• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

There have been no wars between the Arabs and Israelis since 1973. How successful have the factors below been in contributing to the resolution of the conflict in the following period?

Extracts from this document...


There have been no wars between the Arabs and Israelis since 1973. How successful have the factors below been in contributing to the resolution of the conflict in the following period? -The formal peace agreements in 1979 and 1993 (the Camp David Agreement and the Oslo Accord) -The changing role of the Superpowers, particularly America -Changing attitudes within Israel -Changing attitudes in the Arab leadership (PLO and other Arab states) These factors are all involved in the contribution to the resolution of the conflict since 1973. In some ways they were all successful but some factors more than others as they all helped and hindered the steps to peace. I will try to find the most successful und the least successful factor out of these and how much each factor helped the resolution of the conflict. The formal peace agreements in 1979 and 1993 included the Camp David Agreement and the Oslo Accords. The first took place between Egypt and Israel at Camp David, President Carter's country retreat. After 13 days Sadat and Begin reached a historic peace agreement where Israel would return Sinai to Egypt and close Israeli settlements in the Sinai. It was agreed to give 'autonomy', which was limited local powers, to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, which was the least successful part of the agreement. ...read more.


In other ways, though this agreement again failed to bring about peace. This is because Jewish settlements were not removed from the West Bank and not placed under the authority of the new Palestinian administration. Arab East Jerusalem was not included in the agreement and Israeli forces still remained in Palestinian territories and Palestinians were living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Right-Wing Israelis saw the agreement as going towards a completely independent Palestinian state and violence still went on. For example, a Jewish extremist, Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin as well as Goldstein. Likud won election and were hardliners led by Netanyahu and tried to expand the amount of Jewish settlements. Therefore the Oslo Accords were quite successful in helping to resolve the conflict, however extremist groups and hardliners still prevented peace from being and more successful. Another factor to resolve the conflict was the changing role of the Superpower, the main one being America. America and the Soviet Union were the two main influences until America started to have more of an influence. The changing role of the superpowers was successful in helping towards peace in many ways. America had influence over Israel so Israel would follow USA advice as shown in the Suez Crisis 1956 when Israel attacked Egypt without permission of the USA so they told Israel to withdraw and they did. ...read more.


Also Israel hindered peace as the new Likud government, led by Netanyahu, at first blocked the Oslo Accord II where Israel would withdraw from Hebron and Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem expanded with a government of hardliners like Ariel Sharon, therefore because of the lack of cooperation by Israeli government the other factors were more successful in resolving the conflict. The changing attitudes of PLO and Arab leadership helped and hindered peace also. Arafat wanted compromise with Israel and in 1988 he publicly accepted the existence of Israel as a state and a 'Land for Peace' in resolution 242 is agreed to. He rejected terrorism, which also helped in recent events. Arafat was also the one who moved first to shake hands with Rabin and said he would compromise with a settlement based on just the West Bank and Gaza. There were also many ways in which their changing attitudes hindered peace as well. The PLO was not united behind Arafat and extremist groups like the PLFP and Hamas would not compromise, as recent suicide bombings in Jerusalem and the assassination of the Israeli tourism minister has shown Syria encouraged a hard-line approach, which did not help. Such Arab states supported extremist Islamic groups like Jihad, which wanted to see Israel destroyed. Thus not all Palestinians have been behind moves to resolve the conflict. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. The Arab-Israeli conflict 1956, 1967 and 1973.

    However, he did not play any part in the third and most important war, as he had passed away. It is clear that the part Nasser played in causing the wars was much less important than the part the Russians played.

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Notwithstanding the Soviet Union's rhetorical commitment to an ideology of world revolution, there is abundant evidence of Russia's willingness to forego ideological purity in the cause of national interest. Stalin, after all, had turned away from world revolution in committing himself to building "socialism in one country."

  1. In what ways was the Pacific war a racist conflict?

    also Burma, Siam, Malaya, French Indo-China, Sumatra, the Philippines, Borneo, the Dutch East Indies, Papua New Guinea, and at one point had advanced to within 200 miles of Calcutta, in India. When we consider racism them, we should not believe it applies only to America and Japan.

  2. Vietnam - Why did the USA withdraw it's troops in 1973?

    that the people desperately needed their help, when in fact the average Vietnamese peasant actually cared very little about politics. The peasants just wanted to get on with their normal rural life, and the Americans disrupted this.

  1. Despite the Camp David agreement the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis has ...

    America was thus more willing to see the big picture and sympathise with the Palestinians after the Intifada when they confronted the Israelis. One of consequence of this compassion towards the Palestinians was a significant amount of pressure being put on the Israelis to make peace.

  2. China's Relationship With The West

    It is always very difficult to get a perfect balance. They cannot be too critical because all of their important trade routes with China will be ruined causing economic problems in their home country. However, opening up too much and concentrating a lot on pleasant dialogue can make the issue of human rights seem less important.

  1. The Arab Israeli Conflict -

    It is fair to say that the Israeli government had already planned to occupy the town, but demolish it first and create an Israeli stronghold on the land. Whatever the claims by both sides, the attack was carried out by the Stern Gang, led by Menachem Begin and this type of atrocity was repeated all over the West Bank borders.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    was derived from the exportation of grain and with state farms operating at a loss, an alternative was ?necessary.?[15] Yet the economic system was so entrenched in collectivisation, that no other alternative was deemed possible. Decentralisation and democratisation were proposed alternatives by Khrushchev.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work