agreement. Barak offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and over 90% of the West Bank. However, the talks stumbled on several contentious issues. These included disagreements over sovereignty in Jerusalem, which Palestinians saw as their future capital. Israel proposed Palestinian control over some outer neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, while keeping the inner holy sites under Israeli control. For Arafat this was insufficient. The two sides also failed to agree on an acceptable formula for Palestinian refugee right of return, with Israel unwilling to accept large-scale return that would affect the Jewish demographic majority.
Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had pushed Arafat to seize what they saw as a historic opportunity for peace at Camp David. However, they also shared some of Arafat's concerns, especially over Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. After the failure of the summit and outbreak of second intifada, most Arab states blamed the collapse on Israeli intransigence under Barak. This led to a renewal of Arab tensions with Israel.
Second Intifada
The breakdown of the Camp David talks and visit by Ariel Sharon to the contested Temple Mount sparked the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000. This new uprising was marked by Palestinan suicide bombings targetting Israeli civilians and fierce Israeli military reprisals. From 2000-2005, the violent Second Intifada claimed the lives of over 3,000 Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis. The mass casualties further hardened attitudes and increased distrust between both sides, setting the peace process back for years.
2002 Arab Peace Initiative
As the second intifada raged, Saudi Arabia proposed a regional Arab League peace plan in 2002. The Arab Peace Initiative offered normalized relations between Israel and the entire Arab world, contingent upon Israel’s withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in the 1967 war. It also called for a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee issue based on UN Resolution 194. This implied at least partial acceptance of Palestinian refugee return to Israel.
The Israelis welcomed parts of the plan, but raised objections on the issues of borders and refugees. They were unwilling to withdraw to full pre-1967 lines or accept unrestricted return of refugees. The Arab states in turn said they would not amend the terms of their offer. With neither side budging, the Arab Peace Initiative was effectively stillborn. The Arab states have since reiterated their offer several times, including proposing it as the basis for a regional Israel-Palestine peace at the 2007 Annapolis Conference. But Israel has continued to express reservations, preventing a breakthrough.
Israeli Unilateral Disengagement
In the absence of a negotiated final status agreement, Israel took some unilateral steps to reshape the status quo. In 2005, Israeli PM Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israeli settlements and forces from the Gaza Strip. Sharon also began constructing a separation barrier in and around the West Bank to contain Palestinian areas. The moves created a de facto separation between Israelis and Palestinians. But unilateralism could not resolve wider issues like final borders, Jerusalem, and refugees.
Palestinian Internal Divisions
Increasing Palestinian infighting between the secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas movements after 2005 further weakened the Palestinian position in peace talks. The surprise victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian elections led to a bitter internecine conflict. Hamas seized control of Gaza, splitting the Palestinian Authority geographically. With the Palestinians divided, progress on joint negotiations with Israel became even more unlikely. The lasting internal split has been a major complicating factor in the peace process.
Mitchell-led talks (2010-2011):
he Mitchell Plan was a roadmap for peace proposed by an international commission led by US Senator George Mitchell in 2001. It called for an immediate ceasefire followed by a cooling off period and confidence building measures. Within 6 weeks, Israelis and Palestinians were to resume security cooperation and halt settlement construction. Talks on a political settlement would resume, aiming for a two state solution within a year. The plan outlined Tenet security work plan and urged both sides to take concrete steps to end violence and rebuild trust. However, the continuing violence and events of the Second Intifada overtook the Mitchell Plan.
Settlement freeze dispute - Talks stalled quickly over Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month partial moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Palestinians demanded a full freeze.
Lack of trust - There was deep mistrust between Israeli PM Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. Neither side believed the other was serious about peace.
Core differences - The brief talks failed to make progress on substantive issues like borders, refugees, Jerusalem, and security.
Political constraints - Netanyahu headed a right-wing coalition opposed to concessions. Abbas was weakened by a divided Palestinian leadership.
Kerry-led talks (2013-2014):
The Kerry Plan was a US-led initiative in 2013-2014 to reach a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians within nine months. It aimed to resolve the core issues of borders, security, Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. The plan was not official but based on leaked parameters. Reportedly, it included Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank over 3-5 years and land swaps to incorporate major settlements. Security arrangements in Jordan Valley were negotiated. Jerusalem would be split along ethnic lines. Most Palestinian refugees would be compensated or resettled outside Israel. Neither side agreed and the sides grew further apart as talks collapsed.
Settlement growth - Israel announced new settlement plans during talks, angering Palestinians.
Prisoner releases - Israel delayed promised releases of Palestinian prisoners.
Factional divisions - Hamas, which controlled Gaza, was excluded from talks by Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.
Incitement concerns - Israel accused Abbas of not preparing Palestinians for peace. Abbas denied inciting violence.
Lack of framework - Kerry failed to get both sides to accept US proposed framework for final status issues.
Ultimately, Abbas signed unity deal with Hamas, and Netanyahu suspended negotiations.
Current Status
Over nearly five decades of unsuccessful peace initiatives and waves of conflict, mutual distrust between Israelis and Palestinians has continued to intensify. Positions have hardened on key final status issues like borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees. Repeated outbreaks of violence have also plagued the process. Major concessions with uncertain returns remain politically risky for leaders on both sides. With the two-state solution receding, the peace process faces an uncertain future after so many past efforts have failed. Creative new approaches may be required to break the deadlock. Sustained third party engagement by the US and regional states will also be critical to getting Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table after years of bloodshed and trauma. The latest spate of violence, for now, makes a comprehensive end to the conflict an elusive goal.
Comments