Peace
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Peace (disambiguation).
"Peacetime" redirects here. For the album, see Peacetime (album). For the film, see Peacetime (film).
Peace dove statue in Lomé, Togo, Africa. The dove and the olive branch are the most common symbols associated with peace.[1]
Statue of Eirene, goddess of peace in ancient Greek religion, with the infant Plutus
Peace means societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence. In a social sense, peace is commonly used to mean a lack of conflict (such as war) and freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.
"Psychological peace" (such as peaceful thinking and emotions) is less well-defined, yet perhaps a necessary precursor to establishing "behavioural peace". Peaceful behaviour sometimes results from a "peaceful inner disposition". It has been argued by some that inner qualities such as tranquility, patience, respect, compassion, kindness, self-control, courage, moderation, forgiveness, equanimity, and the ability to see the big picture can promote peace within an individual, regardless of the external circumstances of their life.[2]
Etymology
Before the word 'peace' came into English lexicon, Anglo-Saxons used a phrase "friðu sibb" for "pledge of peace".
The term 'peace' originates from the Anglo-French pes, and the Old French pais, meaning "peace, reconciliation, silence, agreement" (11th century).[3] The Anglo-French term pes itself comes from the Latin pax, meaning "peace, compact, agreement, treaty of peace, tranquility, absence of hostility, harmony."
The English word came into use in various personal greetings from c. 1300 as a translation of the Hebrew word shalom, which, according to Jewish theology, comes from a Hebrew verb meaning 'to be complete, whole'.[4] Although "peace" is the usual translation, it is an incomplete one, because shalom, which is also cognate with the Arabic salaam, has multiple other meanings in addition to peace, including justice, good health, safety, well-being, prosperity, equity, security, good fortune, and friendliness, as well as simply the greetings, "hello" and "goodbye".[5]
On a personal level, peaceful behaviours are kind, considerate, respectful, just, and tolerant of others' beliefs and behaviors – tending to manifest goodwill. This understanding of peace can also pertain to an individual's introspective sense or concept of her/himself, as in being "at peace" in one's own mind, as found in European references from c. 1200. The early English term is also used in the sense of "quiet", reflecting calm, serene, and meditative approaches to family or group relationships that have a absence of quarreling, disturbances and agitation; but seek clarity of conversation, and tranquility.
In many languages, the word 'peace' is also used as a greeting or a farewell, for example the Hawaiian word aloha, as well as the Arabic word salaam. In English the word peace is occasionally used as a farewell, especially for the dead, as in the phrases "rest in peace" or "peace out".
History
Croeseid coin of Croesus (c. 550 BCE), depicting the Lion and Bull — partly symbolizing alliance between Lydia and Greece, respectively
Peace was forged through diplomacy in the form of royal marriages, both in the distant past and in modern times. Two early examples of royal marriages being used to establish diplomatic relations are Hermodike I, who married the king of Phrygia around 800 BCE,[6] and Hermodike II, who married the king of Lydia around 600 BCE.[7] Both marriages involved Greek princesses from the house of Agamemnon and kings from what is now Turkey.[8] The marriages between the Greek princesses and the kings of Phrygia and Lydia had a significant impact on the region, leading to the transfer of important technological innovations from Anatolia to Greece. In particular, the Phrygians introduced the Greek alphabet, while the Lydians pioneered the use of coinage as a form of currency. Both inventions were rapidly adopted by surrounding nations through further trade and cooperation.
Peace has not always been achieved through peaceful means; in many cases, it has been enforced by the victors of war, often through the use of violence and coercion. In his work Agricola, the Roman historian Tacitus, writes passionately and critically about the greed and arrogance of the Roman Empire, portraying it as a ruthless and self-serving power. One, that Tacitus says is by the Caledonian chieftain Calgacus, ends with: "Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." ("To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." —Oxford Revised Translation).
Discussion of peace is therefore at the same time an inquiry into its form. Is it simply the absence of mass organized killing (war), or does peace require a particular morality and justice? (just peace).[9] Societal peace can be seen at least in two forms:
A simple silence of arms, absence of war.
Absence of war accompanied by particular requirements for the mutual settlement of relations, which are characterized by justice, mutual respect, respect for law, and good will.
Since 1945, the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council have operated under the aim to resolve conflicts without war. Nonetheless, nations have entered numerous military conflicts since then.
Organizations and prizes
United Nations
Main article: United Nations
See also: List of United Nations peacekeeping missions
UN peacekeeping missions. Dark blue regions indicate current missions, while light blue regions represent former missions.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.
After authorization by the Security Council, the UN sends peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the UN. The forces, also called the "Blue Helmets", who enforce UN accords are awarded United Nations Medals, which are considered international decorations instead of military decorations. The peacekeeping force as a whole received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988.
Police
Main article: Police
The obligation of the state to provide for domestic peace within its borders is usually charged to the police and other general domestic policing activities. The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, to protect the lives, liberty and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder.[10] Their powers include the power of arrest and the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with the police forces of a sovereign state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces are often defined as being separate from the military and other organizations involved in the defense of the state against foreign aggressors; however, gendarmerie are military units charged with civil policing.[11] Police forces are usually public sector services, funded through taxes.
National security
Main article: National security
The national security apparatus of a nation is responsible for providing peace and security against foreign threats and aggression. National security can be threatened by a range of factors, including actions by other states (such as military or cyber attacks), violent non-state actors (such as terrorist attacks), organized criminal groups (such as narcotic cartels), and natural disasters (such as floods and earthquakes).[12]: v, 1–8 [13] Systemic drivers of insecurity, which may be transnational, include economic inequality and marginalisation, political exclusion, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.[13] In view of the wide range of risks, the preservation of peace and the security of a nation state have several dimensions, including economic security, energy security, physical security, environmental security, food security, border security, and cyber security. These dimensions correlate closely with elements of national power.
League of Nations
The principal forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations. It was created at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and emerged from the advocacy of Woodrow Wilson and other idealists during World War I. The Covenant of the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and the League was based in Geneva until its dissolution as a result of World War II and replacement by the United Nations. The high hopes widely held for the League in the 1920s, for example amongst members of the League of Nations Union, gave way to widespread disillusion in the 1930s as the League struggled to respond to challenges from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japan.
The prominent scholar, Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, who is widely regarded as one of the most influential intellectuals of the League of Nations, drew inspiration for his studies from the classics, along with other British scholars such as Gilbert Murray and Florence Stawell. This group of scholars is often referred to as the "Greece and peace" set, due to their shared interest in ancient Greek civilization and the promotion of peace.
The creation of the League of Nations, and the hope for informed public opinion on international issues (expressed for example by the Union for Democratic Control during World War I), also saw the creation after World War I of bodies dedicated to understanding international affairs, such as the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House in London. At the same time, the academic study of international relations started to professionalise, with the creation of the first professorship of international politics, named for Woodrow Wilson, at Aberystwyth, Wales, in 1919.
Olympic Games
The late 19th century idealist advocacy of peace which led to the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Rhodes Scholarships, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and ultimately the League of Nations, also saw the re-emergence of the ancient Olympic ideal. Led by Pierre de Coubertin, this culminated in the holding in 1896 of the first of the modern Olympic Games.
Nobel Peace Prize
Main article: Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Dunant was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize for his role in founding the International Red Cross.
Since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been the world's most prestigious honor given to individuals or organizations who have made significant contributions to peace. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a group of five individuals chosen by the Norwegian parliament. Nominees for the prize come from around the world, and are often those who have worked to end conflict, protect human rights, or promote humanitarian efforts. It is awarded annually to internationally notable persons following the prize's creation in the will of Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[14]
Rhodes, Fulbright and Schwarzman scholarships
In creating the Rhodes Scholarships for outstanding students from the United States, Germany and much of the British Empire, Cecil Rhodes wrote in 1901 that 'the object is that an understanding between the three great powers will render war impossible and educational relations make the strongest tie'.[15] This peace purpose of the Rhodes Scholarships was very prominent in the first half of the 20th century, and became prominent again in recent years under Warden of the Rhodes House Donald Markwell,[16] a historian of thought about the causes of war and peace.[17] This vision greatly influenced Senator J. William Fulbright in the goal of the Fulbright fellowships to promote international understanding and peace, and has guided many other international fellowship programs,[18] including the Schwarzman Scholars to China created by Stephen A. Schwarzman in 2013.[19]
Gandhi Peace Prize
Main article: Gandhi Peace Prize
Mahatma Gandhi
The International Gandhi Peace Prize, named after Mahatma Gandhi, is awarded annually by the Government of India. It was launched as a tribute to the ideals espoused by Gandhi in 1995 on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of his birth. This is an annual award given to individuals and institutions for their contributions towards social, economic and political transformation through non-violence and other Gandhian methods. The award carries Rs. 10 million in cash, convertible in any currency in the world, a plaque and a citation. It is open to all persons regardless of nationality, race, creed or sex.
Student Peace Prize
Main article: Student Peace Prize
The Student Peace Prize is awarded biennially to a student or a student organization that has made a significant contribution to promoting peace and human rights.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize
Main article: Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize, is awarded annually "in recognition of an individual's or an organisation's contribution for the advancement of the cause of peace". The prize was first launched in 2009 by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Peace Prize Committee under the directive of the caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Mirza Masroor Ahmad.
Culture of Peace News Network
Main article: Culture of Peace News Network
The Culture of Peace News Network, otherwise known simply as CPNN, is a UN authorized interactive online news network, committed to supporting the global movement for a culture of peace.
Rainbows: Often used as a symbol of harmony and peace.
Sydney Peace Prize
Every year in the first week of November, the Sydney Peace Foundation presents the Sydney Peace Prize. The Sydney Peace Prize is awarded to an organization or an individual whose life and work has demonstrated significant contributions to:
The achievement of peace with justice locally, nationally or internationally
The promotion and attainment of human rights
The philosophy, language and practice of non-violence
Museums
See also: Peace museums
A peace museum is a museum that documents historical peace initiatives. Many provide advocacy programs for nonviolent conflict resolution. This may include conflicts at the personal, regional or international level.
Smaller institutions include the Randolph Bourne Institute, the McGill Middle East Program of Civil Society and Peace Building and the International Festival of Peace Poetry.
Religious beliefs
Religious beliefs often seek to identify and address the basic problems of human life, including conflicts between, among, and within persons and societies. In ancient Greek-speaking areas, the virtue of peace was personified as the goddess Eirene, and in Latin-speaking areas as the goddess Pax. Her image was typically represented by ancient sculptors as a full-grown woman, usually with a horn of plenty and scepter and sometimes with a torch or olive leaves.
Christianity
Christians, who believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Jewish Messiah called Christ (meaning Anointed One),[20] interpret Isaiah 9:6 as a messianic prophecy of Jesus in which he is called the "Prince of Peace".[21] In the Gospel of Luke, Zechariah celebrates his son John: "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of their sins. By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."[22]
As a testimony of peace, Peace Churches in the Anabaptist Christian tradition (such as the Mennonites and Quakers), as well Holiness Methodist Pacifists (such as the Immanuel Missionary Church), practice nonresistance and do not participate in warfare.[23]
In the Catholic Church, numerous pontifical documents on the Holy Rosary document a continuity of views of the Popes to have confidence in the Holy Rosary as a means to foster peace. In the Encyclical Mense maio, 1965, in which he urged the practice of the Holy Rosary, and as reaffirmed in the encyclical Christi Matri, 1966, to implore peace, Pope Paul VI stated in the apostolic Recurrens mensis, October 1969, that the Rosary is a prayer that favors the great gift of peace.
Hinduism
Hindu texts contain the following passages:
May there be peace in the heavens, peace in the atmosphere, peace on the earth. Let there be coolness in the water, healing in the herbs and peace radiating from the trees. Let there be harmony in the planets and in the stars, and perfection in eternal knowledge. May everything in the universe be at peace. Let peace pervade everywhere, at all times. May I experience that peace within my own heart.
— Yajur Veda 36.17
Let us have concord with our own people, and concord with people who are strangers to us. Ashwins (Celestial Twins) create between us and the strangers a unity of hearts. May we unite in our minds, unite in our purposes, and not fight against the heavenly spirit within us. Let not the battle-cry rise amidst many slain, nor the arrows of the war-god fall with the break of day
— Yajur Veda 7.52
A superior being does not render evil for evil. This is a maxim one should observe... One should never harm the wicked or the good or even animals meriting death. A noble soul will exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or cruel deeds... Who is without fault?
— Valmiki, Ramayana
The chariot that leads to victory is of another kind.
Valour and fortitude are its wheels; Truthfulness and virtuous conduct are its banner; Strength, discretion, self-restraint and benevolence are its four horses, Harnessed with the cords of forgiveness, compassion and equanimity...
Whoever has this righteous chariot, has no enemy to conquer anywhere.
— Valmiki, Ramayana
Buddhism
Buddhists believe that peace is attained by ending pain and suffering. They regard pain and suffering is stemming from cravings (in the extreme, greed), aversions (fears), and delusions and suffering is attachments to outcomes. To eliminate such pain and suffering and achieve personal peace, followers in the path of the Buddha adhere to a set of teachings called the Four Noble Truths — a central tenet in Buddhist philosophy.
Islam
Islam derived from the root word salam which literally means peace. Quran states "those who believe and whose hearts find comfort in the remembrance of Allah. Surely in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find comfort."[24] and stated "O believers! When you are told to make room in gatherings, then do so. Allah will make room for you ˹in His grace˺. And if you are told to rise, then do so. Allah will elevate those of you who are faithful, and ˹raise˺ those gifted with knowledge in rank. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do."[25]
Judaism
The Judaic tradition associates God with peace, as evidenced by various principles and laws in Judaism.
Shalom, the biblical and modern Hebrew word for peace, is one of the names for God according to the Judaic law and tradition. For instance, in traditional Jewish law, individuals are prohibited from saying "Shalom" when they are in the bathroom as there is a prohibition on uttering any of God's names in the bathroom, out of respect for the divine name.
Jewish liturgy and prayer is replete with prayers asking God to establish peace in the world. The Shmoneh Esreh, a key prayer in Judaism that is recited three times each day, concludes with a blessing for peace. The last blessing of the Shmoneh Esreh, also known as the Amida ("standing" as the prayer is said while standing), is focused on peace, beginning and ending with supplications for peace and blessings.
Peace is central to Judaism's core principle of Moshaich ("messiah") which connotes a time of universal peace and abundance, a time where weapons will be turned into plowshares and lions will sleep with lambs. As it is written in the Book of Isaiah:
They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare.
— Isaiah 2:4
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
— Isaiah 11:6–9
This last metaphor from Tanakh (Hebrew bible) symbolizes the peace by which a longed-for messianic age will be characterized, a peace in which natural enemies, the strong and the weak, predator and prey, will live in harmony.
Jews pray for the messianic age of peace every day in the Shmoneh Esreh, in addition to faith in the coming of the messianic age constituting one of the thirteen core principles of faith in Judaism, according to Maimonides.[citation needed]
Ideological beliefs
Pacifism
Main article: Pacifism
A peace sign, which is widely associated with pacifism
Pacifism is the categorical opposition to the behaviors of war or violence as a means of settling disputes or of gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should all be resolved via peaceful behaviors; to calls for the abolition of various organizations which tend to institutionalize aggressive behaviors, such as the military, or arms manufacturers; to opposition to any organization of society that might rely in any way upon governmental force. Groups that sometimes oppose the governmental use of force include anarchists and libertarians. Absolute pacifism opposes violent behavior under all circumstance, including defense of self and others.
Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that all forms of violent behavior are inappropriate responses to conflict, and are morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and inter-personal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found.
Inner peace, meditation and prayerfulness
Main article: Inner peace
Buddhist monk during meditation near Phu Soidao National Park
Psychological or inner peace (i.e. peace of mind) refers to a state of being internally or spiritually at peace, with sufficient clarity of knowledge and understanding to remain calm in the face of apparent discord, stress and discomfort. Being internally "at peace" is considered to be a healthy playable mental state, a homeostasis of emotions and to be the opposite of feeling stressful, mentally anxious, or emotionally unstable. Within meditative traditions, the achievement of "peace of mind" is often associated with bliss and happiness.
Peace of mind, serenity, and calmness are descriptions of a disposition free from the effects of stress. In some meditative traditions, inner peace is believed to be a state of consciousness or enlightenment that may be cultivated by various types of meditation, prayer, tai chi, yoga, or other various types of mental or physical disciplines. Many such practices refer to this peace as an experience of knowing oneself. An emphasis on finding inner peace is often associated with traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and some traditional Christian contemplative practices such as monasticism,[26] as well as with the New Age movement.
Non-Aggression Principle
The Non-Aggression Principle asserts that aggression against an individual or an individual's property is always an immoral violation of life, liberty, and property rights.[27] Utilizing deceit instead of consent to achieve ends is also a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Therefore, under the framework of this principle, rape, murder, deception, involuntary taxation, government regulation, and other behaviors that initiate aggression against otherwise peaceful individuals are considered violations.[28] This principle is most commonly adhered to by libertarians. A common elevator pitch for this principle is, "Good ideas don't require force."[29]
Satyagraha
Main article: Satyagraha
Martin Luther King Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and Mathew Ahmann, executive director of the National Catholic Conference for Interrracial Justice, at a civil rights march on Washington, D.C.
Satyagraha is a philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance developed by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He deployed satyagraha techniques in campaigns for Indian independence and also during his earlier struggles in South Africa.
The word satyagraha itself was coined through a public contest that Gandhi sponsored through the newspaper he published in South Africa, Indian Opinion, when he realized that neither the common, contemporary Hindu language nor the English language contained a word which fully expressed his own meanings and intentions when he talked about his nonviolent approaches to conflict. According to Gandhi's autobiography, the contest winner was Maganlal Gandhi (presumably no relation), who submitted the entry 'sadagraha', which Gandhi then modified to 'satyagraha'. Etymologically, this Hindic word means 'truth-firmness', and is commonly translated as 'steadfastness in the truth' or 'truth-force'.
Satyagraha theory also influenced Martin Luther King Jr., James Bevel, and others during the campaigns they led during the civil rights movement in the United States. The theory of satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote: "They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end..."[30] A quote sometimes attributed to Gandhi, but also to A. J. Muste, sums it up: "There is no way to peace; peace is the way".[citation needed]
Monuments
The following are monuments to peace:
Name Location Organization Meaning Image
Dirk Willems Peace Garden Steinbach, Manitoba Mennonite Heritage Village A peace garden telling the story of Dirk Willems; a place for reflection and contemplation on what it means to live a life of radical peacemaking.
Japanese Garden of Peace Fredericksburg, Texas National Museum of the Pacific War A gift from the people of Japan to the people of the United States, presented to honor Chester W. Nimitz and created as a respite from the intensity of violence, destruction, and loss.
Japanese Peace Bell New York City, NY United Nations World peace
Fountain of Time Chicago, IL Chicago Park District 100 years of peace between the US and UK
Fredensborg Palace Fredensborg, Denmark Frederick IV The peace between Denmark–Norway and Sweden, after Great Northern War which was signed 3 July 1720 on the site of the unfinished palace.
International Peace Garden North Dakota, Manitoba non-profit organization Peace between the US and Canada, World peace
Peace Arch border between US and Canada, near Surrey, British Columbia. non-profit organization Built to honour the first 100 years of peace between Great Britain and the United States resulting from the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814.
Shanti Stupa Pokhara, Nepal Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga One of eighty peace pagodas in the World.
Statue of Europe Brussels European Commission Unity in Peace in Europe
Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park Alberta, Montana non-profit organization World Peace
Theories
See also: Peace and conflict studies § Conceptions of peace
Many different theories of "peace" exist in the world of peace studies, which involves the study of de-escalation, conflict transformation, disarmament, and cessation of violence.[31][better source needed] The definition of "peace" can vary with religion, culture, or subject of study.
Balance of power
Main article: Balance of power (international relations)
The classical "realist" position is that the key to promoting order between states, and so of increasing the chances of peace, is the maintenance of a balance of power between states – a situation where no state is so dominant that it can "lay down the law to the rest". Exponents of this view have included Metternich, Bismarck, Hans Morgenthau, and Henry Kissinger. A related approach – more in the tradition of Hugo Grotius than Thomas Hobbes – was articulated by the so-called "English school of international relations theory" such as Martin Wight in his book Power Politics (1946, 1978) and Hedley Bull in The Anarchical Society (1977).
As the maintenance of a balance of power could in some circumstances require a willingness to go to war, some critics saw the idea of a balance of power as promoting war rather than promoting peace. This was a radical critique of those supporters of the Allied and Associated Powers who justified entry into World War I on the grounds that it was necessary to preserve the balance of power in Europe from a German bid for hegemony.
In the second half of the 20th century, and especially during the cold war, a particular form of balance of power – mutual nuclear deterrence – emerged as a widely held doctrine on the key to peace between the great powers. Critics argued that the development of nuclear stockpiles increased the chances of war rather than peace, and that the "nuclear umbrella" made it "safe" for smaller wars (e.g. the Vietnam war and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to end the Prague Spring), so making such wars more likely.
Free trade and interdependence
Main articles: Doux commerce and Peace economics
It was a central tenet of classical liberalism, for example among English liberal thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th century, that free trade promoted peace. For example, the Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) said that he was "brought up" on this idea and held it unquestioned until at least the 1920s.[32] During the economic globalization in the decades leading up to World War I, writers such as Norman Angell argued that the growth of economic interdependence between the great powers made war between them futile and therefore unlikely. He made this argument in 1913. A year later Europe's economically interconnected states were embroiled in what would later become known as the First World War.[33]
Democratic peace theory
Main article: Democratic peace theory
The democratic peace theory posits that democracy causes peace because of the accountability, institutions, values, and norms of democratic countries.[34]
Territorial peace theory
Main article: Territorial peace theory
The territorial peace theory posits that peace causes democracy because territorial wars between neighbor countries lead to authoritarian attitudes and disregard for democratic values.[35] This theory is supported by historical studies showing that countries rarely become democratic until after their borders have been settled by territorial peace with neighbor countries.[36]
War game
Main article: Peace war game
The Peace and War Game is an approach in game theory to understand the relationship between peace and conflicts.
The iterated game hypotheses was originally used by academic groups and computer simulations to study possible strategies of cooperation and aggression.[37][page needed]
As peace makers became richer over time, it became clear that making war had greater costs than initially anticipated. One of the well studied strategies that acquired wealth more rapidly was based on Genghis Khan, i.e. a constant aggressor making war continually to gain resources. This led, in contrast, to the development of what's known as the "provokable nice guy strategy", a peace-maker until attacked, improved upon merely to win by occasional forgiveness even when attacked. By adding the results of all pairwise games for each player, one sees that multiple players gain wealth cooperating with each other while bleeding a constantly aggressive player.[38]
Socialism and managed capitalism
Socialist, communist, and left-wing liberal writers of the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g., Lenin, J.A. Hobson, John Strachey) argued that capitalism caused war (e.g. through promoting imperial or other economic rivalries that lead to international conflict). This led some to argue that international socialism was the key to peace.
However, in response to such writers in the 1930s who argued that capitalism caused war, the economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) argued that managed capitalism could promote peace. This involved international coordination of fiscal/monetary policies, an international monetary system that did not pit the interests of countries against each other, and a high degree of freedom of trade. These ideas underlay Keynes's work during World War II that led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at Bretton Woods in 1944, and later of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (subsequently the World Trade Organization).[39][page needed]
International organization and law
One of the most influential theories of peace, especially since Woodrow Wilson led the creation of the League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, is that peace will be advanced if the intentional anarchy of states is replaced through the growth of international law promoted and enforced through international organizations such as the League of Nations, the United Nations, and other functional international organizations. One of the most important early exponents of this view was Alfred Eckhart Zimmern, for example in his 1936 book The League of Nations and the Rule of Law.[40]
Trans-national solidarity
Many "idealist" thinkers about international relations – e.g. in the traditions of Kant and Karl Marx – have argued that the key to peace is the growth of some form of solidarity between peoples (or classes of people) spanning the lines of cleavage between nations or states that lead to war.[41][page needed]
One version of this is the idea of promoting international understanding between nations through the international mobility of students – an idea most powerfully advanced by Cecil Rhodes in the creation of the Rhodes Scholarships, and his successors such as J. William Fulbright.[42]
Another theory is that peace can be developed among countries on the basis of active management of water resources.[43][better source needed]
Day
World Peace Day, celebrated on 21 September, was founded as a day to recognize, honour and promote peace. It is commemorated each year by United Nations members.
Studies, rankings, and periods
Peace and conflict studies
Main article: Peace and conflict studies
Detail from Peace and Prosperity (1896), Elihu Vedder, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.
Peace and conflict studies is an academic field which identifies and analyses violent and nonviolent behaviours, as well as the structural mechanisms attending violent and non-violent social conflicts. This is to better understand the processes leading to a more desirable human condition.[44][full citation needed] One variation, Peace studies (irenology), is an interdisciplinary effort aiming at the prevention, de-escalation, and solution of conflicts. This contrasts with war studies (polemology), directed at the efficient attainment of victory in conflicts. Disciplines involved may include political science, geography, economics, psychology, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies, and gender studies, as well as a variety of other disciplines.
Measurement and ranking
Although peace is widely perceived as something intangible, various organizations have been making efforts to quantify and measure it. The Global Peace Index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace is a known effort to evaluate peacefulness in countries based on 23 indicators of the absence of violence and absence of the fear of violence.[45]
The 2015 edition of the Index ranked 163 countries on their internal and external levels of peace.[46] According to the 2017 Global Peace Index, Iceland is the most peaceful country in the world while Syria is the least peaceful one.[47] Fragile States Index (formerly known as the Failed States Index) created by the Fund for Peace focuses on risk for instability or violence in 178 nations. This index measures how fragile a state is by 12 indicators and subindicators that evaluate aspects of politics, social economy, and military facets in countries.[48] The 2015 Failed State Index reports that the most fragile nation is South Sudan, and the least fragile one is Finland.[49] University of Maryland publishes the Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger in order to measure peace. It grades 163 countries with 5 indicators, and pays the most attention to risk of political instability or armed conflict over a three-year period. The most recent ledger shows that the most peaceful country is Slovenia on the contrary Afghanistan is the most conflicted nation. Besides indicated above reports from the Institute for Economics and Peace, Fund for Peace, and University of Maryland, other organizations including George Mason University release indexes that rank countries in terms of peacefulness.
Long periods
See also: List of periods of regional peace
The longest continuing period of peace and neutrality among currently existing states is observed in Sweden since 1814 and in Switzerland, which has had an official policy of neutrality since 1815. This was made possible partly by the periods of relative peace in Europe and the world known as Pax Britannica (1815–1914), Pax Europaea/Pax Americana (since 1950s), and Pax Atomica (also since the 1950s).
Other examples of long periods of peace are:
the isolationistic Edo period (also known as Tokugawa shogunate) in Japan 1603 to 1868 (265 years)
Pax Khazarica in Khazar Khanate (south-east Turkey) about 700–950 CE (250 years)
Pax Romana in the Roman empire (for 190 or 206 years).
See also
Anti-war – Social movement opposed to a nation's status of armed conflict
Catholic peace traditions
Grey-zone (international relations) – State between peace and war
Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace – Peace organization
List of peace activists
List of places named Peace
List of peace prizes
Moral syncretism
Nonkilling – Approach to nonviolence
Nonviolence – Principle or practice of not causing harm to others
Peace education – Interdisciplinary approach to pedagogy of violent conflict and social injustice
Peace in Islamic philosophy – Concept in Islam
Peace Journalism – style and theory of reporting that aims to treat stories about war and conflict with balance in contrast to war journalism
Peace makers – individuals who engage in peacemaking
Peace One Day – Non-profit organization
Peace Palace – International law administrative building in The Hague, Netherlands
Peace symbol – Symbols to promote peace
Perpetual peace – Book-length essay by Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant
Prayer for Peace
Structural violence – Form of violence
Sulh
Turn the other cheek – Phrase from the Sermon on the Mount in Christian doctrine
War resister – Person who resists war
References
"UN Logo and Flag". United Nations. Archived from the original on 26 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
"International Day of Peace 2020 Poster" (PDF). UN.org. United Nations. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.
Galtung, Johan (31 July 1996). Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. ISBN 978-0-8039-7511-8.
"peace". Online Etymology Dictionary. Archived from the original on 14 December 2013.
Benner, Jeff. "Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings: Peace ~ shalom". Ancient Hebrew Research centre. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014.
"Peace Sign". Inner Peace Zone. 28 August 2021. Archived from the original on 20 September 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
Boederman, John, ed. (1997). The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press. p. 832.[volume & issue needed]
Nilsson, Martin P. (1983). Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology. Univ. of California Press. p. 48.
Dowler, Amelia. "Gold coin of Croesus". A History of the World. Archived from the original on 22 January 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
Šmihula, Daniel (2013). The Use of Force in International Relations. VEDA, Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. p. 129. ISBN 978-80-224-1341-1.
"The Role and Responsibilities of the Police" (PDF). Policy Studies Institute. p. xii. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 August 2017. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
Lioe, Kim Eduard (3 December 2010). Armed Forces in Law Enforcement Operations? – The German and European Perspective (1989 ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 52–57. ISBN 978-3-642-15433-1.
Romm, Joseph J. (1993). Defining national security: the nonmilitary aspects. Pew Project on America's Task in a Changed World (Pew Project Series). Council on Foreign Relations. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-87609-135-7. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
Rogers, P (2010). Losing control : global security in the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). London: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745329376. OCLC 658007519.
"Excerpt from the Will of Alfred Nobel". Nobel Foundation. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 31 March 2008.
"To 'render war impossible': the Rhodes Scholarships, educational relations between countries, and peace" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2013. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
Cecil Rhodes's goal of Scholarships promoting peace highlighted – The Rhodes Scholarships Archived 22 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Various materials on peace by Warden of the Rhodes House Donald Markwell in Markwell, "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Connor Court, 2013.
E.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/news/Fulbright_18May12_Arndt.pdf Archived 22 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine, "Honouring J. William Fulbright - the Rhodes Scholarships". Archived from the original on 22 September 2013. Retrieved 26 September 2012.
See, e.g., "The Rhodes Scholarships of China" in Donald Markwell, "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education, Connor Court, 2013.
Benner, Jeff. "Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings: Messiah ~ meshi'ahh". Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014.
"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." [New Revised Standard Version]
Luke 1:76–79
Beaman, Jay; Pipkin, Brian K. (2013). Pentecostal and Holiness Statements on War and Peace. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 98–99. ISBN 9781610979085.
"Article 22. Peace, Justice, and Nonresistance". Mennonite Church USA. Archived from the original on 4 June 2021. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
Quran 13:28
Quran 58:11
McGinn, Bernard (2006). Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism. p. 163.
Richman, Sheldon (29 March 2015). "For Libertarians, There Is Only One Fundamental Right". Reason. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
Vance, Laurence M. (1 October 2015). "The Morality of Libertarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on 24 July 2023. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
Block, Walter. "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". Lew Rockwell. Archived from the original on 24 July 2023. Retrieved 22 March 2016.
Popik, Barry (4 July 2021). ""Good ideas don't require force"". The Big Apple. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
Prabhu, R.K.; Rao, U.R., eds. (1967), "The Gospel Of Sarvodaya", The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi (Revised ed.), Ahemadabad, India, archived from the original on 27 September 2011
"Peace Studies Program". Cornell University. Archived from the original on 22 October 2007.
Quoted from Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 2.
"NATO Review - the end of the "Great Illusion": Norman Angell and the founding of NATO". 14 January 2019. Archived from the original on 10 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
Hegre, Håvard (2014). "Democracy and armed conflict". Journal of Peace Research. 51 (2): 159–172. doi:10.1177/0022343313512852. S2CID 146428562.
Gibler, Douglas M.; Hutchison, Marc L.; Miller, Steven V. (2012). "Individual identity attachments and international conflict: The importance of territorial threat". Comparative Political Studies. 45 (12): 1655–1683. doi:10.1177/0010414012463899. S2CID 154788507.
Hutchison, Marc L.; Gibler, Douglas M. (2007). "Political tolerance and territorial threat: A cross-national study". The Journal of Politics. 69 (1): 128–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00499.x. S2CID 154653996.
Gibler, Douglas M.; Owsiak, Andrew (2017). "Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919-2001". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (9): 1847–1875. doi:10.1177/0022002717708599. S2CID 158036471.
Owsiak, Andrew P.; Vasquez, John A. (2021). "Peaceful dyads: A territorial perspective". International Interactions. 47 (6): 1040–1068. doi:10.1080/03050629.2021.1962859. S2CID 239103213.
Shy, Oz (1996). Industrial Organization: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Miller, Nicholas R. (1985). "Nice Strategies Finish First: A Review of The Evolution of Cooperation". Politics and the Life Sciences. Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. 4 (1): 86–91. doi:10.1017/S0730938400020852. JSTOR 4235437. S2CID 151520743.
Markwell, Donald (2006). John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zimmern, Alfred Eckhard (1936). The League of Nations and the Rule of Law. Macmillan.
Hinsley, F.H. (1962). Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Discussed above. See, e.g., Markwell, Donald (2013). "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Australia: Connor Court Publishing.
"Publications – Strategic Foresight Group, Think Tank, Global Policy, Global affairs research, Water Conflict studies, global policy strategies, strategic policy group, global future studies". strategicforesight.com. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 2 November 2016.
Dugan, 1989: 74
"Vision of Humanity". visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original on 22 February 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013.
Jethro Mullen (25 June 2015). "Study: Iceland is the most peaceful nation in the world". CNN.com. Archived from the original on 7 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
Edmond, Charlotte (8 June 2017). "These are the most peaceful countries in the world". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 15 July 2017. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
"Fragile States 2014". foreignpolicy.com. Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 17 March 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
Zeitvogel, Karin (19 June 2015). "South Sudan Tops List of World's Fragile States – Again". VOA. Archived from the original on 13 August 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015.
Further reading
Sir Norman Angell. The Great Illusion. 1909
Raymond Aron, Peace and War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966
Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society. Macmillan, 1977
Sir Herbert Butterfield. Christianity, Diplomacy and War. 1952
Martin Ceadel. Pacifism in Britain, 1914–1945: The Defining of a Faith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980
Martin Ceadel. Semi-Detached Idealists: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1854–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Martin Ceadel. The Origins of War Prevention: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1730–1854. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
Martin Ceadel. Thinking about Peace and War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987
Inis L. Claude, Jr. Swords into Ploughshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization. 1971
Michael W. Doyle. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. W.W. Norton, 1997
Sir Harry Hinsley. Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962
Andrew Hurrell. On Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
Immanuel Kant. Perpetual Peace. 1795
Martin Luther King Jr.. Letter from Birmingham Jail
Donald Markwell. John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Donald Markwell. "Instincts to Lead": On Leadership, Peace, and Education. Connor Court, 2013
Hans Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations. 1948
Laure Paquette. The Path to Peace
Steven Pinker. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking, 2011
Sir Alfred Eckhard Zimmern. The League of Nations and the Rule of Law. Macmillan, 1936
Kenneth Waltz. Man, the State and War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978
Michael Walzer. Just and Unjust War. Basic Books, 1977
Jeni Whalan. How Peace Operations Work. Oxford University Press, 2013
Martin Wight. Power Politics. 1946 (2nd edition, 1978)
"Pennsylvania, A History of the Commonwealth," esp. pg. 109, edited by Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002
Peaceful Societies, Alternatives to Violence and War Archived 12 April 2022 at the Wayback Machine Short profiles on 25 peaceful societies.
Prefaces to Peace: a Symposium [i.e. anthology], Consisting of [works by] Wendell L. Willkie, Herbert Hoover and Hugh Gibson, Henry A. Wallace, [and] Sumner Welles. "Cooperatively published by Simon and Schuster; Doubleday, Doran, and Co.; Reynal & Hitchcock; [and] Columbia University Press", [194-]. xii, 437 p.
External links
Peace
at Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Resources from Wikiversity
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
Research Guide on Peace by the United Nations Library at Geneva
Peace Monuments Around the World
Peace at Curlie
Working Group on Peace and Development (FriEnt)
Answers to: "How do we achieve world peace?"
vte
Anti-war and peace movement
Peace advocates
Anti-nuclear organizationsAnti-war movementAnti-war organizationsCoalition of Women for PeaceCode PinkConscientious objectorsCountercultureCulture of PeaceGreenham Common Women's Peace CampList of peace activistsPeace and conflict studiesPeace campPeace churchesPeace commissionPeace conferencePeace congressPeace educationPeace movementPeace psychologyPeace treatyPeaceworkerThe Women's Peace CrusadeWar resistersWomen's International League for Peace and Freedom
Ideologies
AhimsaAnarchism Anarcho-pacifismAnarcho-punksChristian anarchismAnti-imperialismAnti-nuclear movementAntimilitarismAppeasementDirect actionFinvenkismoHippieIsolationismNon-interventionismNonkillingNonviolencePacificismPacifismPeaceSatyagrahaSoviet influence on the peace movementTestimony of peaceWorld peace
Media and cultural
ArtBooksConcert Yutel for PeaceDances of Universal PeaceFestival for PeaceFilmsImagine Piano Peace ProjectInternational Day of Non-ViolenceInternational Day of PeaceDialogue Among CivilizationsList of peace prizesList of places named PeaceMonuments and memorialsNobel Peace Prize ConcertMuseumsPeace & Love (festival)Peace journalism Peace NewsPeace One DayPlaysPromoting Enduring PeaceShow of Peace ConcertSongsSymbolsUniversity for PeaceWorld Peace Bell Association Japanese Peace BellWomen in Black
Slogans and tactics
Bed-InCentral Park be-insDraft evasionDie-inFlower powerHuman Be-In"Make love, not war"Peace walk"Soldiers are murderers"Teach-in"The whole world is watching"War tax resisters
Opposition to specific
wars or their aspects
War of 1812American Civil WarSecond Boer WarWorld War IWorld War IIVietnam War list of protestsWar on TerrorIraq War CriticismProtestsAfghanistan WarMilitary action in IranSri Lankan Civil War2011 intervention in LibyaAnti-war protests in Russia (2014)2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in Russiain Russian Far EastLandminesMilitary taxationNuclear armament
Countries
CanadaGermanyIsraelNetherlandsSpainSudanUnited KingdomUnited StatesPeacebuilding in Jammu and Kashmir
Category
vte
International relations
Organizations
Present
BRICSCollective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)International Criminal Court (ICC)Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)United Nations (UN)
Past
League of NationsWarsaw Pact
History
1648–18141814–19191919–1939Diplomatic history of World War IICold WarInternational relations since 1989
Concepts
Alliance EntenteCoalitionAppeasementCollective securityColonialismGrey-zoneHegemonyIdealismInternational communityInternationalismLiberal institutionalismNon-state actorImperialismPeacePowerSovereigntySuzeraintyTreatyWar
Theory
ConstructivismLiberalismMarxist international relations theoryPeace theoriesRealism
Related fields
DiplomacyGeopoliticsInternational law
vte
Social and political philosophy
Ancient
AristotleAugustineChanakyaCiceroConfuciusHan FeiLactantiusLaoziMenciusMoziOrigenPhiloPlatoPlutarchPolybiusShangSun TzuTertullianThucydidesValluvarXenophonXunzi
Medieval
AlpharabiusAquinasAvempaceAverroesBaldusBartolusBruniDanteGelasiusal-GhazaliGilesGratianGregoryIbn KhaldunJohn of SalisburyLatiniMaimonidesMarsiliusMuhammadNizam al-MulkOckhamPhotiosPlethonIbn TufaylWang
Early modern
BezaBoétieBodinBossuetBuchananCalvinCampanellaErasmusFilmerGrotiusGuicciardiniHarringtonHayashiHobbesJamesLeibnizLockeLutherMachiavelliMalebrancheMiltonMontaigneMoreMüntzerNaudéPufendorfSidneySpinozaSuárez
18th–19th-century
BakuninBastiatBeccariaBenthamBlanquiBolingbrokeBonaldBurkeCarlyleComteCondorcetConstantCortésEmersonEngelsFichteFourierFranklinGodwinHallerHamannHegelHelvétiusHerderHumeJeffersonKant political philosophyKierkegaardLe BonLe PlayMadisonMaistreMarxMazziniMillMontesquieuNietzscheNovalisOwenPaineRenanRousseauRoyceSadeSaint-SimonSchillerSmithSpencerSpoonerde StaëlStirnerTaineThoreauTocquevilleTuckerVicoVivekanandaVoltaireWarren
20th–21st-century
AdornoAgambenAmbedkarArendtAronBadiouBaudrillardBaumanBenoistBerlinBernsteinBurnhamButlerCamusChomskyde BeauvoirDebordDeleuzeDeweyDmowskiDu BoisDuginDurkheimDworkinEvolaFoucaultFrommFukuyamaGandhiGehlenGentileGramsciGuénonHabermasHayekHeideggerHoppeHuntingtonIrigarayKautskyKirkKołakowskiKropotkinLaclauLandLeninLuxemburgMacIntyreMansfieldMaoMarcuseMaritainMaurrasMichelsMisesMoscaMouffeNegriNiebuhrNozickNursîOakeshottOrtegaParetoPolanyiPopperQutbRadhakrishnanRandRawlsRöpkeRothbardRussellSantayanaSartreSchmittScrutonSearleShariatiSimmelSkinnerSombartSorelSpannSpenglerStraussSunTaylorVoegelinWalzerWeberWeilŽižek
Social theories
AnarchismAuthoritarianismCollectivismChristian theoriesCommunismCommunitarianismConflict theoriesConfucianism NeoConsensus theoryConservatismContractualismCosmopolitanismCulturalismElite theoryFascismFeminist theoriesGandhismHindu nationalism (Hindutva)IndividualismIslamic theories IslamismLegalismLiberalismLibertarianismMohismMonarchismNationalismPopulismRepublicanismSocial constructionismSocial constructivismSocial DarwinismSocial determinismSocialismUtilitarianism
Related articles
Critique of political economyJurisprudencePhilosophy and economicsPhilosophy of educationPhilosophy of historyPhilosophy of lawPhilosophy of social sciencePolitical ethicsIndex
Category
vte
Virtues
About virtues
EndowmentMoral characterNicomachean EthicsPositive psychologyTrait theoryVirtue ethics
Virtue families
Bodhipakkhiyā dhammāBrahmavihārāsCardinal virtuesCatalogue of Vices and VirtuesEpistemic virtuesFive virtuesFour Cardinal Principles and Eight VirtuesNine Noble VirtuesPāramīsPrussian virtuesScout LawSeven virtuesTeachings of the Seven GrandfathersTheological virtuesThree TreasuresValues in Action Inventory of StrengthsYamas
Individual virtues
AccountabilityAlertnessAltruismAuthenticityCalmnessCharismaCharityChastityChivalryCleanlinessCompassionConscientiousnessCourage CivilMoralCourtesyDiligenceDiscernmentDisciplineDutyEmpathyEnduranceEquanimityEtiquetteFaithFaithfulnessFidelityForesightForgivenessFrugalityGenerosityGloryGood faithGratitudeHeroismHonestyHonourHopeHospitalityHumanityHumilityImpartialityInnocenceInsightIntegrityIntelligence EmotionalSocialJudgementJusticeKindnessLoveLoyaltyMagnanimityMagnificenceMeeknessMercyModerationModestyNonattachmentPatiencePatriotismPerspicacityPhilanthropyPiety FilialPityPolitenessPrudencePunctualityReligionRenunciationResilienceRespectReverenceRighteous indignationRighteousnessSelf-controlSelf-cultivationSelf-transcendenceSimplicitySinceritySolidaritySportsmanshipSympathyTasteTemperanceTranquillityTrustWisdomWitWorkmanship
Chinese
DeJingLiRenYi
Greek
AgapeAreteAtaraxiaEutrapeliaPhilotimoPhronesisSophiaSophrosyne
Indian
AdhiṭṭhānaAhimsaAkrodhaAparigrahaĀrjavaAsteyaBrahmacharyaDānaDhṛtiHrīKaruṇāKshamaKshantiMettāMuditāPrajñāSatyaShauchaSevāŚraddhā/SaddhāUpekṣāVīrya
Latin
AuctoritasCaritasDecorumDignitasFidesGravitasHumanitasPietasVirtus
Other
GanbaruGiriSadaqahSenySisuVirtù
vte
War
Peace (list)Conflicts (list)War concept (lists)Civil wars (list)Attacks (list)Terrorism (list)Warfare (list)Battles (list)Wars (list)List of ongoing armed conflicts
Authority control databases: National Edit this at Wikidata
GermanyJapanCzech RepublicSweden
Categories: PeaceEthical principlesFruit of the Holy SpiritNonviolencePacifismPolitical conceptsSocial conceptsVirtue
Doves as symbols
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry to interrupt, but our fundraiser won't last long
This Tuesday, we ask you to join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just £2, we'd hit our goal in a couple of hours. £2 is all we ask. Give £2
28 November: Wikipedia is still not on the market.
Please don't skip this 1-minute read. We're sorry to interrupt, but our fundraiser won't last long. This Tuesday, 28 November, our nonprofit asks for your support. Wikipedia is free and doesn't rely on ads. Just 2% of our readers donate, so if Wikipedia has given you £2 worth of knowledge, please give. Any contribution helps, whether it's £2 or £25.
Wikimedia Foundation Logo
Proud host of Wikipedia and its sister sites
White doves at the Blue Mosque, Mazar-i-Sharif
Doves, typically domestic pigeons white in plumage, are used in many settings as symbols of peace, freedom, or love. Doves appear in the symbolism of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and paganism, and of both military and pacifist groups.
Mythology
Early fifth-century BC statue of Aphrodite from Cyprus, showing her wearing a cylinder crown and holding a dove
In ancient Mesopotamia, doves were prominent animal symbols of Inanna-Ishtar, the Goddess of Love, Sexuality, and War.[1][2] Doves are shown on cultic objects associated with Inanna as early as the beginning of the third millennium BC.[1] Lead dove figurines were discovered in the temple of Ishtar at Aššur, dating to the thirteenth century BC,[1] and a painted fresco from Mari, Syria shows a giant dove emerging from a palm tree in the temple of Ishtar,[2] indicating that the goddess herself was sometimes believed to take the form of a dove.[2]
In the ancient Levant, doves were used as symbols for the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah.[1][2][3]
The ancient Greek word for "dove" was peristerá,[1][2] which may be derived from the Semitic phrase peraḥ Ištar, meaning "bird of Ishtar".[1] In classical antiquity, doves were sacred to the Greek goddess Aphrodite,[4][5][1][2] who absorbed this association with doves from Inanna-Ishtar.[2] Aphrodite frequently appears with doves in ancient Greek pottery.[4] The temple of Aphrodite Pandemos on the southwest slope of the Athenian Acropolis was decorated with relief sculptures of doves with knotted fillets in their beaks[4] and votive offerings of small, white, marble doves were discovered in the temple of Aphrodite at Daphni.[4] During Aphrodite's main festival, the Aphrodisia, her altars would be purified with the blood of a sacrificed dove.[6] Aphrodite's associations with doves influenced the Roman goddesses Venus and Fortuna, causing them to become associated with doves as well.[3]
In the Japanese mythology, doves are Hachiman's familiar spirit. Hachiman is the syncretic divinity of archery and war incorporating elements from both Shinto and Buddhism.
Judaism
J. E. Millais: The Return of the Dove to the Ark (1851)
According to the biblical story (Genesis 8:11), a dove was released by Noah after the Flood in order to find land; it came back carrying a freshly plucked olive leaf (Hebrew: עלה זית alay zayit),[7] a sign of life after the Flood and of God's bringing Noah, his family and the animals to land. Rabbinic literature interpreted the olive leaf as "the young shoots of the Land of Israel"[8] or the dove's preference for bitter food in God's service, rather than sweet food in the service of men.[9][10][11]
The Talmud compares the spirit of God hovering over the waters to a dove that hovers over her young.[12][13][14]
In post-biblical Judaism, souls are envisioned as bird-like (Bahir 119), a concept that may be derived from the Biblical notion that dead spirits "chirp" (Isa. 29:4). The Guf, or Treasury of Souls, is sometimes described as a columbarium, a dove cote. This connects it to a related legend: the "Palace of the Bird's Nest", the dwelling place of the Messiah's soul until his advent (Zohar II: 8a–9a). The Vilna Gaon explicitly declares that a dove is a symbol of the human soul (Commentary to Jonah, 1). The dove is also a symbol of the people Israel (Song of Songs Rabbah 2:14), an image frequently repeated in Midrash.
Christianity
See also: Sign of the Dove and Christian symbolism § Dove
Dove with an olive branch, Catacombs of Domitilla, Rome
The symbolism of the dove in Christianity is first found in the Old Testament Book of Genesis in the story of Noah's Ark, "And the dove came in to him at eventide; and, lo, in her mouth an olive-leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth". Genesis 8:11 And, also, in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both passages describe after the baptism of Jesus, respectively, as follows, "And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him". Matthew 3:16 and, "And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". Luke 3:22 The Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and appearing in the bodily form of a dove is mentioned in the other two Gospels as well (see Mark 1:10 and John 1:32).
White dove with olive branch pictured in the coat of arms of the Diocese of Tampere
The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also used the image on their sepulchres.[15][16]
Christians derived the symbol of the dove and olive branch from Greek thought, including its use of the symbol of the olive branch,[17] and the story of Noah and the Flood. Although Jews never used the dove as a symbol of peace, it acquired that meaning among early Christians, confirmed by St Augustine of Hippo in his book On Christian Doctrine and became well established.[18]
In Christian Iconography, a dove also symbolizes the Holy Spirit, in reference to Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22 where the Holy Spirit is compared to a dove at the Baptism of Jesus.[19][20]
The early Christians in Rome incorporated into their funerary art the image of a dove carrying an olive branch, often accompanied by the word "Peace". It seems that they derived this image from the simile in the Gospels, combining it with the symbol of the olive branch, which had been used to represent peace by the Greeks and Romans. The dove and olive branch also appeared in Christian images of Noah's ark. The fourth century Vulgate translated the Hebrew alay zayit (leaf of olive) in Genesis 8:11 as Latin ramum olivae (branch of olive). By the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo wrote in On Christian Doctrine that "perpetual peace is indicated by the olive branch (oleae ramusculo) which the dove brought with it when it returned to the ark".
Baptism of Christ, by Francesca, 1449
In the earliest Christian art, the dove represented the peace of the soul rather than civil peace, but from the third century it began to appear in depictions of conflict in the Old Testament, such as Noah and the Ark, and in the Apocrypha, such as Daniel and the lions, the three young men in the furnace, and Susannah and the Elders.[21][22]
Before the Peace of Constantine (313 AD), in which Rome ceased its persecution of Christians following Constantine's conversion, Noah was normally shown in an attitude of prayer, a dove with an olive branch flying toward him or alighting on his outstretched hand. According to Graydon Snyder, "The Noah story afforded the early Christian community an opportunity to express piety and peace in a vessel that withstood the threatening environment" of Roman persecution.[21] According to Ludwig Budde and Pierre Prigent, the dove referred to the descending of the Holy Spirit rather than the peace associated with Noah. After the Peace of Constantine, when persecution ceased, Noah appeared less frequently in Christian art.[21]
Medieval illuminated manuscripts, such as the Holkham Bible, showed the dove returning to Noah with a branch.[23] Wycliffe's Bible, which translated the Vulgate into English in the 14th century, uses "a braunche of olyue tre with greene leeuys" ("a branch of olive tree with green leaves") in Gen. 8:11.[24] In the Middle Ages, some Jewish illuminated manuscripts also showed Noah's dove with an olive branch, for example, the Golden Haggadah (about 1420).[25][26]
Mandaeism
In Mandaeism, white doves, known as ba in Mandaic, symbolize the spirit (ruha in Mandaic). Sacrifices of white doves are also performed during some Mandaean rituals such as the Ṭabahata Masiqta.[27]
Islam
Doves and the pigeon family in general are respected and favoured because they are believed to have assisted the final Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, in distracting his pursuers outside the cave of Thaw'r, in the great Hijra.[28] As the Prophet took refuge within the cave, a pair of pigeons and a spider were sent to settle at the entrance of the cave; the spider creating a web and the pigeons creating a nest that they laid eggs in. Thus, the Prophet's pursuers assumed that, as both animals wouldn't have settled there if there were any disturbances, the Prophet and his companion Abu Bakar couldn't have taken refuge there, sparing them from capture.[28]
Peace and pacifism in politics
White dove with olive branch, stained glass window in the Denis and Saint Sebastian church in Kruft, Germany
Doves are often associated with the concept of peace and pacifism. They often appear in political cartoons, on banners and signs at events promoting peace (such as the Olympic Games, at various anti-war/anti-violence protests, etc.), and in pacifist literature. A person who is a pacifist is sometimes referred to as a dove (similarly, in American politics, a person who advocates the use of military resources as opposed to diplomacy can be referred to as a hawk).
Picasso's lithograph, La Colombe (The Dove), a traditional, realistic picture of a pigeon, without an olive branch, was chosen as the emblem for the World Peace Council in Paris in April 1949.[29] At the 1950 World Peace Congress in Sheffield, Picasso said that his father had taught him to paint doves, concluding, "I stand for life against death; I stand for peace against war."[30][31] At the 1952 World Peace Congress in Berlin, Picasso's Dove was depicted in a banner above the stage. Anti-communists had their own take on the peace dove: the group Paix et Liberté distributed posters titled La colombe qui fait BOUM (the dove that goes BOOM), showing the peace dove metamorphosing into a Soviet tank.[32]
Royal Air Force
Tactical Communications Wing RAF
The rock dove, due to its relation to the homing pigeon and thus communications, is the main image in the crest of the Tactical Communications Wing, a body within the Royal Air Force.
See also
Nonviolence
Peace symbols
References
Botterweck, G. Johannes; Ringgren, Helmer (1990). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 35–36. ISBN 0-8028-2330-0.
Lewis, Sian; Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd (2018). The Culture of Animals in Antiquity: A Sourcebook with Commentaries. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 335. ISBN 978-1-315-20160-3.
The Enduring Symbolism of Doves, From Ancient Icon to Biblical Mainstay by Dorothy D. Resig BAR Magazine Archived 31 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Bib-arch.org (9 February 2013). Retrieved on 5 March 2013.
Cyrino, Monica S. (2010). Aphrodite. Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. pp. 120–123. ISBN 978-0-415-77523-6.
Tinkle, Theresa (1996). Medieval Venuses and Cupids: Sexuality, Hermeneutics, and English Poetry. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0804725156.
Simon, Erika (1983). Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Companion. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-09184-8.
Gen 8:11
Genesis Rabbah, 33:6
"Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 108b". Halakhah.com. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
"Eruvin 18b" (PDF). Retrieved 21 February 2012.
"Rashi". Tachash.org. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
"Talmud, Tractate Moed, Hagiga 15a" (PDF). Retrieved 21 February 2012.
"Jewish Encyclopedia". Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
Franciscan Fellowship
James Elmes, A General and Bibliographical Dictionary of the Fine Arts, London: Thomas Tegg, 1826
"Catholic Encyclopedia, Roman Catacombs: Paintings". Newadvent.org. 1 November 1908.
Graydon F. Snyder, "The Interaction of Jews with Non-Jews in Rome", in Karl P. Donfreid and Peter Richardson, Judaism and Christianity in Early Rome, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Ferdman, 1998
Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine. 1883. ISBN 9781593774943.[permanent dead link]
Mt 3:16
"Catholic Encyclopedia, Dove: As an artistic symbol". Newadvent.org. 1 May 1909.
Graydon D. Snyder, Ante Pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine, Macon: Mercer University Press, 2003
"John Dominic Crossan, Inventory of Biblical Scenes on Pre-Constantinian Christian Art". Faculty.maryvillecollege.edu. Archived from the original on 25 March 2012. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
"British Library, The Holkham Bible". Bl.uk. 30 November 2003.
"Wycliffe Bible, Gen 8:11". Studylight.org. Retrieved 21 February 2012.
Narkiss, Bezalel, The Golden Haggadah, London: The British Library, 1997, p. 22
British Library, Online Gallery, Sacred Texts. The Golden Haggadah, p.3, lower left hand panel.
Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen (2002). The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515385-5. OCLC 65198443.
"The Dawn of Prophethood". Al-Islam.org. 18 October 2012.
"Museum of Modern Art". Moma.org. 9 January 1949. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
"Tate Gallery". Tate.org.uk. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
"BBC Modern Masters". 1 January 1970. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
"Princeton University Library". Infoshare1.princeton.edu. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
External links
Media related to Symbolic doves at Wikimedia Commons
vte
Pigeons and doves (Columbidae)
Common Domestic Feral
Life and behavior
Crop milk Intelligence Olfactory navigation Sarcocystis calchasi
Breeds and types
Fancy
Fantail Pouter Trumpeter Flying/Sporting
Roller Tippler Tumbler Homing Utility
Squab
Relationship with humans
As food Domestication Dovecote IP over Avian Carriers Fancying
Bird fancier's lung Photography Post Sport
Clay pigeon Racing Shooting Pigeon whistle Release dove Symbols War
Organizations
American Racing Pigeon Union National Pigeon Service Royal Pigeon Racing Association
British Homing World Show of the Year Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons United States Army Pigeon Service Up North Combine
Related
Wild pigeon genera Wild pigeon species
Category
vte
Heraldry
Authorities Grant of arms History Law of arms Officers of arms
King of Arms herald pursuivant private
Types
National
dominion civic Ecclesiastical
papal Burgher Women Attributed
Topics
Armiger Augmentation
abatement Alliance
courtesy Blazon Cadency
distinction Canting Field
divisions variations Fraud Marshalling
quartering impalement
Achievement
Coat of arms Crowns and coronets Crest Compartment Escutcheon Helmet Mantling
pavilion Motto
slogan Supporter Torse
Charges
Attitudes Erasure Fimbriation Lines
Ordinaries
Bar Bend Bezant Bordure Canton Chevron (Łękawica) Componée Cross Crozier head Chief Fess Flaunch Goutte Gyron Hamade Inescutcheon Label Lozenge Orle Pale Pall Pile Roundel Saltire
Beasts
Bear Boar Bull/ox Dog/hound Camelopard Hind/stag Kangaroo Leopard Lion Wolf
Birds
Alerion Black swan Cock Crow Dove Eagle
Szaszor Przepaska Martlet Pelican
Other
Bee Dolphin Ged Crapaudy Emmet Lucy Reremouse Scallop Serpent Wolfsangel
Legendary
Allocamelus Alphyn Amphiptere Basilisk Biscione Chollima Cockatrice Dragon Enfield Garuda Griffin/Keythong Harpy Hippocampus Hippogriff Lampago Lindworm Manticore Mermaid Ouroboros Pantheon Panther Pegasus Phoenix Salamander Sea-griffin Sea-lion Tyger Unicorn Winged lion Woodwose Wyvern Yale
Plants
Fleur-de-lis Laurel wreath Oak Quatrefoil Rose Shamrock
Trefoil Thistle Turnip
Knots
Bourchier Bowen Cavendish/Savoy Dacre Harrington Hastings/Hungerford Heneage Hinckaert Hungerford knot Lacy Ormonde/Wake Savoy Stafford Tristram/Bowen Wake
Tinctures
Rule of tincture Tricking Hatching
Metals
Argent (white) Or (gold)
Colours
Gules (red) Sable (black) Azure (blue) Vert (green) Purpure (purple)1
Furs
Ermine
Ermines Erminois Erminites Pean Vair
Potent
Stains
Murrey (mulberry) Sanguine (blood red) Tenné
Rare metals1
Copper Buff (metal in the United States)
Rare colours1
Bleu celeste Brunâtre (brown) Buff (color in Canada) Cendrée Ochre Orange Rose
Realistic
Proper Carnation
Applications
Bookplate Hatchment Flag
banner of arms Badge Roll of arms
Colony Europe Illyrian Seal
equestrian Tabard Trophy of arms
Related
Traditions by country Mon Emblem
socialist Logotype Phaleristics Vexillology Heraldry societies Sigillography
1 Non-traditional, regional, or rarely used (sometimes considered unheraldic) List of oldest heraldry Heraldry portal
resources
Categories:
Columba (genus)SymbolismMetaphors referring to birdsLegendary birdsFictional ColumbidaeComparative mythologyWhite symbolsBirds in religionInanna
Israeli–Palestinian peace process
Article
Talk
Read
View source
View history
Tools
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Israeli–Palestinian
peace process
History
Camp David Accords 1978
Madrid Conference 1991
Oslo Accords 1993 / 95
Hebron Protocol 1997
Wye River Memorandum 1998
Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum 1999
Camp David Summit 2000
The Clinton Parameters 2000
Taba Summit 2001
Road Map 2003
Agreement on Movement and Access 2005
Annapolis Conference 2007
Mitchell-led talks 2010–11
Kerry-led talks 2013–14
Primary concerns
Final bordersIsraeli settlementsPalestinian enclavesJewish state
Palestinian political violence
Palestinian refugees
Security concerns
Status of Jerusalem
Zionist political violence
Secondary concerns
Israeli West Bank barrier
Places of worship
Fatah–Hamas conflict
Water
Electricity
International brokers
The "Quartet"
(United NationsUnited States
European UnionRussia)
Arab League
EgyptJordan
United KingdomFrance
Proposals
One-state solution:
Isratin
Elon Peace Plan
Two-state solution:
Fahd Plan
Allon Plan
Arab Peace Initiative
Geneva Initiative
Lieberman Plan
Israeli Peace Initiative
Palestinian Prisoners' Document
Trump Peace Plan
Three-state solution
Israeli unilateral plans:
Hafrada
Disengagement
Realignment
Projects / groups / NGOs
Peace-orientated projects
Israeli–Palestinian economic peace efforts
Valley of Peace
Middle East economic integration
Alliance for Middle East Peace
Peres Center for Peace
vte
Intermittent discussions are held by various parties and proposals put forward in an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a peace process.[1] Since the 1970s, there has been a parallel effort made to find terms upon which peace can be agreed to in both the Arab–Israeli conflict and in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Some countries have signed peace treaties, such as the Egypt–Israel (1979) and Jordan–Israel (1994) treaties, whereas some have not yet found a mutual basis to do so.
William B. Quandt, in the introduction of his book Peace Process, says:
Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process became widely used to describe the American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world's most difficult conflicts. In the years since 1967 the emphasis in Washington has shifted from the spelling out of the ingredients of "peace" to the "process" of getting there. … The United States has provided both a sense of direction and a mechanism. That, at its best, is what the peace process has been about. At worst, it has been little more than a slogan used to mask the marking of time.[2]
Since the 2003 road map for peace, the current outline for a Palestinian–Israeli peace agreement has been a two-state solution; however, a number of Israeli and US interpretations of this propose a series of non-contiguous Palestinian enclaves.
Views of the peace process
Palestinian views on the peace process
Main article: Palestinian views on the peace process
Palestinians have held diverse views and perceptions of the peace process. A key starting point for understanding these views is an awareness of the differing objectives sought by advocates of the Palestinian cause. 'New Historian' Israeli academic Ilan Pappe says the cause of the conflict from a Palestinian point of view dates back to 1948 with the creation of Israel (rather than Israel's views of 1967 being the crucial point and the return of occupied territories being central to peace negotiations), and that the conflict has been a fight to bring home refugees to a Palestinian state.[3] Therefore, this for some was the ultimate aim of the peace process, and for groups such as Hamas still is. However Slater says that this "maximalist" view of a destruction of Israel in order to regain Palestinian lands, a view held by Arafat and the PLO initially, has steadily moderated from the late 1960s onwards to a preparedness to negotiate and instead seek a two-state solution.[4] The Oslo Accords demonstrated the recognition of this acceptance by the then Palestinian leadership of the state of Israel's right to exist in return for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and West Bank.[5] However, there are recurrent themes prevalent throughout peace process negotiations including a feeling that Israel offers too little and a mistrust of its actions and motives.[3][6] Yet, the demand for a right of return by the Palestinian refugees to Israel has remained a cornerstone of the Palestinian view and has been repeatedly enunciated by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas who is leading the Palestinian peace effort.[7]
Israeli views on the peace process
Main article: Israeli views on the peace process
There are several Israeli views of the peace process. The official position of the State of Israel is that peace ought to be negotiated on the basis of giving up some control of the occupied territories in return for a stop to the conflict and violence.[8] Israel's position is that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ought to be the negotiating partner in the peace talks, and not Hamas, which has at times engaged with Israel in escalations of the conflict and attacks Israel's civilian population.[9][10] The Oslo Accords and the Camp David 2000 summit negotiations revealed the possibility of a two state system being accepted by Israeli leadership as a possible peace solution.
The two-state solution is the consensus position among the majority of Israelis.[11] However, the violence of the second intifada and the political success of Hamas (a group dedicated to Israel's destruction)[12] have convinced many Israelis that peace and negotiation are not possible and that a two-state system is not the answer.[5] Hardliners believe that Israel should annex all Palestinian territory, or at least all minus the Gaza Strip.[5] Israelis view the peace process as hindered and near impossible due to terrorism on the part of Palestinians and do not trust Palestinian leadership to maintain control.[5] In fact, Pedahzur goes as far as to say that suicide terrorism succeeded where peace negotiations failed in encouraging withdrawal by Israelis from cities in the West Bank.[13] A common theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians give too little in their peace offers.
US views on the peace process
Total US foreign aid to Israel compared to other countries. 1946-2022.[14]
US officials, citizens and lobbying groups hold divergent views on the peace process. All recent US Presidents have maintained a policy that Israel must give up some of the land that it conquered in the 1967 war in order to achieve peace;[15] that the Palestinians must actively prevent terrorism; and that Israel has an unconditional right to exist. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush publicly supported the creation of a new Palestinian state out of most of the current Palestinian territories, based on the idea of self-determination for the Palestinian people,[16] and President Obama continued that policy.[17] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thought that peace can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.[18] Obama outlined the pursuit of the two-state solution as American policy for achieving Palestinian aspirations, Israeli security, and a measure of stability in the Middle East.[19]
According to the sociologist Mervin Verbit, American Jews are "more right than left" on peace process issues. Verbit found that surveys of American Jews often reflect the view of the poll's sponsors. Often it is the wording of the survey questions that bias the outcome (a headline illustrating this point reads "ADL poll shows higher support for Israel than did survey by dovish J Street"). Using survey data from the American Jewish Committee where findings could not be attributed to wording biases, Verbit found American Jews took a rightward shift following the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000, and the 9/11 attacks in 2001.[20]
Qatar's initiative for peace
On October 7, 2023, Israel and Palestine started an extensive armed conflict. Due to its escalation, On October 9, 2023, Qatari mediators made urgent talks to attempt to arrange the release of 36 Palestinian women and children from Israeli prisons in exchange for the release of Israeli women and children held by the militant group that were being detained in Gaza. Positive progress is being made in the ongoing negotiations, which Qatar has been undertaking in collaboration with the United States.[21][22]
Major current issues between the two sides
See also: History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
There are numerous issues to resolve before a lasting peace can be reached, including the following:
The 1949 Green Line borders
Borders and division of the land;
Strong emotions relating to the conflict on both sides;
Palestinian concerns over Israeli settlements in the West Bank;
The status of Jerusalem;
Security concerns over terrorism, safe borders, incitements, violence;
Right of return of Palestinian refugees living in the Palestinian diaspora.
From the Israeli perspective, a key concern is security, and whether the major Palestinian figures and institutions are in fact trying to fight terrorism and promote tolerance and co-existence with Israel. Israeli concerns are based on abundant documentary and empirical evidence of many Palestinian leaders having in fact promoted and supported terrorist groups and activities. Furthermore, there is much concrete evidence of Palestinians having supported and expressed incitement against Israel, its motives, actions, and basic rights as a state. The election of Hamas has provided evidence for this view, with the Hamas charter stating unequivocally that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist.[23] However, there remain some activists on the Palestinian side who claim that there are still some positive signs on the Palestinian side, and that Israel should use these to cultivate some positive interactions with the Palestinians, even in spite of Hamas's basic opposition to the existence of the Jewish State. Since mid-June 2007, Israel has cooperated with Palestinian security forces in the West Bank at unprecedented levels, thanks in part to United States-sponsored training, equipping, and funding of the Palestinian National Security Forces and Presidential Guard.[24]
A further concern is whether, as a result of this security argument, Israel will in fact allow the Palestinian community to emerge as a viable and sovereign political unit, a viable and contiguous state. There are also various economic and political restrictions placed on Palestinian people, activities, and institutions which have had a detrimental effect on the Palestinian economy and quality of life.[25] Israel has said repeatedly that these restrictions are necessary due to security concerns, and in order to counteract ongoing efforts which promote terrorism which incite opposition to Israel's existence and rights as a country. The key obstacle therefore remains the Israeli demand for security versus Palestinian claims for rights and statehood.[26]
Furthermore, the identification of 'Palestinian' with 'terrorist' can be construed as problematic, and Sayigh argues that this association is used as a rationale for maintaining the status quo, and that only by recognising the status of Jewish immigrants as 'settlers' can we conceptually move forwards.[27] However, it is the case that the Palestinian resort to militancy has made such conceptual clarity difficult to achieve.
Israeli West Bank barrier in Bethlehem
Nevertheless, there is a range of ulterior motives for Israel's denial of Palestinian statehood. If Palestine were declared a state, then immediately, Israel, by its present occupation of the West Bank will be in breach of the United Nations Charter. Palestine, as a state, could legitimately call upon the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter to remove Israel from the occupied territories. Palestine, as a state, would be able to accede to international conventions and bring legal action against Israel on various matters. Palestine could accede to various international human rights instruments, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It could even join the International Criminal Court and file cases against Israel for war crimes. It would be a tinderbox of a situation that is highly likely to precipitate conflict in the Middle East.[28]
There is a lively debate around the shape that a lasting peace settlement would take (see for example the One-state solution and Two-state solution). Authors like Cook have argued that the one-state solution is opposed by Israel because the very nature of Zionism and Jewish nationalism calls for a Jewish majority state, whilst the two-state solution would require the difficult relocation of half a million Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.[29] The Palestinian leaders such as Salam Fayyad have rejected calls for a binational state or unilateral declaration of statehood. As of 2010, only a minority of Palestinians and Israelis support the one-state solution.[30] Interest in a one-state solution is growing, however, as the two-state approach fails to accomplish a final agreement.[31][32]
Background
Peace efforts with confrontation states
[icon]
This section needs expansion with: Efforts with Egypt, Jordan, Syria post 1973. You can help by adding to it. (September 2014)
There were parallel efforts for peace treaties between Israel and other "confrontation states": Egypt, Jordan and Syria after the Six-Day war, and Lebanon afterwards.[33][34] UN resolution 242 was accepted by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, but rejected by Syria until 1972–1973.[35]
In 1970, US Secretary of State William P. Rogers proposed the Rogers Plan, which called for a 90-day cease-fire, a military standstill zone on each side of the Suez Canal, and an effort to reach agreement in the framework of UN Resolution 242. Israel rejected the plan on 10 December 1969, calling it "an attempt to appease [the Arabs] at the expense of Israel." The Soviets dismissed it as "one-sided" and "pro-Israeli." President Nasser rejected it because it was a separate deal with Israel even if Egypt recovered all of Sinai.[36][37]
No breakthrough occurred even after President Sadat in 1972 surprised most observers by suddenly expelling Soviet military advisers from Egypt and again signaled to the United States government his willingness to negotiate based on the Rogers plan.
Arab–Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties
Main article: Arab–Israeli normalization
Recognition of Israel only
Recognition of Israel, with some relations to Palestinian State
Recognition of both Israel and Palestinian State
Recognition of Palestinian State, with some relations to Israel
Recognition of Palestinian State only
1949 Armistice Agreements
Allon Plan (1967-80)
Rogers Plan (1969)
Geneva Conference (1973)
Camp David Accords (1978)
Egypt–Israel peace treaty (1979)
Madrid Conference of 1991
Oslo Accords (1993)
Israel–Jordan peace treaty (1994)
2000 Camp David Summit
Timeline
Part of this section is transcluded from Two-state solution. (edit | history)
Madrid (1991–93)
Main article: Madrid Conference of 1991
In 1991, Israel and the Arab countries directly involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict came to the Madrid Peace Conference, called by US president George H. W. Bush (with the help of Secretary of State James Baker) after the First Gulf War.[38] The talks continued in Washington, DC, but yielded only few results.
Oslo (1993-2001)
Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony on 13 September 1993
Main article: Oslo Accords
While the slow moving Madrid talks were taking place, a series of secret meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were taking place in Oslo, Norway, which resulted in the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel, a plan discussing the necessary elements and conditions for a future Palestinian state "on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338".[39] The agreement, officially titled the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP), was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993.
Various "transfers of power and responsibilities" in the Gaza Strip and West Bank from Israel to the Palestinians took place in the mid-1990s.[40] The Palestinians achieved self-governance of major cities in the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. Israel maintained and continues to maintain a presence in the West Bank for security reasons. In 2013 Israel still had control of 61% of the West Bank, while the Palestinians had control of civic functions for most of the Palestinian population.
After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, the peace process eventually ground to a halt. The settlements' population almost doubled in the West Bank. Later suicide bombing attacks from Palestinian militant groups and the subsequent retaliatory actions from the Israeli military made conditions for peace negotiations untenable.
1996–99 agreements
Newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared a new policy following the many suicide attacks by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad since 1993, including a wave of suicide attacks prior to the Israeli elections of May 1996. Netanyahu declared a tit-for-tat policy which he termed "reciprocity," whereby Israel would not engage in the peace process if Arafat continued with what Netanyahu defined as the Palestinian revolving door policy, i.e., incitement and direct or indirect support of terrorism. The Hebron and Wye Agreements were signed during this period, after Israel considered that its conditions were partially met.
Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, also known as the Hebron Protocol or Hebron Agreement, began 7 January and was concluded from 15 to 17 January 1997 between Israel and the PLO. The agreement dealt with the redeployment of Israeli military forces in Hebron in accordance with the Oslo Accords, security issues and other concerns.
The Wye River Memorandum was a political agreement negotiated to implement the Oslo Accords, completed on 23 October 1998. It was signed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was negotiated at Wye River, Maryland (at the Wye River Conference Center) and signed at the White House with President Bill Clinton as the official witness. On 17 November 1998, Israel's 120-member parliament, the Knesset, approved the Memorandum by a vote of 75–19. The agreement dealt with further redeployments in the West Bank, security issues and other concerns.
Camp David 2000 Summit, Clinton's "Parameters," and the Taba talks
Main article: 2000 Camp David Summit
In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In May of that year, according to Nathan Thrall, Israel had offered Palestinians 66% of the West Bank, with 17% annexed to Israel, and a further 17% not annexed but under Israeli control, and no compensating swap of Israeli territory.[41] The Israeli prime minister offered the Palestinian leader between 91%[note 1] and 95%[42][43] (sources differ on the exact percentage) of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip if 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. East Jerusalem would have fallen for the most part[44] under Israeli sovereignty, with the exception of most suburbs with heavy non-Jewish populations surrounded by areas annexed to Israel.[45] The issue of the Palestinian right of return would be solved through significant monetary reparations.[46]
Arafat rejected this offer and did not propose a counter-offer.[47][48][49] No tenable solution was crafted which would satisfy both Israeli and Palestinian demands, even under intense U.S. pressure.[47] Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit.[47][49] In the months following the summit, Clinton appointed former US Senator George J. Mitchell to lead a fact-finding committee that later published the Mitchell Report.
Proposed in the fall of 2000 following the collapse of the Camp David talks, The Clinton Parameters included a plan on which the Palestinian State was to include 94-96% of the West Bank, and around 80% of the settlers were to become under Israeli sovereignty, and in exchange for that, Israel would concede some territory (so called 'Territory Exchange' or 'Land Swap') within the Green Line (1967 borders). The swap would consist of 1–3% of Israeli territory, such that the final borders of the West Bank part of the Palestinian state would include 97% of the land of the original borders.[50]
At the Taba summit (at Taba) in January 2001 talks continued based on the Clinton Parameters. The Israeli negotiation team presented a new map. The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas from the West Bank and offered a few thousand more refugees than they offered at Camp David to settle into Israel and hoped that this would be considered "implementation" of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.[51][52] The Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation. However, Barak did not conduct further negotiations at that time; the talks ended without an agreement and the following month the right-wing Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon was elected Israeli prime minister in February 2001.
The Arab peace initiative and the Roadmap (2002/3)
Main articles: Arab Peace Initiative, Road map for peace, and Beirut Summit
The Beirut summit of Arab government leaders took place in March 2002 under the aegis of the Arab League. The summit concluded by presenting a plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it and said, "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya",[53] referring to the Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on the previous evening which the Beirut Summit failed to address. Israel was not prepared to enter negotiations as called for by the Arab League plan on the grounds that it did not wish for "full withdrawal to 1967 borders and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees".[54]
President George W. Bush, center, discusses the peace process with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Aqaba, Jordan, 4 June 2003.
In July 2002, the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia, outlined the principles of a "road map" for peace, including an independent Palestinian state. The road map was released in April 2003 after the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas (AKA Abu Mazen) as the first-ever Palestinian Authority Prime Minister. Both the US and Israel called for a new Prime Minister position, as both refused to work with Arafat anymore.
The plan called for independent actions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with disputed issues put off until a rapport can be established. In the first step, the Palestinian Authority must "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere" and a "rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus" must "begin sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure." Israel was then required to dismantle settlements established after March 2001, freeze all settlement activity, remove its army from Palestinian areas occupied after 28 September 2000, end curfews and ease restrictions on movement of persons and goods.
Israeli–Palestinian talks in 2007 and 2008
From December 2006 to mid-September 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority met 36 times; there were also lower-level talks. In 2007 Olmert welcomed the Arab League's re-endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative. In his bid to negotiate a peace accord and establish a Palestinian state, Olmert proposed a plan to the Palestinians.[55] The centerpiece of Olmert's detailed proposal is the suggested permanent border, which would be based on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank. Olmert proposed annexing at least 6.3% of Palestinian territory, in exchange for 5.8% of Israeli land, with Palestinians receiving alternative land in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, as well as territorial link, under Israeli sovereignty, for free passage between Gaza and the West Bank. Israel insisted on retaining an armed presence in the future Palestinian state.[41][56] Under Abbas's offer, more than 60 percent of settlers would stay in place. Olmert, for his part, was presenting a plan in which the most sparsely populated settlements would be evacuated. Olmert and Abbas both acknowledged that reciprocal relations would be necessary, not hermetic separation. They also acknowledged the need to share a single business ecosystem, while cooperating intensively on water, security, bandwidth, banking, tourism and much more. Regarding Jerusalem the leaders agreed that Jewish neighborhoods should remain under Israeli sovereignty, while Arab neighborhoods would revert to Palestinian sovereignty.[55] The Palestinians asked for clarifications of the territorial land swap since they were unable to ascertain what land his percentages affected, since Israeli and Palestinian calculations of the West Bank differ by several hundred square kilometres. For them, in lieu of such clarifications, Olmert's 6.3–6.8% annexation might work out closer to 8.5%, 4 times the 1.9% limit the Palestinians argued a swap should not exceed.[41] The talks ended with both sides claiming the other side dropped follow-up contacts.[41][56]
Following the conflict that erupted between the two main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, splintering the Palestinian Authority into two polities, each claiming to be the true representatives of the Palestinian people. Fatah controlled the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and Hamas governed in Gaza. Hostilities between Gaza and Israel increased.[citation needed] Egypt brokered the 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire, which lasted half a year beginning on 19 June 2008 and lasted until 19 December 2008.[57] The collapse of the ceasefire led to the Gaza War on 27 December 2008.
2010 direct talks
Main article: 2010–2011 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks
See also: 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign
In June 2009, reacting to US President Barack Obama's Cairo Address,[41] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared for the first time[58] conditional support for a future Palestinian state[59] but insisted that the Palestinians would need to make reciprocal gestures and accept several principles: recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel;[60] Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return. He also claimed that Israeli settlements retain a right to growth and expansion in the West Bank. Palestinians rejected the proposals immediately.[61] In September 2010, the Obama administration pushed to revive the stalled peace process by getting the parties involved to agree to direct talks for the first time in about two years.[62] While U.S. President Barack Obama was the orchestrator of the movement, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went through months of cajoling just to get the parties to the table, and helped convince the reluctant Palestinians by getting support for direct talks from Egypt and Jordan.[62][63] The aim of the talks was to forge the framework of a final agreement within one year, although general expectations of a success were fairly low. The talks aimed to put the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to an official end by forming a two-state solution for the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, promoting the idea of everlasting peace and putting an official halt to any further land claims, as well as accepting the rejection of any forceful retribution if violence should reoccur. Hamas and Hezbollah, however threatened violence, especially if either side seemed likely to compromise in order to reach an agreement. As a result, the Israeli government publicly stated that peace couldn't exist even if both sides signed the agreement, due to the stance taken by Hamas and Hezbollah. The US was therefore compelled to re-focus on eliminating the threat posed by the stance of Hamas and Hezbollah as part of the direct talk progress. Israel for its part, was skeptical that a final agreement was reached that the situation would change, as Hamas and Hezbollah would still get support to fuel new violence. In addition, the Israeli government rejected any possible agreement with Palestine as long as it refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
This is in accordance with the principle of the two-state solution, first proposed in the 1980s. The mainstream within the PLO have taken the concept of territorial and diplomatic compromise seriously and have showed serious interest in this.[64] During the 2010 talks, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinians and Israel have agreed on the principle of a land swap, but Israel has yet to confirm. The issue of the ratio of land Israel would give to the Palestinians in exchange for keeping settlement blocs is an issue of dispute, with the Palestinians demanding that the ratio be 1:1, and Israel offering less.[65] In April 2012, Mahmoud Abbas sent a letter to Benjamin Netanyahu reiterating that for peace talks to resume, Israel must stop settlement building in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and accept the 1967 borders as a basis for a two-state solution.[66][67] In May 2012, Abbas reiterated his readiness to engage with the Israelis if they propose "anything promising or positive".[68] Netanyahu replied to Abbas' April letter less than a week later and, for the first time, officially recognised the right for Palestinians to have their own state, though as before[69] he declared it would have to be demilitarised,[70] and said his new national unity government furnished a new opportunity to renew negotiations and move forward.[71]
2013–14 talks
Main article: 2013–2014 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks
Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians began on 29 July 2013 following an attempt by United States Secretary of State John Kerry to restart the peace process.
Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. was appointed by the US to oversee the negotiations. Indyk served as U.S. ambassador to Israel and assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs during the Clinton administration.[72] Hamas, the Palestinian government in Gaza, rejected Kerry's announcement, stating that Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has no legitimacy to negotiate in the name of the Palestinian people.[73]
The negotiations were scheduled to last up to nine months to reach a final status to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by mid-2014. The Israeli negotiating team was led by veteran negotiator Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, while the Palestinian delegation was led by Saeb Erekat, also a former negotiator. Negotiations started in Washington, DC[74] and were slated to move to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and finally to Hebron.[75] A deadline was set for establishing a broad outline for an agreement by 29 April 2014. On the expiry of the deadline, negotiations collapsed, with the US Special Envoy Indyk reportedly assigning blame mainly to Israel, while the US State Department insisting no one side was to blame but that "both sides did things that were incredibly unhelpful."[76]
Israel reacted angrily to the Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement of 23 April 2014 whose main purpose was reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, the formation of a Palestinian unity government and the holding of new elections.[77] Israel halted peace talks with the Palestinians, saying it "will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for Israel's destruction", and threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority,[78][79] including a previously announced Israeli plan to unilaterally deduct Palestinian debts to Israeli companies from the tax revenue Israel collects for the PA.[80] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Abbas of sabotaging peace efforts. He said that Abbas cannot have peace with both Hamas and Israel and has to choose.[81][82] Abbas said the deal did not contradict their commitment to peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution[83] and assured reporters that any unity government would recognize Israel, be non-violent, and bound to previous PLO agreements.[84] Shortly after, Israel began implementing economic sanctions against Palestinians and canceled plans to build housing for Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank.[85] Abbas also threatened to dissolve the PA, leaving Israel fully responsible for both the West Bank and Gaza,[86] a threat that the PA has not put into effect.[87]
Notwithstanding Israeli objections and actions, the new Palestinian Unity Government was formed on 2 June 2014.[88]
Abbas' 2014 peace plan
On 3 September 2014, Abbas presented a new proposal for the peace process to John Kerry.[89][90] The plan called for nine months of direct talks followed by a three-year plan for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines, leaving East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital.[91] The resumption of talks was contingent on an Israeli freeze on construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem,[92] as well as the release of the final batch of prisoners from the previous talks.[93] The first three months of the plan would revolve around the borders and potential land swaps for the 1967 lines. The following six months would focus on issues including refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security and water.[94] The US administration rejected the initiative, saying it was opposed to any unilateral move that could negatively impact the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.[90]
Abbas stated that if Israel rejected the claim he would push for charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court over the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.[92] Additionally, if rejected, Abbas stated he would turn to the UN Security Council for a unilateral measure for a Palestinian State.[90] On 1 October 2014, Abbas stated he would be presenting his plan to the UNSC within two to three weeks, with an application to the ICC to follow if it failed to pass the UNSC.[95] In December 2014, Jordan submitted the proposal to the UNSC, which failed when voted on later that month.[citation needed] Later that month as previously threatened, Abbas signed the treaty to join the ICC.[96] Israel responded by freezing NIS 500 million (US$127 million) in Palestinian tax revenues,[97] in response to which, the PA banned the sale in the Palestinian territories of products of six major Israeli companies.[98]
Trump plan
Trump plan map
Further information: Trump peace plan
Following the inauguration of US President Donald Trump in January 2017, a period of uncertainty regarding a new peace initiative began. In early 2018, some media sources reported the new administration was preparing a new peace initiative for an Israeli-Palestinian deal. The White House unveiled the economic part of the Trump initiative, titled Peace to Prosperity: The Economic Plan, in June 2019,[99] and the political portion of the plan in January 2020. Palestinian leaders boycotted and condemned the Bahrain conference in late June 2019 at which the economic plan was unveiled.
In December 2017, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas cut ties with the Trump administration after United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. The Trump administration further raised Palestinians' ire when it moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018, and cut hundreds of millions of dollars in annual aid to the Palestinians, citing the PA's refusal to take part in the administration's peace initiative.[100]
Munich group
In February 2020, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, the foreign ministers of Egypt, France, Germany and Jordan, the Munich Group, together discussed peace efforts.[101] In July, the same quartet issued a statement declaring that "any annexation of Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 would be a violation of international law" and "would have serious consequences for the security and stability of the region and would constitute a major obstacle to efforts aimed at achieving a comprehensive and just peace",. The foreign ministers said they "discussed how to restart a fruitful engagement between the Israeli and the Palestinian side, and offer our support in facilitating a path to negotiations".[102][103]
Meeting in Jordan on 24 September the four again called for a resumption of negotiations between the two sides. There will be "no comprehensive and lasting peace without solving the conflict on the basis of the two-state solution", Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi told reporters following the meeting. The four also praised recent deals establishing ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Egypt's Sameh Shoukry said the deals are an "important development that would lead to more support and interaction in order to reach a comprehensive peace". However Palestinians see the two accords as a betrayal.[104][105]
On 11 January 2021, the group met in Cairo to discuss "possible steps to advance the peace process in the Middle East and create an environment conducive to the resumption of dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis." A joint statement of the quartet confirmed its intention to work with the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden. A further meeting is set to be held in Paris.[106][107]
The four met in Paris on 11 March 2021, with United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland and the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process, Susanna Terstal. Their statement emphasized the importance of confidence-building measures to promote dialogue, support for the two-state solution and stated that settlement activities violate international law.[108]
On 19 February 2021, at the Munich Security Conference, as well as reaffirming support for a two state solution, the group condemned the expansion of Israeli settlements and the ongoing Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem, in particular in Sheikh Jarrah.[109]
On 22 September 2022, the group met with Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, and in a statement said "with a view to advancing the Middle East Peace Process towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace on the basis of the two-state solution".[110]
Quartet developments
Main article: Quartet on the Middle East
This article appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please help improve the article. (March 2021)
In July 2016, the Quartet reported:
The continuing policy of settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, designation of land for exclusive Israeli use, and denial of Palestinian development, including the recent high rate of demolitions, is steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution. This raises legitimate questions about Israel's long-term intentions, which are compounded by the statements of some Israeli ministers that there should never be a Palestinian state. In fact, the transfer of greater powers and responsibilities to Palestinian civil authority...has effectively been stopped.
It was within this context that the United Nations passed Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016 in another bid to address the settlement question.[111][112] The report was significantly altered to appease Israel and as well as urging Israel to stop its settlement policy, urged Palestine to end incitement to violence.[113][114]
In a speech to the UN General Assembly in September, 2018, Mahmoud Abbas called Donald Trump's policies towards Palestinians an "assault on international law". He said the US is "too biased towards Israel" indicating that others could broker talks and that the US could participate as a member of the Middle East peace Quartet.[115] Abbas reiterated this position at a UN Security Council meeting on 11 February 2020.[116][102]
As of 16 September 2020, the UN has not been able to gather the consensus necessary for the Quartet or a group of countries linked to the Quartet to meet.[117][118] On 25 September 2020, at the UN, Abbas called for an international conference early in 2021 to "launch a genuine peace process."[119]
On 15 February 2021, the quartet envoys met virtually and agreed to meet on a regular basis to continue their engagement.[120] On 23 March 2021, the Quartet discussed the reviving of "meaningful negotiations" between Israel and the Palestinians who both need "to refrain from unilateral actions that make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve."[121][122]
Alternative peace proposals
Another approach was taken by a team of negotiators led by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo following two and a half years of secret negotiations. On 1 December 2003, the two parties signed an unofficial suggested plan for peace in Geneva (dubbed the Geneva Accord). In sharp contrast to the road map, it is not a plan for a temporary ceasefire but a comprehensive and detailed solution aiming at all the issues at stake, in particular, Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugee problem.[123] It was met with bitter denunciation by the Israeli government and many Palestinians, with the Palestinian Authority staying non-committal, but it was warmly welcomed by many European governments and some significant elements of the Bush Administration, including Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Yet another approach was proposed by a number of parties inside and outside Israel: a "binational solution" whereby Israel would formally annex the Palestinian territories but would make the Palestinian Arabs citizens in a unitary secular state. Championed by Edward Said and New York University professor Tony Judt, the suggestion aroused both interest and condemnation. It was not actually a new idea, dating back as far as the 1920s, but it was given extra prominence by the growing demographic issues raised by a rapidly expanding Arab population in Israel and the territories. Considering the huge political and demographic issues that it would raise, however, it seems an improbable solution to the problem.
The Elon Peace Plan is a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict proposed in 2002 by former minister Binyamin Elon. The plan advocates the formal annexation of West Bank and Gaza by Israel and that Palestinians will become either Jordanian citizens or permanent residents in Israel so long as they remained peaceful and law-abiding residents. All these actions should be done in agreement with Jordan and the Palestinian population. This solution is tied to the demographics of Jordan where it's claimed that Jordan is essentially already the Palestinian state, as it has so many Palestinian refugees and their descendants.[124]
Difficulties with past peace processes
A common feature of all attempts to create a path which would lead to peace is the fact that more often than not promises to carry out "good will measures" were not carried out by both sides.[125] Furthermore, negotiations to attain agreement on the "final status" have been interrupted due to outbreak of hostilities. The result is that both Israelis and Palestinians have grown weary of the process. Israelis point out the fact that the Gaza Strip is fully controlled by the Hamas who do not want peace with Israel.[126] According to the Israeli view, this limits the ability of the Palestinians to make peace with Israel and enforce it over the long term. Furthermore, in the Israeli view, a violent overtake of the West Bank by the Hamas as a result of the creation of an unstable new state is likely.[127] Lastly, rhetoric from high-ranking Fatah officials promising a full, literal Palestinian right of return into Israel (a position no Israeli government can accept without destroying the Jewish character of Israel) makes peace negotiations more difficult for both sides.[128][page needed] The Palestinians point out to the extensive and continuing Israeli settlement effort in the West Bank restricting the area available to the Palestinian state.[129]
An attempt to change the rules was made by Condoleezza Rice and Tzipi Livni when they brought forth the concept of a shelf agreement.[130] The idea was to disengage the linkage between negotiations and actions on the ground. In theory this would allow negotiations until a "shelf agreement" defining peace would be obtained. Such an agreement would not entail implementation. It would just describe what peace is. It would stay on the shelf but eventually will guide the implementation. The difficulty with this notion is that it creates a dis-incentive for Israel to reach such an agreement. The lack of clarity about what happens after agreement is reached will result in insurmountable pressures on Abbas to demand immediate implementation. However, from the Israeli point of view, the Palestinians are not ready to create a stable state, such an implementation process will almost guarantee instability in the Palestinian areas with a possible Hamas takeover as happened in Gaza.[131]
As things stand now this brings the process to another impasse. To avoid it some definition of what happens after a shelf agreement is needed. One possible idea by this essay is to agree ahead of time that following attainment of a final status agreement there will be a negotiated detailed and staged implementation agreement which would define a process which would allow the creation of a stable functional Palestinian state in stages and over time.[132] In August 2013, an indication that such an idea can be acceptable to the Palestinians was given by Mahmud Abbas in a meeting with Meretz MK-s.[133] In the meeting Abbas stated "that there cannot be an interim agreement but only a final status deal that can be implemented in stages".
Joint economic effort and development
Main article: Projects working for peace among Israelis and Palestinians
Despite the long history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, there are many people working on peaceful solutions that respect the rights of peoples on both sides.
In March 2007, Japan proposed a plan for peace based on common economic development and effort, rather than on continuous wrangling over land. Both sides stated their support.[134] This became the Peace Valley plan, a joint effort of the Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian governments to promote economic cooperation, and new business initiatives which can help both sides work together, and create a better diplomatic atmosphere and better economic conditions. It is mainly designed to foster efforts in the private sector, once governments provide the initial investment and facilities.
See also
Israel–Palestine relations
Cold peace
Israeli transfer of Palestinian militant bodies (2012)
The Land of the Settlers
Peace Now
OneVoice Movement
Women Wage Peace Movement
Tolerance Monument
Arab League and the Arab–Israeli conflict
Americans for Peace Now
Seeds of Peace
The Case for Peace
PeaceMaker (computer game)
Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis
List of Middle East peace proposals
The Environmental Provisions of Oslo II Accords
Israeli–Palestinian economic peace efforts
History of the State of Palestine
Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)
Faisal–Weizmann Agreement (1919)
Peel Commission
International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict
Notes
The 91% land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 sq. km near Latrun), post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km. Thus, an Israeli offer of 91% (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86% from the Palestinian perspective.
Jeremy Pressman, International Security, vol 28, no. 2, Fall 2003, "Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. On [1] Archived 22 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. See pp. 16–17
References
Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, p. 121.
Quandt, William (2005). Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22374-8. Accessible at Google Books.
Pappe, I., 2004, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Slater, J., 2001, "What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process", Political Science, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp. 171–199, p. 176.
Slater, J., 2001, What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, Political Science, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp. 171–199.
Bregman, A. & El-Tahri, J., 1998, The Sixty Year War: Israel and the Arabs, London, Penguin Books.
LeVine, Mark (23 September 2011). "Why Palestinians have a right to return home". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 21 June 2015. Retrieved 21 June 2015.
Facts About Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010. p. 52.
Saletan, William (9 July 2014). "Gaza civilian casualties: While Hamas targets innocent people, Israel tries to spare them". Slate. Archived from the original on 3 January 2016. Retrieved 4 January 2016. It [Hamas] has been firing the new [longer-range] missiles at cities anyway. Hamas has also flatly rejected the principle of sparing civilians. According to a Hamas spokesman, 'All Israelis have now become legitimate targets.'
Azulay, Moran. "Peres to Ynet: Abbas, not Hamas, is the partner." Archived 14 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine Ynetnews. 23 November 2012. 23 November 2012.
Peretz, Martin. Letter. Archived 6 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times. 6 August 2020. 6 August 2020.
Oren, Michael. "Hamas Left Israel No Choice but to Strike." Archived 28 February 2019 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times. 20 November 2012. 20 November 2012.
Pedahzur, A., 2005, Suicide Terrorism, Cambridge, Polity Press, p. 65.
How much aid does the US give to Israel? USAFacts. Updated on October 12, 2023.
Levy, Elior. "PA challenges Netanyahu to accept 1967 lines." Archived 22 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine Ynetnews. 22 May 2011. 22 May 2011.
Kessler, Glenn (5 October 2005). "Talking Points Aside, Bush Stance on Palestinian State Is Not a First". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
Nasaw, Daniel (18 May 2009). "Obama restates support for Palestinian state during Netanyahu visit". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 27 September 2016. Retrieved 11 December 2016.
"Clinton laments ‘counter-productive’ U.N. vote on Palestine." Archived 18 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine Jewish Journal. 29 November 2012. 29 November 2012.
Kaplan, Rebecca. "Obama: Differences with Netanyahu are not personality clashes." Archived 1 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine CBS News. 24 March 2015. 25 March 2015.
F. Verbit, Mervin. "American Jews – More Right than Left on the Peace Process". erusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). Berman Jewish Policy Archive. Archived from the original on 5 January 2014. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"Qatar seeks 'urgent' prisoner swap between Israel, Hamas". The Cradle. Retrieved 16 October 2023.
Mills, Andrew; Al-Mughrabi, Nidal; Al-Mughrabi, Nidal (9 October 2023). "Qatar in talks with Hamas, Israel to swap hostages for prisoners". Reuters. Retrieved 16 October 2023.
Mishal, S. and Sela, A, 'The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence' (Columbia University Press, 2006) p. 275.
Nathan Thrall (14 October 2010). "Our Man in Palestine". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
Senker, C, 'the ArAb-Israeli Conflict', (UK, 2004) pp. 4–9.
Halliday, F., 'The Middle East in International Relations', (Cambridge, 2005), p. 307.
Sayigh, R., 'The Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries' (New York, 2007) p. 200.
Chakrabarti, Ran. "Palestine and International Law." Archived 21 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Fair Observer. 30 January 2013.
Cook, J., 'Disappearing Palestine', (London, 2008), pp. 244–246.
"Middle East News – The Jerusalem Post". The Jerusalem Post. 4 February 2011. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
Rachel Shabi, "The death of the Israel-Palestine two-state solution brings fresh hope", Archived 4 June 2019 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian (23 October 2012). Retrieved 17 December 2013.
David Poort, "The threat of a one-state solution", Archived 22 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine Al Jazeera (26 January 2011). Retrieved 17 December 2013.
Pearson Education (1 October 2006). The Changing Dynamics of Energy in the Middle East [Two Volumes]. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 66–. ISBN 978-0-313-08364-8.
Yezid Sayigh; Avi Shlaim (22 May 1997). The Cold War and the Middle East. Clarendon Press. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-19-157151-0.
Sela, Avraham, "Arab-Israeli Conflict," The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58–121.
Benny Morris (25 May 2011). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–1998. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 354. ISBN 978-0-307-78805-4. The Israeli cabinet publicly rejected the plan in communiques issued on December 10 and 22, calling it "an attempt to appease [the Arabs] at the expense of Israel." ...But it was Egypt and the USSR who in fact definitively shot down the plan. The Soviets dismissed it as "one-sided" and "pro-Israeli." Nasser rejected a separate deal with Israel (even if he recovered all of Sinai) as well as demilitarization of the peninsula after Israeli withdrawal, freedom of maritime passage for Israeli vessels, and various security arrangements—all stipulated in the Rogers Plan as part of the quid pro quo.
"Report of the Secretary-General Under Security Council Resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973". United Nations, Security Council. 18 May 1973. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. The Search for a Settlement from 1967 to date
Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, p. 137.
Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, p. 138.
Facts About Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010. p. 53.
Nathan Thrall, 'What Future for Israel?,' Archived 21 November 2015 at the Wayback Machine New York Review of Books 15 August 2013 pp. 64–67.
"Mr. Clinton's Mideast Peace Plan." Archived 11 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times. 27 December 2000. 10 December 2019.
"Camp David Summit 2000." Archived 11 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine ADL. 10 December 2019.
History of failed peace talks (BBC, 26 November 2007) Archived 5 February 2019 at the Wayback Machine.
Gold, Dore. The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007. p. 1.
Oren, Michael B. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: American in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. p. 579.
Ross, Dennis. Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship From Truman to Obama. New York: Farrar, Starus and Giroux, 2015. p. 293.
Ben-Meir, Alon. "The Palestinian Refugees: A Reassessment and a Solution." Palestine – Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, vol. 15/16, no. 4, 2009, pp. 65-71. ProQuest.
Hirsh, Michael. "Clinton To Arafat: it's All Your ...." Archived 11 December 2020 at the Wayback Machine Newsweek. 26 June 2001. 17 November 2020.
Clinton Parameters Archived 17 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Jewish Peace Lobby website, full text (English).
Beilin, Yossi. "What really happened at Taba." Archived 13 March 2022 at the Wayback Machine Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet. 16 July 2002. 10 December 2020.
Salem, Tanja. "Palestinian Refugees." Archived 24 June 2021 at the Wayback Machine Centre for European Policy Studies. July 2003.
"Response of FM Peres to the decisions of the Arab Summit in Beirut – 28-Mar-2002". Archived from the original on 10 January 2006.
Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002, p. 147.
A Plan for Peace That Still Could Be Archived 17 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine, New York Times Magazine, 13 February 2011.
PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank (Haaretz, 12 August 2008) Archived 2 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
Israel Agrees to Truce with Hamas on Gaza Archived 28 February 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times, 18 June 2008.
Mark Tessler, "The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict," in Ellen Lust (ed.),The Middle East, SAGE Publications, 2013 pp. 287–366, p. 364.
Netanyahu's revolution Archived 24 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz, 18 June 2009
Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan Archived 1 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz, 14 June 2009.
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud El-Alami, The Palestine–Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications 2015 p. 87.
Burns, Robert (1 September 2010). "Obama Opens Long-Shot Talks on Mideast Peace". ABC News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 10 November 2010. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
Landler, Mark (5 September 2010). "In Middle East Peace Talks, Clinton Faces a Crucial Test". The New York Times. p. A1. Archived from the original on 23 March 2019. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
Tessler, Mark A. A History of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict Google Books. Originally published in 1994. 1 January 2011. p. 718. "Inhabitants of the occupied territories and other Palestinians had shown interest in a two-state solution since the mid-1970s, and the mainstream of the PLO had since the 1982 Arab summit."
Abu Toameh, Khaled. "Abbas: Land swap principle reached". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 26 November 2012. Retrieved 23 June 2010.
Bronner, Ethan (17 April 2012). "Palestinians Restate Demands to Netanyahu". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 28 February 2019. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
Mahmoud Abbas (15 April 2012). "Text of Abbas's letter to Netanyahu". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 18 April 2012. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
Stott, Michael; Nakhoul, Samia (9 May 2012). "Abbas ready to engage with Israel but says settlement building 'destroying hope'". Al Arabiya News. Reuters. Archived from the original on 9 May 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2012.
"Netanyahu backs demilitarized Palestinian state". Haaretz. 14 June 2009. Archived from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
Winer, Stuart; Ahren, Raphael (14 May 2012). "PM promises Abbas a demilitarized Palestinian state". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 17 May 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
Ravid, Barak (14 May 2012). "Netanyahu to Abbas: Israeli unity cabinet is a new opportunity for Mideast peace". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 14 May 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
Ravid, Barak (29 July 2013). "Obama welcomes renewal of Israeli-Palestinian talks, but says 'hard choices' lie ahead". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 12 May 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
"Hamas rejects Kerry's announcement: Abbas has no authority to negotiate". Ynetnews. Ynet. 20 July 2013. Archived from the original on 19 August 2019. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
Booth, William (29 July 2013). "Peace talks set to begin after Israel agrees to free 104 Palestinian prisoners". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 7 July 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
Berman, Lazar. (7 August 2013) US peace envoy to come to Israel next week Archived 2 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine. The Times of Israel. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
AFP, 'US denies dismantling peace negotiators team,' Archived 2 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine Ynet, 6 May 2014.
"Hamas and Fatah unveil Palestinian reconciliation deal". BBC. 23 April 2014. Archived from the original on 18 July 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
Sanctions and suspended talks – Israel responds to Palestinian reconciliation Archived 3 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine Ynet News 24 April 2014
Israel suspends peace talks with Palestinians after Fatah-Hamas deal Archived 6 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian, 24 April 2014
Israel suspends peace talks with Palestinians Archived 6 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine. Batsheva Sobelman, Los Angeles Times, 24 April 2014
Fatah and Hamas agree landmark pact after seven-year rift. Peter Beaumont and Paul Lewis, The Guardian, 24 April 2014
The rival Palestinian leaderships of Fatah and Hamas made a fresh attempt ... Archived 24 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine. France 24/AP, 23 April 2014
"Hamas and Fatah unveil Palestinian reconciliation deal". 23 April 2014. Archived from the original on 6 October 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
"PLO, Hamas unity constitute reuniting West Bank and Gaza: Ban Ki-moon". 29 April 2014. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
Israel begins implementing economic sanctions against Palestinians Archived 3 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine Ynet News 29 April 2014
New York Times, 22 April 2014,Abbas Renews Threat to Dissolve Palestinian Authority if Peace Talks Fail Archived 6 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine
Rasgon, Adam. "Palestinian Leadership Considers ...." Archived 4 November 2019 at the Wayback Machine The Jerusalem Post. 23 August 2017. 4 November 2019.
Sanctions and suspended talks – Israel responds to Palestinian reconciliation Archived 3 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Abbas to Submit 'Surprising' Proposal to Kerry Archived 8 January 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
US rejected Abbas's peace plan, PA says Archived 1 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Abbas Peace Plan Calls for Israeli Withdrawal Within 3 Years Archived 10 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Report: Abbas peace plan calls for Israeli withdrawal from West Bank Archived 31 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Abbas' peace plan: Israeli withdrawal from West Bank within three years Archived 12 May 2015 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Abu Mazen's Three-Year Peace Plan for Israel Archived 11 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 4 September 2014
Abbas: If Security Council bid fails, we may end security cooperation with Israel Archived 11 June 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Retrieved 1 October 2014
"Palestinians sign up to join ICC". BBC News. 31 December 2014. Archived from the original on 28 November 2018. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
Staff. "Israel freezes Palestinian funds in response to ICC bid". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 28 January 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
"Palestinians to ban sale of products from 6 major Israeli companies". The Jerusalem Post. 9 February 2015. Archived from the original on 20 March 2018. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
"Peace to Prosperity: The Economic Plan" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 June 2021. Retrieved 28 February 2021.
Times of Israel, 26 September 2019, At UN, Abbas threatens to nix agreements with Israel if West Bank land annexed Archived 2 October 2019 at the Wayback Machine
étrangères, Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires. "Participation of Jean-Yves Le Drian in the Munich Security Conference – Declaration by the Spokesperson of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (15-16 Feb.20)". France Diplomacy – Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on 13 January 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2021.
"A New 'Quartet' for Israeli-Palestinian Peace". 20 July 2020. Archived from the original on 27 September 2020. Retrieved 18 September 2020.
étrangères, Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires. "Joint Statement of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Egypt and Jordan (7 Jul. 20)". France Diplomatie – Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères. Archived from the original on 20 February 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
"Arab, European states call Israel and Palestine to restart talks". Al Jazeera. 24 September 2020. Archived from the original on 24 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
"Amman's closing statement on the Middle East Peace Process". Roya news. 24 September 2020. Archived from the original on 16 January 2021. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
"Egypt, Germany, France, Jordan meet to revive Mideast talks". WAPO. 11 January 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2021.[dead link]
"Arab, European foreign ministers discuss Palestinian, Israeli Occupation peace process in Cairo". RoyaNews. 11 January 2021. Archived from the original on 15 January 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2021.
"The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question: Briefing and Consultations". SecurityCouncilReport. 24 March 2021. Archived from the original on 25 March 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
Staff, The New Arab (20 February 2022). "Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan FMs condemn Israel settlement expansion, evictions". english.alaraby.co.uk/. Archived from the original on 20 February 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
"Foreign ministers of Egypt, France, Germany and Jordan reiterate commitment to a just peace in the Middle East". WAFA. 22 September 2022. Archived from the original on 26 September 2022. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
Shahram Akbarzadeh; Kylie Baxter (13 June 2018). Middle East Politics and International Relations. Taylor & Francis. pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-1-351-67715-8.
"Report of the Middle East Quartet". United Nations. 1 July 2016. Archived from the original on 24 March 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
"Israel/Palestine: Parameters for a Two-State Settlement". International Crisis Group. 28 November 2016. Archived from the original on 21 March 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
"Diplomatic Quartet releases report on advancing two-state solution to Israel-Palestine conflict". United Nations. 1 July 2016. Archived from the original on 18 April 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
"Rejecting Trump, Abbas at UN says US is too biased to mediate peace talks". 27 September 2018. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 18 September 2020.
"Security Council Report" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 January 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2020.
"UN unable to convene Quartet to discuss annexation". MEMO. 27 June 2020. Archived from the original on 29 September 2020. Retrieved 25 September 2020.
"Abraham Accord, Quartet – Press Conference by Secretary-General António Guterres at UN Headquarters (SG/SM/20258) (Excerpts)". United Nations. 25 September 2020. Archived from the original on 10 October 2020. Retrieved 25 September 2020.
"Palestinian leader calls for new peace process in UN speech". WAPO. 25 September 2020. Archived from the original on 27 September 2020. Retrieved 25 September 2020.
"A New Tune From The Middle East Quartet – OpEd". Eurasia review. 26 February 2021. Archived from the original on 28 February 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
"Mideast Quartet Discusses Reviving 'Meaningful' Israel, Palestinian Peace Talks". Haaretz. 24 March 2021. Archived from the original on 23 March 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
"Statement by the Middle East Quartet Envoys". UNSCO. 23 March 2021. Archived from the original on 26 March 2021. Retrieved 24 March 2021.
Brynen, Rex. "The 'Geneva Accord' and the Palestinian Refugee Issue." ResearchGate. 29 February 2004.
Amishav Medved, Yael. "Jordan as the Palestinian Arab state". Israel Science and Technology. Archived from the original on 22 May 2016. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"ZOA:Palestinian Arab Violations of Road Map". IMRA. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"Hamas." Archived 25 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine Encyclopædia Britannica. 17 January 2019. 6 December 2020.
al-Mughrabi, Nidal (9 November 2007). "Hamas leader sees W.Bank takeover if Israel leaves". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
Schwartz, Adi and Einat Wilf. "The War of Return." Google Books. 28 April 2020. 7 December 2020.
"Palestinian official: We're ready for talks with U.S., but not Israel - Haaretz - Israel News". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 22 October 2009. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
Al Tamimi, Jumana (26 August 2008). "Rice discusses 'shelf agreement'". Gulf News. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"Shelf Agreement: Attempt to Anchor the Two State Solution may Bury" (PDF). Reut Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"A better route to Israeli-Palestinian peace?". MideastWeb Middle East Web Log. Archived from the original on 14 April 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
"Abbas tells Meretz MKs: No progress in peace talks with Israel". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
Israelis, Palestinians applaud Japanese development plan Archived 12 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine Associated Press via Haaretz.com, 15 March 2007.
External links
Israel-Palestinian Negotiations, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Reut Institute
BBC News – History of Mid-East peace talks, 29 July 2013
Palestinian-Israeli Relations, MyJewishLearning.com
"Netanyahu's two-state mask has slipped" by Henry Siegman
"The Arab-Israeli Peace Process Is Over. Enter the Era of Chaos" by Lee Smith
"Netanyahu lowers expectations for Israeli-Palestinian peace" by Lahav Harkov
A presentation of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's views on the Jewish people's connection with the Holy Land, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the so-called "Land for Peace" issue
The Israel Project: Timeline of Israeli-Arab Peace Initiatives since 1977
The History of the Peace Process in the Context of the 2013 John Kerry Peace Efforts Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Palestinian Territories August 2013
Beyond Intractability: A Free Knowledge Base on More Constructive Approaches to Destructive Conflict
The Jerusalem Fund Resources
vte
Diplomacy and peace proposals in the Arab–Israeli conflict
Background
1914 Damascus Protocol1915 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement1917 Balfour Declaration1918 Declaration to the Seven / Anglo-French Declaration1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement1920 San Remo conference1922 Churchill White Paper1937 Peel Commission1939 White Paper1939 London Conference1946 Morrison–Grady Plan1947 Bevin Plan1946–47 London Conference1947 UN Partition Plan1948 American trusteeship proposal
1948–1983
1948 UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 1941949 Armistice agreements / Lausanne Conference1950 Tripartite Declaration1967 Khartoum Resolution / UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2421973 UNSC Resolution 338 / UNSC Resolution 3391974 Israel–Syria disengagement agreement / UNSC Resolution 3501978 UNSC Resolution 425 / Camp David Accords1979 UNSC Resolution 446 / Egypt–Israel peace treaty Palestinian autonomy talks / UNSC Resolution 4521980 UNSC Resolution 4781981 UNSC Resolution 4971981–1982 Fahd Plan1982 Reagan peace plan1983 Israel–Lebanon agreement
1991–2016
1991 Madrid Conference1993 Oslo Accords1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement / Israel–Jordan peace treaty1995 Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement1998 Wye River Memorandum1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum2000 Camp David Summit / Clinton Parameters2000 Isratin2001 Taba Summit2002 Beirut Summit and peace initiative / Road map2003 Geneva Initiative2004 UNSC Resolution 1559 / UNSC Resolution 15662005 UNSC Resolution 1583 / Sharm El Sheikh Summit / Israeli disengagement from Gaza / Agreement on Movement and Access2006 UNSC Resolution 17012007 Annapolis Conference2010 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2013 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2016 John Kerry Parameters
2019–present
2019 Trump peace plan2020 Abraham Accords Israel–UAE normalization agreementBahrain–Israel normalization agreementIsrael–Sudan normalization agreementIsrael–Morocco normalization agreement2022 Israeli–Lebanese maritime border dispute agreement
Category: Israeli–Palestinian peace process