College Essay Examples

Review Paper

Before the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister of Israel, the 2000 Camp David Summit (sponsored by the U.S government under Bill Clinton) attempted to intervene in the Israel – Palestine conflict by bringing both parties together to potentially hammer out a resolution that would help to achieve peace in the region. The focus of the 2000 negotiations centered on addressing issues related to territory, security arrangement, refugees, settlements on land that are being contested by both parties as well as the status of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount within in. Regarding territory, Palestine wanted full control over the entire Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Hirsh, Ephron, Klaidman, Brant, Lipper, & Gutman, 2002).  The parts of the West bank that have been affected include Etz Efraim, Ma’ale Efraim, Oranit, Ariel, Kiryat Netafim, Shiloh, and Eli. The territories that Israel is interested in are in Area A, lands that are expressly forbidden from Israelis but hose soldiers have been regularly crossing into since 2002. The territories of Part A include Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Hebron, Ramallah, Jericho, Tulkarem, and Bethlehem). The Israeli have been unable to withdraw from these regions because they have been conducting raids into the area to arrest suspected militants capable of posing a security threat for Israel. Israel has wanted to retain control of the arable lands both in Area A and Area C with an intention of ensuring the boundaries remain without hegemony. Also, the arable lands will cripple the Palestinian economy and limit the ability of the militias to have adequate funding to strike at Israel from these regions. Israel wanted to control the water in the region for the same reason, and also to force the Palestinians to move from the region to allow for the expansion of Israeli settlements. The core demands of the Palestinians were to divide the lands in Area A, B, and C equally where there would be equal resources for both sides. Israel’s demands, however, are for the evacuation of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

Comment for the above 

Can you be a little specific and talk about what part of the West Bank? The West Bank is huge and during the Oslo agreement it was divided into areas A, B, C, and the negotiation was based around these divisions. Can you please talk about what specific territories (Name the territories) that Israel was interested in? And why the Israeli could not withdraw from the territories? What arable land did it want to keep? Why? Did it want water control? What are the core demands?  etc.

The problem of this disagreement was not only based on these but also the land swap, it was supposed to be off equal size and the Palestinians could not settle for the land swap proposed by the Israeli government because the location/size/quality  where unfair.

            This was based on the fact that Israel had already taken over 78 percent of what was described as historical Palestinian territory. (Again please name the territories and cite right after). The historic Palestinian territory, which includes Jerusalem as the capital city, features a majority of Area C that is currently under Israeli occupation and completely barred from the Palestinians. The territories in this region also include the annexed Jerusalem, the Palestinian section of the Dead Sea, and no-man’s land. All land in the West Bank that is not a part of Area A or B is Area C.

 When it came to the West Bank territory, Israel would retain 9 percent of its holdings in the area but would be able to gain 1 percent of the land on the Palestinian side due to preexisting settlement in the area as well as an allotment for the construction of roads. The main area of contention between the two parties was the status of Jerusalem due to the overlapping importance of various religious sites in the area which were essential to both Judaism and Islam. These lands are the eastern section of Jerusalem as well as the central territories in the West Bank, Area C. They were built in the West Bank in 1995 following the Oslo Accords, and this has long been disputed Palestinian lands (Hirsh, et al., 2002). The agreement collapses because Israel is violating on lands marked as Palestinian territories, and it threatens the feasibility of a two-state solution because it shows Israel is not committed to sharing the lands with the Palestinian people.

Comment for the above 

Again please be specific, and name these lands and why it was not visible? CITE) what are the preexisting settlement? When was it build? What are the areas it was built on? is it Palestinian land ? How does that make an agreement collapse? Does it threaten feasibility of a two-state?  How so?

However, there was some potential for reconciliation based on allowing Palestine sovereignty over specific Islamic and Christian holy sites while allowing Israel to maintain control over the West Wall. The failure of this negotiation was connected to the behavior of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat who refused to make any final deals with Israel due to an apparent desire for a “one-state” solution that enables Arab control over the entirety of Palestine’s former territories (Hirsh, et al., 2002).

            The next round of talks was the 2001 Taba talks that were held at Taba located within the Sinai Peninsula. These discussions were considered as being the closest to reaching a final settlement as compared to previous negotiations that were held in the Israel-Palestinian negotiations (Taba Summit) (The Taba Negotiations, 2002). What were these negotiations? Name, CITE

The Territorial Agreement

 The territorial agreement between the two states would utilize the June 1967 lines that were drawn up as the primary basis for the borders between each state with Israel receiving three percent of the territory in the West Bank while Palestine would get the remaining 97 percent (The Taba Negotiations, 2002). The agreement also entailed the Gaza strip being entirely controlled by Palestine within the Beit Hanun district in the northern section of the Gaza strip being an area of safe passage out of the region. Aside from this, the negotiations also stipulated that the Gaza Strip, as well as the West Bank, should be linked in such a way that it ensured Palestinian sovereignty in those areas (The Taba Negotiations, 2002).

            Lastly, both sides did agree to “joint ownership” over the city of Jerusalem with Israel controlling the Jewish neighborhoods and Palestine controlling the Islamic areas. Aside from this, Palestine would gain control over the Temple Mound, but Israel would retain control over the West Wall. Overall, the 2001 Taba talks reflected many of the terms that were initially agreed upon during the 2000 Camp David Summit with the land swap and 1967 lines creating a variation from the previous agreement (The Taba Negotiations, 2002).

            The main reason why the talks failed was due to the change in leadership in the United States (from Clinton to Bush) as well as the re-election campaign that Ehud Barak was taking part in. The Clinton Administration made it a policy to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but the Bush Administration focused on a different policy. Consequently, Barak would lose the election, leaving the fate of the negotiations in the hands of Sharon who was open to expanding Israeli settlements (Hirsh, et al., 2002). (Good point but please explain how so elaborate and CITE) Unfortunately, Barak lost and his successor, Ariel Sharon discontinued the talks after the change in government. The main issue with the Bush and Sharon eras was that there was insufficient political will to help bring about a peace deal involving Israel and Palestine (Hirsh, et al., 2002).CITE  According to Hirsh, Bush was, at the time, primarily concerned with the “war on terror” which prevented any sufficient focus from being leveraged towards the Israel-Palestine conflict (Hirsh, et al., 2002). Who said this? please  CITE Aside from this, Sharon’s administration viewed the negotiations as being useless due to the lack of desire on the part of the Palestinian government to compromise on various issues. It was due to this that one of the best chances for peace between the two countries was lost (The Taba Negotiations, 2002). CITE,

Reference List

Hirsh, M., Ephron, D., Klaidman, D., Brant, M., Lipper, T., & Gutman, R. (2002). Blowing the Best Chance. Newsweek, 139(13), 42.

The Taba Negotiations (JANUARY 2001). (2002). Journal of Palestine Studies, 31(3), 79.

Avatar photo

By Hanna Robinson

Hanna has won numerous writing awards. She specializes in academic writing, copywriting, business plans and resumes. After graduating from the Comosun College's journalism program, she went on to work at community newspapers throughout Atlantic Canada, before embarking on her freelancing journey.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts