Recent orders
How the Oslo Peace Process has influenced the character and growth of the contemporary
How the Oslo Peace Process has influenced the character and growth of the contemporary Middle East region
Author’s name
Institutional Affiliation
AbstractEleven years following the occurrence of the second uprising (intifada) in September 2000 and nineteen years following the endorsement of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians and Israelis appear far from an ultimate status agreement. The diplomatic initiatives by the George W. Bush administration, especially the Performance-Based Road Map to Peace, as well as, the Annapolis Conference in 2007, circumvented the fundamental conflict issues. There also deferred such consultations by placing emphasis on “provisional” borders (Ifat, 2010). Such strategies facilitate more time for strengthening tangible facts that may prejudice ultimate status discussions. This paper posits to examine how the Oslo Peace Process has influenced the character and growth of the contemporary Middle East region.
Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc316637750 h 2Introduction PAGEREF _Toc316637751 h 4The Oslo Peace Process PAGEREF _Toc316637752 h 5Contents of the Accords PAGEREF _Toc316637753 h 6Quandary with the Oslo Accords PAGEREF _Toc316637754 h 7Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc316637755 h 10References PAGEREF _Toc316637756 h 11
The Oslo Peace ProcessIntroduction
This paper posits to investigate how the Oslo Peace Process has influenced the growth and character of the Middle East region today. Eleven years following the occurrence of the second uprising (intifada) in September 2000 and nineteen years following the endorsement of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, Palestinians and Israelis appear far from an ultimate status agreement. The diplomatic initiatives by the administration of George W. Bush, principally the Performance-Based Road Map to Peace as well as the Annapolis Conference in 2007, circumvented the fundamental conflict issues, and deferred such consultations by placing emphasis on “provisional” borders. Such strategies facilitate more time for strengthening tangible facts that may prejudice ultimate status discussions (Ifat, 2010).
However, the absence of a political perspective destabilizes the moderates who work to trade peace to the populace. Military techniques towards conflict resolution have as well failed to realize results. The Qassam rocket assaults from Gaza have brought about calamitous poverty from constant siege of the Gaza Strip. Whereas military efforts by Israel to secure the liberation of soldiers detained by the Hezbollah and Hamas in 2006 also failed, they resulted in disapproval of the Israeli government’s war initiatives. The severe conflict in Southern Israel and Gaza in the Operation “Cast Lead” resulted in approximately 1300 deaths of Palestinian, four Israeli, as well as injuries to thousands of Palestinian people and multitudes of Israelis (Zaki, 2011).
Several problems present themselves in mainstream media and scholarly coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli clash, as well as initiatives to resolve or manage it. The first problem is that, there is diminutive consideration in regard to the phrase peace means to Palestinians and Israelis. The two tend to have rather different perceptions in relation to the concept of peace, also perceive it as an offensive word considering the collapse of the Oslo peace process. Secondly, the focus inclines on conflict and obstacles or failures rather than on the Palestinians and Israelis who continue working non-violently for a lasting, just, as well as secure peace amongst the peoples. It is essential to identify the impediments to a long-lasting, negotiated settlement at official levels in order that scholars, practitioners, and policy makers may deal with the challenges (Ifat, 2010).
Success accounts from groups that continue pursuing peace in times of fierce conflict can likewise support the endeavor. The experiences and skills of such factions inform policy options by Palestinian and Israeli political actors. It is essential to mention that news of such factions’ efforts would work to reform the pessimistic stereotypes prevalent in the two societies as well as the “no partner” description that dominate the dialogue. Conventional media coverage as well as, the traditional depiction of this clash in literature, is predisposed to differ considerably in the perspective of the lived state of affairs. It also differs in zeroing in on specific events, ignoring offer coverage to others, and providing prejudiced interpretations, which exclude the diversity of perspectives found in Palestinian and Israeli societies (Diamond & McDonald. 2006).
The Oslo Peace ProcessYasser Arafat, the former Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Yitzhak Rabin, former Israeli Prime Minister, signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. The Accords came about as a result of undisclosed back-channel discussions that were mediated by Norway. These Accords forestalled the official discussions that were at the same time on-going under the patronage of the US State Department. Even though, the accords were extensively heralded, they were as well broadly misrepresented as peace agreements. The Oslo Accords embraced an exchange of correspondence of mutual acknowledgment as well as a Declaration of Principles (DoP) that instituted a maximum transitional period of five years. This lead to a permanent resolution that was founded on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Consequently, the Oslo agreement could not be regarded as a peace agreement, but an agreement to initiate a negotiation process in pursuit of a comprehensive, just, and permanent peace settlement as well as historic resolution through the established political process (Ifat, 2010).
Several factors influenced the signing of the Oslo Accords. These factors include structural shifts from the demise of the Cold War as well as the Gulf War of 1991. The Palestinian uprising (intifada), started in December 1987, at a time when the leadership of PLO was in exile. Arafat viewed the uprising in the West Bank as well as Gaza as a potential intimidation to his power. Israeli leadership desired to end the revolt, which was costly, caused unconstructive press coverage, and generated security challenges (Diamond & McDonald. 2006).
Contents of the AccordsFollowing the celebrated White House Lawn handshake, Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams arrived at several provisional agreements. However, they failed to make progress on ultimate status issues, which entailed borders, refugees, water, security, settlements, as well as the status of Jerusalem. The 1995 Oslo II agreement formed the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (PA) and alienated the West Bank into three areas A, B and C. these areas had varying levels of Israeli and Palestinian security and civil control. Altogether, this meant Palestinians had control over approximately 7% of the West Bank territory. Most of this territory was non-contiguous. The 1997 Hebron Protocol as well as, the 1998 Wye River Memorandum, were other agreements that were committed the parties, to put into operation preceding agreements. This brought about the redeployment of Israeli military from sections of Hebron, where numerous Israeli Jewish settlers lived in the center of the city of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (Ifat, 2010).
Fundamentally, the Oslo peace process culminated with the summit at Camp David in July 2000 between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak sought to conclusion the provisional period as well as the Oslo redeployment process through presenting an ultimate proposal to the Palestinians, as well as the Israeli citizens before the elections. While the Israeli Prime Minister went further than previous Israeli leaders (who declined to talk about any of the ultimate status issues, principally Jerusalem), Israel was to seize huge settlement blocks, maintain control of the water resources, airspace, borders, and the bypass roads.
Additionally, Palestinians were separated into three main canton blocks, sovereignty in Jerusalem was constrained, and there was consideration of the refugee issue concerning Palestine. The talks culminated in tragedy, and US President Bill Clinton united with Israel in faulting Arafat for declining what was subsequently referred to as the “Barak’s generous offer.” Even though the second uprising (intifada), or Al-Aqsa, began subsequent to Ariel Sharon’s contentious trip to the Haram esh-Sharif/Temple Mount on September 28, 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators congregated in Taba in January 2001 to progress from the summit at Camp David. In Taba, Clinton offered his parameters for a bargained two-state resolution, which integrated proposed processes with reference to the Palestinian refugee issue, exchange of land, as well as the ultimate status of Jerusalem (Diamond & McDonald. 2006).
Quandary with the Oslo AccordsA major problem with the Oslo Accords was the broad misconception that they depicted a peace agreement, instead of an agreement on a provisional process that may lead to ultimate status negotiations on the foundational conflict concerns. From the commencement, the Oslo Accords focused on the asymmetry of the clash. Israel ought to be seen as a sovereign state that has a developed economy. Its military is ranked as the fourth largest worldwide, and has the support of the World’s sole superpower. It also possesses a powerful Jewish Diaspora. In contrast, the Palestinians lack such statehood, are impecunious, and lack proper military, despite the fact that there is a considerable, but fundamentally disenfranchised, Palestinian Diaspora. The correspondence of mutual acknowledgment exchanged among Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, as components of the Oslo Accords, mirror this asymmetry. The PLO acknowledged the State of Israel’s fundamental right to exist in security and peace, affirmed its obligation to the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. These were the foundation for a two-state resolution, devoted itself to the process of peace, and renounced terror campaigns (Ifat, 2010).
In contrast, the concise letter from Israeli Prime Minister stated that in regard to the PLO assurances included in the correspondence, the Government of Israel decided to acknowledge the PLO as the Palestinian people’s representative and therefore, would start negotiations with the Liberation Organization within the Middle East peace process. Rabin did not talk about Palestinian statehood, UN resolutions, or an obligation to discussions. This asymmetry was exacerbated by the actuality that the Palestinian delegates had been in exile and were uninformed of the authentic situation in the region (Zaki, 2011).
Even though Palestine is not regarded as a sovereign state, the international community largely uses an inter-state conflict resolution structure in addressing the conflict, thus, neglecting the dynamics of inter-group conflict (Diamond & McDonald. 2006). As a result of the confidentiality of the negotiations, the Palestinian and Israeli population were neither sufficiently involved in, nor equipped for the requisite compromises in the search for peace. Accordingly, spoilers existed in the two communities, and fanatical violence. For instance, in 1994 Muslims in prayer were massacred by the settler Baruch Goldstein or even the suicide bombings executed by the Hamas. Such terrorist attacks posed an impediment to implementing the agreements. The provisional, phased technique of Oslo failed to build trust, since Israel escalated the construction of settlements in order to generate authentic facts and the PA failed to reign in its militants. These developments, in conjunction with the establishment of road blocks and checkpoints, added to skepticism in relation to hope for peace (Zaki, 2011).
It is essential to mention that, the PA was usually treated like it was a state. However, numerous Palestinians regarded the PA as an Israeli agent, formed by the Oslo Accords in order to dodge the Palestinian Diaspora. The powers of the PA were restricted by Israel, most significantly in the financial sector. For instance, Israel had control over tax revenues that were collected from the Palestinians, which it subsequently dispatched to the PA for utilization in salary payments. From an economic point of view, the PA, whose responsibilities included functions such as arresting the militants, and providing health, sanitation services, and education, were cost effective for Israel. This consequently decreased the cost of its annexation of Palestinian lands (Diamond & McDonald. 2006).
The PA was planned to function as an interim government, although the provisional period was extended past five-years without provision for new elections. Israelis and Palestinians similarly were frustrated with the corruption and ineffectiveness of the PA, yet construed it differently. In the perspective of Israel, the PA verified the lack of a genuine partner for peace, while in the perspective of the Palestinians; it meant another structure of occupation. This paradigm exemplifies a broader problem in regard to the Oslo peace process, as well as its aftermath. Israelis and Palestinians tend to have contradictory conceptions in regard the conflict’s genesis as well as the parameters of peace (Ifat, 2010).
ConclusionTwo years ago, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict seemed increasingly obstinate at official levels. In spite of the discord between the right-wing Israeli government and its deeply alienated adversary Palestinian government, there are Palestinians and Israelis who maintain the pursuit for a non-violent conflict resolution. These Palestinians and Israelis are in pursuit of a just, permanent, and secure peace agreement. Notwithstanding the images depicted in the Western media, Palestinian and Israeli societies are extremely diverse. Numerous peace activists from both societies have distinguished that, they normally have common interests with their contemporaries, than they do with several citizens in their individual society. These activists share a commitment to non-violence and impartiality, recognition of the pain experienced by the “Other,” as well as a long-term dedication to struggle notwithstanding the numerous challenges.
This paper is of the opinion that, a peaceful conflict resolution entails honoring the accounts of both societies and searching a way for security, justice, and acknowledgment for all. Support for Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers should contribute to the bottom-up approach for peacemaking that should accompany any effective top-down diplomatic approach to the process. The Oslo process established that, devoid of the engagement of the civil society, as well as public support, bureaucratic agreements cannot be implemented by the politicians, whose interests are in the short term gains. Simultaneously, strong leadership is required to make hard decisions, and provide leadership the populace along the proper path towards reconciliation. The activists such as the ones discussed in this paper have established that there exists a partner for peace on the two sides of the Green Line.
ReferencesDiamond, K. & McDonald, H. (2006). Multi Track Diplomacy; Systems Approach towards Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Ifat, M. (2010) Peace Building in Violent Conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Post-Oslo People-to-People Activities. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society.17 (3), 2.
Zaki, S. (2011). The Peace Process: From Oslo Parameters to Unilateral Actions. INSS Insight. 2(26), 1.
Factors affecting Racism
Factors affecting Racism
Introduction
From time in memorial the blacks have been discriminated against in the United States of America. Some legislation was put in place to “keep the blacks in their place”. Such legislation that was put in place was the law that banned the Blacks from owning, and using a gun. All through the American history gun control laws was directed towards keeping the blacks from accessing guns. This paper will look into the discrimination associated with the gun control laws. The reason why the gun control laws should be considered as “suspect ideas”, that has been part of the American Legal System.
History
Racists’ arms laws have been in place for a very long time in the United States of America. From the year beginning 1751, there was a rule that was put in place in the state of Louisiana. The rule known as the Black code, the law required that all blacks in Louisiana to stop when stopped by the white Colonists. The colonists were allowed to beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane” (Winston, 190). If the black who was stopped was on a horseback, and had defied the order to stop the colonist was allowed to “shoot to kill”. The possession o f a gun was necessary even for the slaves when they were living in a frontier where fighting was going on, but even under such circumstances laws continued to be enacted to stop the blacks from owning guns. Even the free black people were not allowed to own guns (Winston 180).
Individual factors
In the 1790’s a revolution by the slaves in Haiti managed to overthrow their masters who were French leading to a war between the black race and the white masters. Due to the development in Haiti there was fear in the French colony of Louisiana, as well among the white population in the United States of America. In the year 1803 the very first officials arrived at the State of New Orleans to take over the state after it was taken as colony by the United States. After the arrival of the officials the new city government put some laws in place which were directed towards the black population (Bulmer, 190).
The rules that were put in place included, all the blacks even the free slaves be disarmed. Some rules stated that “free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms.” The white population was also banned from teaching the sports of fencing to the blacks, even the blacks’ effort to teach fencing to other Blacks was prohibited. Implementation of the rules was asset back to the blacks as they were not able to protect themselves adequately as the white’s did, they were not even allowed to take place in a sport like fencing (Bulmer, 210).
Societal factors
In the northern part of America, the new states remained fearful of the armed blacks. As a result the slave states in the north came up with Laws that were meant for the Black people alone. The perception held by the White population that the free blacks had sympathy for their enslaved brothers and the free black slaves were setting an example to the enslaved that “a Negro could be free” contributed to the laws (Bulmer, 200).
In the State of Maryland, laws were passed banning the free Black people from owning pets such as dogs without having a license. The white population was also authorized to kill any dog that did not have a license and owned by a free black slave. In Mississippi the law was more severe as it banned any black person from owning a dog whether free or not, the reason put forward was that the Blacks could use the dogs as weapon against the White population (Bulmer, 180).
Systemic factors
The Laws restricting the slave from possessing a gun has been in place for a very long time. The restrictions became more rampant after the rebellion that took place in the year 1831. The state of Virginia responded to the rebellion by banning all blacks from “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…”. Laws allowing the black population from owning guns occasionally was scrapped thus making it illegal for the Blacks to own guns. Even before the legislation of the new laws, but after the rebellion. A black family that was found in possession of just lead powder was a reason enough for the white population to consider executing the owner of the powder even though he did not have a weapon to fire. That notion is the same in some of the states that being in possession of ammunition without a firearm license could lead to imprisonment even if the person do not have a gun to use in firing the ammunition (Williams, 200).
The fear of an armed black brought so much fear among the Whites, that some states even revised their Laws in order to suppress the Black from owning guns. In the year 1834, the Tennessee constitution was revised, the article XI, 26 of the 1796 of the constitution was changed. The article initially read “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense,” which was changed to: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense.” The reason for the change in the Tennessee constitution was not clear. The only clear interpretation was that only the white people were allowed to own arms (Williams, 180).
After slavery came to an end in 1865, the problem associated with the racist gun control did not come to an end. The laws were slightly changed to state that Blacks were required to have a license before owning a weapon or carrying one (Fredrickson, 220). The restrictive Laws that were put in place to regulate gun ownership led to the Republicans to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the reason for that was that the night riders were finding it difficult to locate the right location of a suspect when fired at. The stringent Laws were put in place to ensure that both the Blacks and the Whites were both equal before the Law. The only problem that came with the Law was that it was not enforced as it should have been; the black people were more affected by the law (Fredrickson, 210).
Conclusion
All the laws that were put in place were all put in place even though at times some laws were put in place to look as if they were to bring equity between the Black and White. The notion of an armed Black being dangerous is still being held up to date.
Work Cited
Bulmer, Martin, and John Solomos. Racism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Fredrickson, George M.. The comparative imagination on the history of racism, nationalism, and social movements. New York: University of California Press, 1997. Print.
Williams, Robert A.. Like a loaded weapon: the Rehnquist court, Indian rights, and the legal history of racism in America. New York: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Print.
Winston, Andrew S.. Defining difference: race and racism in the history of psychology. New York: American Psychological Association, 2004. Print
Domestic Violence Against Women is a global issue
Domestic Violence
Introduction Domestic Violence Against Women is a global issue
reaching across national boundaries as well as socio-economic, cultural,
racial and class distinctions. It is a problem without frontiers. Not
only is the problem widely dispersed geographically, but its incidence is
also extensive, making it a typical and accepted behavior. Only recently,
within the past twenty-five years, has the issue been “brought into the
open as a field of concern and study” (Violence Against Women in the
Family, page 38). Domestic violence is not an isolated, individual
event but rather a pattern of repeated behaviors that the abuser uses to
gain power and control over the victim. Unlike stranger-to-stranger
violence, in domestic violence situations the same perpetrator repeatedly
assaults the same victim. These assaults are often in the form of physical
injury, but may also be in the form of sexual assault. However the abuse
is not only physical and sexual, but also psychological. Psychological
abuse means intense and repetitive humiliation, creating isolation, and
controlling the actions of the victim through intimidation or
manipulation. Domestic violence tends to become more frequent and severe
over time. Oftentimes the abuser is physically violent sporadically, but
uses other controlling tactics on a daily basis. All tactics have profound
effects on the victim. Perpetrators of domestic violence can be found in
all age, racial, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, linguistic,
educational, occupational and religious groups. Domestic violence is found
in all types of intimate relationships whether the individuals are of the
same or opposite sex, are married or dating, or are in a current or past
intimate relationship. There are two essential elements in every domestic
violence situation: the victim and abuser have been intimately involved at
some point in time, and the abuser consciously chooses to use violence and
other abusive tactics to gain control over the victim. In some instances,
the abuser may be female while the victim is male; domestic violence also
occurs in gay and lesbian relationships. However, 95% of reported
assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women
(MTCAWA e-mail interview) “It is a terrible and recognizable fact that
for many people, home is the least safe place” (Battered Dreams, 9).
Domestic violence is real violence, often resulting in permanent injuries
or death. Battering is a widespread societal problem with consequences
reaching far beyond individual families. It is conduct that has
devastating effects for individual victims, their children and their
communities. In addition to these immediate effects, there is growing
evidence that violence within the “family becomes the breeding ground for
other social problems such as substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and
violent crimes of all types” (MTCAWA e-mail interview). Domestic
violence against women is not merely a domestic issue; but, rather a
complex socio-economical crisis that threatens the interconnected
equilibrium of the entire social structure. Causes & Effects
“Within the family there is a historical tradition condoning
violence” (Violence Against Women: The Missing Agenda, 29). Domestic
violence against women accounts for approximately 40 to 70% of all violent
crime in North America. However, the figures don’t tell the entire story;
less than 10% of such instances are actually reported to police (The
Living Family, 204). The causes of domestic violence against women are
numerous. Many claim stress is the substantial cause of domestic conflict
resulting in violence. Though stress in the workplace is a contributing
factor, it is by no means the substantial one. Many people suffer from
stress disorders, but most don’t resort to violence as a means of release.
It is apparent that the substantial causes have more to do with the
conditioning of males culturally, and within the family of orientation
than anything else. Historically, women have been treated more as
belongings than human beings; Old English Common Law permitted a man to
abuse his wife and kids, as long as he didn’t use a stick thicker than the
width of his thumb–“Rule of Thumb” (The Living Family, 201). Culturally,
men have been conditioned to repress their feelings of emotion–always
acting like the tough guy, the linebacker, the cowboy. But, when
confronted with an emotionally difficult conflict, one which is impossible
to shove down deep, they irrupt in volcanic proportions, often taking out
years of repressed rage on those closest to them, in particular their own
family. However, what seems to be the most significant cause of the male
tactic of violent conflict resolution is violence within the family of
orientation. Statistics show that 73% of male abusers had grown up in a
family where they saw their mother beaten, or experienced abuse themselves
(MTCAWA e-mail interview). Using the (relatively accepted) Freudian
model, which claims that all mental illness stems from traumatic childhood
trauma, one can see how there is a direct correlation between violence in
the family of orientation and violence within the family of procreation.
And, indeed, abusers are mentally ill, though the illness tends to be more
subtle than others: many abusers display a Jekyll&Hyde personality, where
they are nothing like their domestic selves outside the home. In most
cases the cycle of violence starts slowly; it usually consists of a slap
in the face or a hard shove. But the frequency and degree of violence
escalates with time. The abuser will justify the abuse by pointing out
his wife’s inadequacies and faults. But, no matter how wrong the wife is,
there is little, if no, justification for spousal abuse within a civil
society. The real issue at hand is the neurosis within the male psyche.
Just as in rape, the key issue is control. Male abusers are laden with
fear about losing power. They inflict physical abuse on their spouse to
prove that they have, still have, and will have control over their spouses
(and/or children.) They won’t stop there either. The pattern of abuse
involves severe mental torture and humiliation–blaming, threatening,
ignoring, isolating, forcing sex, monitoring phone calls, and restricting
any form of social life. It is a vicious cycle of abuse, where the wife
is almost literally chained to the husband. Her self-esteem has been
obliterated. She is financially, emotionally, and functionally helpless.
She is incapable of reaching out for help for herself or for her children.
At this point the abuse gets more routine; the abuser sites his partner’s
pathetic state as more reason to beat her. And the victim sinks deeper,
and more beatings ensue. She has been infected with psychological-AIDS;
she has no defense (“immune system”) to combat the disease of abuse. For
women, escaping an abusive relationship is VERY difficult. And the abuse
usually doesn’t stop at the discretion of the male. An in-depth study of
all one-on-one murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in Canada from
1980 to 1984 found that 62% of female victims were killed by a male
partner (Violence Against Women Homepage). It is painfully clear that
victims have little but two choices: leave or die. Sadly, the latter is
the easier one. Domestic Violence as a Health Issue The World
Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical,
mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity” (In the Health of Women: A Global Perspective, 78). Based on
this, domestic violence against women is clearly a health problem. In
1984, the U.S. Surgeon General declared domestic violence against women as
the number ONE health problem (Violence Against Women Homepage
Bibliography: