Interim Self-Government Arrangements Research Articles

The Oslo Agreement: A Study of the Conflict Peace Process Arabic-Israel

The Oslo Agreement is one of the most important peace processes between Israel and Palestinians aimed at resolving the prevailing conflict. Although this agreement can be seen as an ongoing process, the conflict remains the most troubling issue in the Middle East. This article describes the conflict identification and literature review related to the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP) and the process of formalizing the Oslo Agreement. The conversation between the two parties involved, among others, interpreting rights, boundaries, housing and others. There are different perspectives and views regarding this agreement. Instead, this article analyzes the Oslo Accords including Oslo I and II which were signed in 1993 and 1995 to achieve security in the Middle East.

Declaration of principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements between the state of Israel and the P.L.O. Agreed minutes to the declaration of principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements



The Israeli Disengagement Plan: A Prejudicial Action

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just that, a conflict. It has had its ups and downs, but it has been characterized by violence, and consequently is viewed as a violent struggle. There have been many efforts to end the cyclical relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians of attack and counter attack, resulting in several peace agreements and increased communication between both sides. Cooperation and dialogue have been hallmarks of the achievements and successes that do exist in this relationship. Now the Israelis have diverged from this course and are in the process of unilaterally withdrawing their troops and citizens from the Gaza Strip. The end to the Israeli occupation is a good thing, but it must be done properly, and it should not disrupt the peace process or the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians, unfortunately that is exactly what the unilateral plan has done. This article argues that the Unilateral Disengagement Plan being implemented by the Government of Israel as a means to pull its troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip violates both the Israel and PLO: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, as well as the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and thus prejudices them. By acting unilaterally, the Israelis violate direct terms of these agreements as well as the overall spirit of them. As these documents remain relevant tools in the peace process, the direct and deliberate violation of them by the Israelis can only have negative impacts upon the overall peace process and the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The actions Israel is pursuing will undermine the Palestinians' trust in the Israeli Government, and call into question their roll as a partner to peace.

One Resource Two Visions

With the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords) in 1993, the Israelis and Palestinians embarked upon a difficult path to share their joint water resources. Despite international efforts to encourage joint technical projects and institution building, obstacles remain for obtaining a comprehensive water agreement. This article explicates the main problems hindering water cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It examines the different bargaining positions of the Israelis and the Palestinians in the water negotiations. Both the Palestinian and Israeli publics have different perceptions regarding the way the water issue should be resolved. The Palestinians tend to focus on the issue of water rights and compensation for water used by the Israelis during the occupation, and the Israelis instead tend to minimize issues related to international water law and emphasize technical solutions for future water sharing. These differences in perceptions and interpretations of international law will influence the nature of any future water agreement. This article argues that issues such as compensation and environmental liability could be added to the water negotiations as a way to advance a water-sharing agreement. Yet, there is little precedence in international law concerning how to assess and enforce environmental compensation and liability between states.

Private Claims to Property Rights in the Future Israeli-Palestinian Settlement

The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed by the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the exchange of letters between the PLO Chairman and Israel’s Prime Minister, both agreed upon in September 1993, have set the stage for a process of reconciliation and the settlement of the long and bitter conflict over Palestine/Eretz Yisrael. The Cairo Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area established the date—May 4, 1999—by which a permanent agreement must enter into effect. So far, the negotiations between the two parties have concentrated mainly on institutional arrangements, such as the nature of the Palestinian administration during the interim period, and other matters of public interest. At this stage, the parties are not expected to address matters that directly affect the interests of individuals, including the right of individuals to regain possession of property left behind because of the hostilities, or to receive compensation for such property. The discussion of most of these private claims has been deferred to the final stage of the negotiations, concerning a permanent status agreement, which is due to commence no later than May 4, 1996.

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

From Camp David to Oslo

On 13 September 1993 Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereinafter “PLO”) signed on the lawn of the White House in Washington, in the presence of United States President William J. Clinton, a “Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements” (hereinafter “the DOP”), the text of which had been initialled the previous month in the Norwegian capital Oslo, following several months of secret negotiations. This occurred almost exactly fifteen years after the signing at the White House, on 17 September 1979, by the President of Egypt, Muhammad Anwar Al-Sadat, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, of the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” that had been negotiated and agreed at Camp David, Maryland (hereinafter “the Framework”).Both the Framework and the DOP aim at resolving one of the most complex conflicts of our time, namely, the dispute that first developed between the Arab and Jewish communities in Mandatory Palestine and which widened, with the establishment of Israel in 1948, into a conflict between Israel and the entire Arab world. While both agreements provide for interim arrangements (and the DOP even stresses this aspect in its title), pending the negotiations for a definitive solution, and while both even use similar terms, the basic concepts underlying each of these agreements widely diverge.

Aspects of Foreign Relations under the Israeli-Palestinian Agreements on Interim Self-Government Arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza

In each one of the three main agreements which Israel has concluded to date with the PLO as part of the current peace process, the issue of foreign relations has received special treatment. This reflects the fact that, while the transfer of a number of spheres of authority to the Palestinian autonomous entity has serious practical ramifications, the treatment of the sphere of foreign relations has an added effect on the very nature of the autonomous entity itself, because full capacity to conduct foreign relations is one of the accepted indicia of sovereignty and statehood. Any arrangements reached with regard to the sphere of foreign relations are, therefore, of critical significance.

Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Palestinian Interim Self-Government Arrangements (PISGA): Concepts, Preliminary Measures, and Elections Modalities

Digest of Middle East StudiesVolume 1, Issue 2 p. 19-26 Palestinian Interim Self-Government Arrangements (PISGA): Concepts, Preliminary Measures, and Elections Modalities First published: Spring 1992 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-3606.1992.tb00212.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract [The Palestinian delegation to the bilateral peace talks with Israel in Washington, D.C., issued this proposal for self-rule in the Occupied Territories in March 1992.] Volume1, Issue2Spring 1992Pages 19-26 RelatedInformation

Security Council Resolution 242 at Twenty Five

There is hardly any United Nations resolution which is quoted and referred to as often as 242. It has become the cornerstone for all stages in the settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict, as, for example, the Camp David Frameworks (1978) and the Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel (1979). In addition, it has been referred to by the conveners of the Madrid Conference (1991) as the basis for the negotiations which were started at that Conference and are going on as this article is being written.According to the letter of invitation to the Madrid Conference, the parties are invited to achieve peace through direct negotiations along two tracks, between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians. The latter are to be part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. With respect to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, they are to be conducted in phases, beginning with talks on interim self-government arrangements which should last five years.