Historically, the U.S. has considered Israel as an important economic as well as diplomatic partner in an oil-abundant Middle East and has offered Israel the uppermost quantity of army and monetary support of any other external nation. However, the U.S. has utilized its influence to demand Israel to settle the dispute with Palestinian and progress with strategies for an independent Palestinian state. From the time when the Second World War ended, America has been among the prominent countries to facilitate, encourage, and mediate ceasefire harmonies between Palestinians and Israelis. Other nations, particularly Russia, France, Jordan, Egypt, and Norway, take part widely in peace attempts, habitually working in performance with the UN and the U.S. the current paper seeks to explore the role the united states of America have played in working towards a ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
America has indicated its outsized monetary aid Egypt and Israel as proof of its dedication to ensure a lifelong ceasefire and nurture economic growth and democracy within the area. The United States military and financial assistance increased fourfold after Egypt and Syria, backed up by the Soviet Union, attacked Israel in the year 1973. Prime Minister Golda Meir requested the United States President Nixon for instant army help for her military which had been destroyed during the year 1973 Yom Kippur Conflict as well as the year 1967 Israeli warfare against the Syrian and Egyptian militaries (Bouris & Huber, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After the year 1973 warfare, Israel and Egypt started to silently investigate the likelihood of diplomatic peace. Under the leadership of American President Carter, ceasefire dialogues between Anwar Sadat, the then Egyptian President along with Menachem Begin, the then Prime Minister in Israel started 5 years afterwards at Camp David (Coen Leep, 2010). The consultations concluded with Camp David peace treaties, grounded in United Nations resolves 242 and 338 that specified that Israel could surrender the region to adjacent Arab countries in return for acknowledgement of nationwide security and sovereignty of Israel. The Camp David treaties terminated the conflict that existed between Israel and Egypt and formed the basis for the purported “land-for-peace” agreements among Israelis and Palestinians (Martiniuk & Wires, 2011).
In the 1980s, the U.S. carried on dispatching elite officers, for instance, Ambassador Philip Habib plus secretaries of state James Baker and George Shultz, to the area in an effort to start crucial talks among the Palestinians and Israelis (Rahman, 2018). Throughout the period, Shultz renewed interaction networks between Palestinian and American administrations originally in over thirteen years. In the course of the Persian Gulf warfare, associations between America and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) went sour when Yasser Arafat, the PLO Chairperson, backed Iraq’s attack on Kuwait in addition to its warning to attack Israel. After American conquest in the Persian Gulf warfare, Soviet President Michael Gorbachev along with President George H.W. Bush funded a peace forum in Madrid to tackle the dispute between Palestine and Israel (Cohn-Sherbok & El-Alami, 2015). The session in the year 1991 revived the Israeli-Palestinian talks.
In the subsequent two years, America and other countries moderated negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli frontrunners, and, in the year 1993, in the course of the eleventh round of peace conferences, Foreign Minister for Israel Shimon Peres proclaimed that Israel together with the Palestine Liberation Organization settled the so-called land-for-peace agreement in Oslo. Yitzhak Rabin, the then PM for Israel, and Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian Authority Chairman, supervised the ratification of the deals reached in Oslo, where Arafat acknowledged the right of Israel to be existent and forsook the application of aggression towards a Jewish state. In exchange, Israel pledged to take into consideration Palestinian independence within areas of the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip.
In the year 1995, Palestinian and Israeli leaders met another time with President Clinton to debate some measures to progressively handover independence to the recently created Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Nevertheless, America lost an important partner after the Israeli extremist in opposition to the Oslo consensuses killed Rabin in 1995. Following a period of recurrent dialogues and growing aggression within the Middle East, U.S. President Clinton headed a direct conference between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Arafat to push for the execution of the concluding aspect in the Oslo consensuses (Bouris, 2010). The frontrunners, gathering in 1998, reaffirmed their dedication to the duties as stated in the Oslo resolution. Moreover, in an attempt to boost the United States relationships with the Palestinian regime, Clinton talked to the Palestinian Legislative Council in the Gaza Strip. As Palestinian and Israeli peace attempts diminished amid growing eruptions of violence, towards the conclusion of his 2nd term, Clinton delegated ex-Senator George Mitchell to lead a fact-discovery assignment to examine origins of the dispute.
The government of George W. Bush sanctioned a Mitchell Report about Mideast conflict and, as an indication of its devotion to ensuring ceasefire between Palestinians and Israelis, upheld its usual role of directing elite officers to press for a lifelong ceasefire. Without a doubt, in the year 2001, George W. Bush gestured sustained elite American engagement after he directed his best envoi, Colin Powell, to go to the Middle East to encounter a fresh frontrunner, the recently appointed PM in Israel Ariel Sharon, along with Yasser Arafat (Bouris & Huber, 2017). President Bush came to be the first American president to openly demand two states, Palestine and Israel, existing cheek by jowl.
However, violence had by then started to sneak back into a setting of the Israeli-Palestinian affiliation, and by the year 2002, the violence had advanced and had a title, that is, a second intifada. The violence saw the Israeli recapture of Palestinian Gaza and West Bank villages and cities, in reaction to invasions on Israeli preys by Palestinians, in addition to the losses of masses of residents on the two parties. A significant consequence of a restarted conflict was a major change in the United States strategy toward the Palestinians, precisely their lead. Arafat, who was among the most regular guests amongst external frontrunners to the Clinton White House, turned out uninvited in Washington, seen by a government of Bush just like the Israelis perceived him, explicitly, the terrorist (Wolfsfeld, 2018).
In the year 2002, President George W. Bush went progressed, appealing to Palestinians to selected different leads, frontrunners not compromised by terror, a delicately indirect appeal for ejection of Arafat. Also, Bush detailed measures he perceived as essential for a renewed ceasefire between the two sides— principal amongst them the Palestinian abandonment and end of extremism, as well as the cessation to Israeli township extension. Those measures were collated in the ostensible road map to a ceasefire, published as an official strategy in the year 2003 (Coen Leep, 2010). In a month’s time, the Palestinians had chosen Mahmoud Abbas, as a new prime minister, who was among the best Oslo mediators, enabling a major conference of Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian and Unite States frontrunners in a Jordanian harbor municipality of Aqaba (Bouris, 2010).
However, the optimism which went along with those proceedings deteriorated rapidly, and the road map turned into the Palestinian criticism target, seen as yet a new American determination which pressured Palestinians for the benefit of Israeli. Abbas resigned the same year, a target partially of conflict with Arafat about the Palestinian defense militaries control. Nonetheless, Palestinians similarly perceived him as a leader who was handicapped by and incapable of countering the robust Bush-Sharon bond, consequently incapable of improving Palestinian everyday life.
It could not be till the beginning of the year 2004 that some tangible energy was induced back into the pursuit for a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli fight. The minute it materialized, it assumed the version an American-supported strategy proclaimed by Sharon to pull out entire Israeli immigrants and backup army staffs from Gaza along with 4 West Bank townships. The strategy went through public discussion for several months. Nonetheless, with scanty straight United States participation or Israeli harmonization with Palestinians, the Palestinians eventually perceived it as a one-sided attempt by Israel to compel a resolution on Israeli conditions (Rahman, 2018). After George W. Bush wrote Sharon in favor of the strategy, he advised all sides to deliberate that in light of fresh truths on the ground, counting previously prevailing main Israeli residents’ hubs, it is impractical to anticipate that the result of concluding status talks would be a whole return to the boundaries prior to 1967 (Bouris & Huber, 2017). Palestinians deduced that as America’s endorsing of the Israeli occupation of portions of the West Bank.
When the strategy started to grow into actuality, America was fighting a revolution in Iraq, leaving small energy or time to dedicate to the Palestinian-Israeli war. That continued to be the event after Yasser Arafat passed on from an undisclosed illness in 2004. George W. Bush appealed to the Palestinians another time to elect a frontrunner who disallowed violence as the replacement of Arafat. The Palestinians did exactly that after they voted Abbas in the year 2005, and groundworks almost immediately yielded another visit to White House amid optimism of a step forward in the conflict (Coen Leep, 2010). Nonetheless, faiths started to diminish as violence carried out by Israelis and Palestinians persisted that summer.
Nevertheless, Israel succeeded on its promise to pull out entire troops and settlers from Gaza and sections of the West Bank, and Sharon exited his conservative Likud Party to create a fresh, more temperate one known as Kadima. Kadima was grounded in the principle that the Israeli community preferred further disconnections from Palestinian areas on condition that there was, in their view, no Palestinian mediating ally. The step was generally embraced by the government of Bush, as recognition of Sharon’s hunt for a termination to the stalemate. Nonetheless, the government similarly shared alarms of Palestinian that West Bank, Gaza and some imminent one-sided Israeli pulling out will oblige a non-negotiable solution on the Palestinians (Rahman, 2018).
In 2006, Fatah, a broken Palestinian reigning class, witnessed its overthrow at the mercies of a methodical diplomatic power by the revolutionary set Hamas, whose contract demands destruction of Israel, and who gained legislative votes on the anti-corruption in addition to social amenities platform. The conquest brought appeals, headed by the U.S. and Israel for the financial and political segregation of any fresh Hamas-controlled regime, and fundamentally ended, for the moment, any relations between the Palestinians and America and Israel. That mawkishness persisted after the year 2006 poll win by Kadima Party of Sharon, and the election of Ehud Olmert, his successor, who promised to finish Israel’s pulling out from a great portion of the West Bank by the year 2010.
President Obama, after assuming the office, continued the policy of his predecessor– actively pressing for the two-state resolution and simultaneously rejecting Hamas until it fulfilled the Quartet principles. However, the policy stayed unsuccessful, and America’s will, and ability, to back up Gaza stayed restricted, particularly in the beginning. Nevertheless, proceedings on the ground ultimately compelled the Obama government to pay a bit closer attention to Gaza. The major obstacles the Obama government encountered in Gaza involved 3 Israel-Hamas conflicts within 5 years, that is, the Operation Cast Lead, the Operations Pillar of Defense as well as Protective Edge (Cohn-Sherbok & El-Alami, 2015). Although Operation Cast Lead had previously concluded when President Obama took the office, the U.S. government played a crucial role in planning the donor talks in Egypt for Gaza’s rebuilding, in which donors promised five billion USD. Moreover, after the operation, an essential factor of American policy became collaborating with global allies to avert trafficking of weapons which were originating from Iran into Sudan and via Egypt into Gaza.
During the year 2012, the Obama government was contributory in arbitrating a termination to a week-long Operation Pillar of Defense. Hillary Clinton carried out shuttle mediation with Israel and with Egypt. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian administration had robust bonds with Hamas, which it leveraged to accomplish a speedy ceasefire. The government of Obama effectively arbitrated a first reconciliation between Turkey and Israel in the year 2013. The two nations relegated their political relationships during the year 2011 following the Mavi Marmara event, where Israeli Defense Forces captured a convoy from Turkey to Gaza, causing the loss of ten Turkish citizens (Bouris & Huber, 2017).
America functioned actively as an arbitrator, and in Obama’s 2013 tour to Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu invited President Erdogan and the nations settled to start talks on a plan to restart affiliations. The settlement that was simply settled in the year 2016 has enabled Turkey to perform a bigger role in offering assistance to Gaza. After Operation Protective Edge erupted in the year 2014, the situations were more complex. The government of Egypt, headed by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, had a far more hostile tactic toward Hamas. It tried to bargain a first ceasefire, which Hamas rejected.
Israel and America differed over which outside body was most able to play an arbitrating role with Hamas, with America engaging with Turkey and Qatar, whereas Israel maintained that Egypt should be the sole channel. Israel perceived America’s fondness toward Turkey and Qatar as opposed to Egypt as giving Hamas a win; on the other hand, America held that focus of Israel on Egypt was impractical considering the bad associations between the el-Sisi administration and the Hamas. Moreover, tensed relationships between Egypt and America meant less influence over Cairo to introduce the Rafah passage to the transportation of goods and people. Eventually, the parties reached a ceasefire, but merely following a lengthy fifty-day conflict which caused an extremely high sum of fatalities and huge damage in Gaza.
In spite of numerous efforts, America’s involvement stayed quite limited, particularly considering its reluctance to defy Israeli and PA strategies toward Gaza. On 2 different events, Hamas and Fatah tried to seek unity governments. In the two instances, America’s rule was that it will collaborate with the unity government if it regarded the Quartet principles (Cohn-Sherbok & El-Alami, 2015). This tactic brought about some strains with Israel, which required America to take a firmer line and bar any regime that incorporated Hamas. In the end, nonetheless, neither of these unity attempts was successful, as disputes between Fatah and Hamas were very deep to make tangible progress on execution.
As a final point, a more troubling issue was the real U.S. supporting President Abbas’ choice to end electricity subsidy for Gaza, which worsened a previously terrible humanitarian disaster in the Strip. Not merely did this tactic brought about further worsening of conditions of living in Gaza; but also originally supported more Fatah-Hamas intensification, which would have resulted in a more substantial wedge between Gaza and the West Bank, which makes the idea of a single Palestinian state which encompasses Gaza and the West Bank nonviable. Also, the intensifying intra-Palestinian strains and the worsening conditions in Gaza in 2017 raised alarms that a new Israeli-Hamas conflict was cooking. Tension on Hamas past a particular point results in war with Israel. Therefore, the U.S. has played no significant role in helping to create any ceasefire or peace treaty between Israel and Palestine, despite them claiming to have put effort towards doing so. Indeed. The U.S. involvement has only worsened the conflict.
References
Bouris, D. (2010). The European Union’s role in the Palestinian Territory after the Oslo Accords: Stillborn state-building. Journal of contemporary European Research , 6 (3), 376-394.
Bouris, D., & Huber, D. (2017). Imposing Middle East Peace: Why the EU Me States Should Recognise Palestine. Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) Commentaries, 17.
Coen Leep, M. (2010). The effective production of others: United States policy towards the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Cooperation and Conflict, 45 (3), 331-352.
Cohn-Sherbok, D., & El-Alami, D. (2015). The Palestine-Israeli conflict: a beginner's guide . Oneworld Publications.
Martiniuk, A. L., & Wires, S. M. (2011). Reflections on peace-through-health: the first Canadian, Israeli and Palestinian maternal and child health program for medical students. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 27 (4), 197-204.
Rahman, A. R. A. (2018). An Honest Broker? The Role of the United States in the Middle East Peace Process (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana).
Wolfsfeld, G. (2018). The role of the media in violent conflicts in the digital age: Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ perceptions . Media, War & Conflict, 11 (1), 107-124.
