Governments in the Middle East are severely hampered by the fragile security, economic challenges and high military costs associated with Palestinian and other regional conflicts. In addition to the direct loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives through violence, the entire region is highly militarized and has lost billions of dollars as a result of conflict. One of the advantages of the recent rapprochement between several Arab states and Israel is that more economic and political elites than ever before could work together and have reasons to place regional prosperity above conflict. Israeli academic Efraim Karsh described the agreements as “the most egregious strategic mistake in [Israel`s] history,” which created the conditions for “the bloodiest and most destructive confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians since 1948” and radicalized “a new generation of Palestinians” living under the rule of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas with “abhorrent anti-Jewish (and anti-Israeli) incitement, which was of a magnitude and intensity not seen since Nazi Germany.” Karsh notes: “In total, since the signing of the DOP [Declaration of Principles], more than 1,600 Israelis have been murdered and another 9,000 injured – nearly four times more than the average death toll of the previous twenty-six years.” [28] The Middle East Quartet (the UN, the EU, the US and Russia) published in early July 2016 following their meeting on 12 July 2016. A report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was published in Munich in February. The report concludes that the only solution to the conflict is a negotiated agreement between the two sides and that three things “seriously undermine hopes for peace”: violence and incitement to violence by the Palestinian leadership, the strengthening and expansion of Israeli settlements, and the rearmament of Hamas linked to the humanitarian situation and the lack of effective governance in Gaza. The document calls on Israelis and Palestinians to “abide by their fundamental obligations under existing agreements in order to promote a two-state reality and lay the foundation for successful negotiations.” To read the full report of the Middle East Quartet, please click here. As things stand, this brings the process to another impasse. To avoid this, a definition of what happens after a shelving agreement is required.
One possible idea of this test is to agree in advance that once a final status agreement is reached, there will be a detailed, step-by-step negotiated implementation agreement that would define a process that would allow for the establishment of a stable and functional Palestinian state in stages and over time. [114] In August 2013, in a meeting with Meretz lawmakers, Mahmoud Abbas gave an indication that such an idea might be acceptable to the Palestinians. [115] At the meeting, Abbas said “there can be no interim agreement, only a final status agreement that can be implemented in stages.” In September 1995, Rabin, Arafat and Peres signed a peace agreement that provided for the expansion of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and democratic elections to determine the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Just over a month later, on November 4, 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist at a peace rally in Tel Aviv. Peres became prime minister and promised to continue the peace process. However, terrorist attacks by Palestinian extremists in early 1996 influenced public opinion in Israel, and in May Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister by the right-wing Likud party. Netanyahu has insisted that Palestinian Authority President Arafat abide by his commitment to end the terrorism of Palestinian extremists, but sporadic attacks have continued and the peace process is at a standstill. During the second intifada, the road map for peace was introduced, which explicitly aimed at a two-State solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. However, the roadmap quickly entered a cycle similar to the Oslo process, but without reaching an agreement.
All subsequent agreements were aimed at implementing the three previous key agreements. A common feature of all attempts to create a path that would lead to peace is the fact that, in most cases, promises to implement “goodwill measures” have not been kept by both sides. [107] In addition, negotiations on a “final status” agreement were suspended due to the outbreak of hostilities. The result is that Israelis and Palestinians have grown tired of the process. The Israelis point to the fact that the Gaza Strip is completely controlled by Hamas, which does not want peace with a Jewish state. [108] According to Israel, this limits the Palestinians` ability to make peace with Israel and implement it in the long term. .