The Peace Process

Excerpted from Jarbawi, Ali. "Palestinian Perspectives on the Peace Process." From Madrid to Final Status: Four Perspectives on U.S.-Palestinian Relations (Washington, DC: Palestine Center, 1999), p. 3.

“The Middle East peace process began, in Madrid, with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership outside of the negotiating network. As a result, the PLO began to fear the creation of an alternative Palestinian leadership, especially one that would gain prominence among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Tunis-based PLO leadership had two pre-conditions for starting the Madrid negotiations: (1) ensuring the independence of the Palestinian negotiating delegation, and (2) ensuring that the Tunis leadership was not excluded or sidestepped. While the first goal was achieved in Washington, DC, the second faced stiffer Israeli opposition. In order to force Israel to open direct negotiations with it, the Tunis leadership steered the Washington negotiations to a dead end. The end-result of this process was the 13 September 1993 Oslo agreement (the ‘Declaration of Principles’), an agreement rife with major Palestinian concessions.

The Oslo agreement produced a fundamental change of focus for the Palestinian cause, shaking up its most basic tenets. Indeed, Oslo can be seen as the end, rather than the beginning, of the quest for legitimate Palestinian national rights.

The agreement can best be described as one of submission. While it appeared to be the outcome of an equitable negotiating framework, the negotiations were one-sided in essence, initially justified on the Palestinian side as a political necessity. Even so, the agreement was later marked as an historic achievement.

Reflecting the inequality of power between the Palestinian and the Israeli sides, the Oslo agreement lacked internal balance. The Palestinians had to commit to a set of basic principles in exchange for Israeli promises to undertake certain practical measures. These measures were to be carried out in accordance with a timetable in which no dates were sacred.

Israel succeeded, not only in guaranteeing regulation from the PLO, but also in attaining assurances that the Palestinians will ensure Israel’s security. The negotiations turned Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip from Occupied Territories to disputed territories whose status would be negotiated as a bilateral matter between Israel and the PLO. The international and legal dimensions of the conflict were neutralized. The subsequent ‘peace process’ subordinated details within a general framework governed by Israeli interests.”

To continue to learn about modern Palestine, proceed to The Madrid Peace Conference