Why did the Oslo Peace Process fail Dissertation

Why did the Oslo Peace Process fail - Dissertation ExampleIt marked the initial face-to-face agreement between Israel and the heaven Liberation Organization (PLO). The activities surrounding the agreement arose from the Madrid Conference of 1991, carried out in Oslo, Norway, back up by the Fafo institute and open on the 20th of August 1993 (Brown, 2003). The Accords were then officially set to writing and signed during a public ceremony in Washington, D.C on the 13th of folk 1993 before Yasser Arafat (PLO Chairman), Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin, and President Bill Clinton of the United States of America (Brown, 2003). The documents were also supported and signed by other official signatories, including Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, Shimon Peres, foreign curate for Israel, the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher for the US as well as Andrei Kozyrev, the foreign minister for Russia (Brown, 2003). The Accord supported the establishment of a Palestinian interim self-gove rnment, including the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). This PNA was set to bear responsibility for the management of the territory within its control (Brown, 2003). The Accords also supported the withdrawal of the Israel denial Forces (IDF) from various regions of the contentious Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It was expected that the correspondence would cover a five-year interim period where later a more enduring arrangement would be established, especially on issues like Jerusalem, Palestine refugees, Israeli settlements, and borders (Weinburger, 2007). This Oslo I was followed by Oslo II. In both accords, no independence was anticipate for Palestine. In general, the agreement emphasized the withdrawal of Israel personnel from different areas of the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank. It also supported the right of Palestine for self-governance in these regions through the establishment of the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (Weinburger, 2007). The term of the Palestine was set to last for five years, at which time, more permanent arrangements would have been established for the two territories. Major problems, including the issue of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, as well as security and border issues were to be managed in other negotiations and arrangements (Weinburger, 2007). Israel was build to grant an interim self-rule to Palestine in stages. Aside from the principles, the two groups put into writing the Letters of Mutual Recognition, as the Israeli government supported the PLO to be the legal representative of the Palestinians and the PLO also supported the right declared by Israel to exist (McMahon, 2009). The agreement also rejected and condemned terrorism, violence, and activities set to destroy Israel. The tendency of the Israel-Palestine talks was to secure a Palestine Interim Self-Government Authority, for the people of the Palestine region in the West Bank as well as the Gaza strip, during the transitional 5-year per iod (McMahon, 2009). Before Palestinians could manage themselves based on democratic principles, general elections were set for the Council. The coverage of the Palestinian Council was the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Exempt were issues which would be managed during the permanent negotiations (McMahon, 2009). The two parties perceived West Bank and Gaza to be single territorial units. The five-year transition period would be seen with Israel withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area. Permanent status talks started soon enough between these territories (Quandt, 2001). A transfer of authority was also set between the Israel Defense Forces to the Palestinians on matters relating to education, culture, health, social welfare, taxation, and tourism. The Council would