The land of peace was an enactment of the UN Security Council resolution 242, which was formed with the aim of facilitating the peace-making process between the Arab and the Israeli. However, this treaty leaves Israel at a dangerous spot that it is very vulnerable to security threats from its neighbors. The peace process to resolve the Palestinian and Israeli conflict has been going on since the beginning of violence and skirmishes that have torn both countries. Some countries like Egypt have signed treaties with Israel, and Jordan, which signed in 1994 while others have not yet come into an understanding that really puts Israel on the line. With only two signing treaties with Israel, this puts Israel at great danger since most Arab countries do not recognize its existence (William 200).
Israel has its views towards the peace process. Its concept is that giving up control of the disputed territories would facilitate the process of negotiating for peace. The Israeli government views that this will in turn bring an end to violence and conflict. Israel prefers Palestinian president, Abbas Mahmoud to Hamas to be her negotiating partner in the peace treaty since Hamas encouraged and promoted attacks towards the civilian population of Israel. The Camp David 2000 summit and the Oslo Accords negotiations concluded that it might be possible for the Israeli leadership to accept a two state system so as to achieve peace in the country. However, many Israelis were convinced that a two state system may not be a permanent solution and that negotiations and peace would not be possible following the political success of Hamas, which was a group that was dedicated to destroy Israel and the second intifada that led to violence. Hardliners believe that the territorial boundaries should not be given to be under the power of the Palestinians and they also believe that Israel should be in command of the whole region. They also viewed that Gaza Strip should be the only land they had to negotiate when it came to territorial boundaries.
The Israelites have found it impossible to sign a treaty with Palestine because they are constantly engaged in terrorism attacks against Israel. Moreover, they do not have the confidence and trust in the Palestinian leadership to maintain control across the boarders and the territories. This can be evidenced when Pedahzuh said that the solution to a failed peace negotiation was a suicide terrorism attack. This was to encourage Israelis to withdraw from the cities into the West Bank. The main reason as to why the Israelis have had a hard time in securing a peace treaty with the Palestinians is because the Palestinians demands are too high than their own(Kurtzer, Daniel &Lasensky, 330 ). This makes them feel inferior yet they are a super power and they choose to uphold they stature as a country.
The majorissues that are affecting the Israelis and the Palestinians are the following:
• The Palestinians who have been held as refugees in the Palestinian diaspora should have the right to return,
• The status of Jerusalem
• Israeli has major security concerns which include incitements, safe boarders, violence and terrorism
• The Palestinian government has its concerns over Israeli’s settlements in the West Bank region.
• The strong emotions attached by the two sides with regards to conflict
• Division of land and territorial boundaries disputes is also a major concern.
The Israeli government puts security as its major priority. The influential people in Palestine and the various governmental and non-governmental institutions are trying to curb acts of terrorism and at the same time promote a peaceful co-existence with Israel and also tolerance. The Israelis were very resistant to sign, majority of the treaties signed with Palestine, because history had taught them that they could not be able to trust the leaders with whom they signed the treaties with. The leaders’ in turn would finance terrorist gangs and activities against Israel (348). Furthermore, there is evidence of support and expressed incitement against Israel, its basic rights, actions, and motives as a state by the Palestinians. Evidence for this view was provided during the election of Hamas, with the charter stating clearly that it does not recognize and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. However, activists in Palestine claim that there is positive signs towards achieving peace between the two states, and that Israel take advantage of the situation to cultivate positive interactions with Palestine, in spite of Hamas’s opposition towards the existence of the Jewish State, Israel.
Israel is however concerned about the outcomes of the security argument. It is weighing its options in accepting Palestine to be a viable, sovereign political unit and a contiguous state. There is however accompanied bypolitical and economic restrictions placed on Palestinian people, the activities they are engaged in and the institutions which have largely contributed to low quality of life and the collapse of the Palestinian economy (Quandt 116). Israel insisted that these restrictions are basic and essential due to security concerns on their land and their borders.This will aid them to counteract ongoing efforts, which may promote terrorism. This will therefore curb incitement of the opposition to Israel’s existence and rights as a state.
Therefore, it is in order to say that the treaties only raise a security threat to Israel than promote security
- Kurtzer, Daniel, and Scott Lasensky. Negotiating Arab-Israeli peace: American leadership in the Middle East. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2008. Pgs 255-366.
- Quandt, Peace process American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press ;, 2005. Pgs 105-200.
- Shamir, Shimon, and Bruce Weitzman. The Camp David summit–what went wrong?: Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians analyze the failure of the boldest attempt ever to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2005. Pgs 92-255.
- William B, Arab-Israeli Conflict, The.Studies in Contemporary History.Cansas: Longhorn, 2004. Pgs 178-255.