Framework & Implementation
The Israeli Palesletinian peace negotiations took a giant leap forward during Yitzhak Rabin’s term as Israeli prime minister, with the commencement of the Oslo Peace Process.
While no significant progress was being made in Washington in the bilateral talks agreed upon at the Madrid Conference in 1991, a secret unofficial channel began operating between Israelis and the PLO, under the auspices of Norway. The unofficial talks continued throughout early 1993 and culminated in the initialling of a joint Declaration of Principles (DOP) on August 19, 1993. Then, after having formally recognized each other in mutual letters, Israel, represented by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the PLO, represented by Yassir Arafat, signed an agreement in Washington on September 13, 1993.
The DOP created a framework for areas of negotiation and set outlines for a rapid hand-over of Gaza and Jericho to Palestinian self-rule. According to the agreement, major fundamental and controversial issues, such as Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements on in Judea & Samaria, and the Palestinian refugees (from '48 and '67), would be deferred to the permanent status negotiations. The following stages in the transition of power and land from Israel to the Palestinians were put forth.
1. Gaza and Jericho First: Self rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The details of the Gaza and Jericho First Agreement were negotiated and concluded in Cairo between Rabin and Arafat on May 4, 1994. The Cairo Agreement spelled out a step-by-step program for the extension of autonomy within a specified time-frame, without this being conditional on bilateral implementation or objectives.
2. Transfer of civil powers and responsibilities: Responsibilities in five specific spheres (education and culture, health, welfare, taxation and tourism) will be transferred to the Palestinians. The DOP proposed that this transfer take place immediately following the implementation of the Gaza-Jericho agreement.
3. The Interim Agreement and Elections: Elections will take place on the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a new Palestinian Authority. The Interim Agreement will detail the self-government arragements in the West Bank and terrotories. In the rest of the West Bank, Israel will pull out its forces from Palestinian populated areas. The Palestinian Council will have a strong police force in order to guarantee public order and internal security. Central to the DOP were two economic annexes which outlined economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians, both bilaterally and in the multilateral context.
...d they will receive, whether if it is good land or bad land. An issue that the Parameter failed to resolve is the “right of return” issue. The Parameter states that Palestinians would have to waive their claim to an unlimited “right of return” to Israel Proper. This issue regarding the “right of return” was one of the main reasons why the Camp David 2000 Summit negotiation failed, and since this Parameters still hasn’t found a solution to this issue, it was bound to fail. Another issue the Parameters failed to find a solution is the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. As lenient as how Israel was in the Camp David Summit, they were strong on an issue; this issue was the sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Israel wants full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, since this Parameter would give the Palestinian sovereignty, the Israel would have to reject this Parameter.
Israel has been dealing with Palestinian pressures to give back the land that they consider “theirs” and other leaders have had different views on how to handle aggression from the Palestinians. Ehud Olmert’s views included handling the conflict with peace and not using violence. He suggested to Mohamed Abbas a convergence plan which centered around the idea that the Israeli people would be forced out of the West Bank which is an are... ... middle of paper ... ... m. A part of the problem today in this conflict is the people not willing to change or go along with what their leaders enforce and their ideas.
...d took control of the Gaza Strip once again. Anwar el-Sadat then became president after Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1970. In an effort to take control of the Sinai Peninsula, Anwar el-Sadat attacked the Israelis. After a cease-fire, the United Nation’s troops then returned to keep things peaceful. Israel then later withdrew and was only allowed to use it for non-military purposes. In 1978 a peace treaty was established between Egypt and Israel which influenced more peace in the Middle East. Although a formal treaty was signed in 1979. In 1981 Sadat was assassinated and Mohamed Hosni Mubarak followed him in presidency. The Sinai Peninsula was then returned to Egypt in 1982 after the Israeli troops withdrew from the region. Mubarak embraced Sadat’s policies and managed to climb to the top and be once again making Egypt known as one of the leaders of the Arab world.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for a partition resolution that led to the establishment of the nation of Israel in May, 1948. This was great news for Jews in Palestine and the diaspora as it meant the fulfillment of the quest for the rebirth of their nation in their previous homeland after many years of wandering (Pappe, 2006, p. 12). However, their Palestinian Arab counterparts opposed to the establishment from the start felt cheated by the international community and remained categorical that the final answer to the Jewish problem would only be solved in blood and fire (Karsh, 2002, p. 8).
The technological advances are increasing each year, and electronics are not the only things upgraded. The food eaten in the United States has also been touched by science in the form of GMOs. Although GMOs have been in the US food industry for almost twenty years, consumers should have the right to know what is in our food with mandatory GMO labeling.
Premanandh, Jagadeesan. “Global consensus--need of the hour for genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. 2011. Web. 6 May. 2014.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is an event that has been well documented throughout the course of Middle-Eastern history. The conflict dates back as far as the nineteenth century where Palestine and Zionist, will later be known as Israel, are two communities each with different ideologies had the same overwhelming desire to acquire land. However, what makes this clash what it is, is the fact that both of these up and coming communities are after the same piece of land. The lengths that both sides went to in order obtain they believed was theirs has shaped the current relationship between the two nations today.
Since the Arabs were living in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire control it. Since the Arabs defeated the Ottoman Empire with the help of from Germany, “Just short of 6 months the Palestinians were crushed, militarily and psychologically” (document 8) On the other hand, Israel grew beyond the partition lines, gained more defensible borders and they destroyed Arab homes reducing their population. The Palestinians rightly felt that the Israelis were taking over the area and were pushing out of lands promised to them in both the Balfour Declaration and the UN 1947 Partition.
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
In the U.S., GM foods have received little public opposition; this is largely due to the fact that food manufacturers are not required to label their products as containing genetically modified ingredients for fear of confusing consumers. Due to the lack of evidence that genetically altered foods are harmful, the Food and Drug Administration considers GM foods to be “generally regarded as safe” (known as GRAS) and no special labeling is required (Falkner 103). In the U.S., genetically modified crops are monitored by t...
According to the Department of Agriculture, cotton, corn and soybeans are the most common GM crops in the U.S. In 2012, GM cotton accounted for 94 percent of all cotton planted, GM soybeans accounted for 93 percent of soybeans planted, and GM corn accounted for 88 percent of corn planted (add in text citation). This suggests that a large percentage of processed foods sold by supermarkets in the U.S. contain some ingredients derived from GM crops, primarily corn, soy, and canola. Yet, most Americans may not know that the products they consume contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Genetically Modified Food under Reasonable Government Regulation, is necessary for the continued and further success of the food supply chain.
Robert M. Hutchins, known for his contributions to philosophy, said that, “A civilization in which there is not a continuous controversy about important issues is on the way to totalitarianism and death.” While I do not necessarily agree with the former, or the latter, for that matter (no rhyme intended), it is imperative for us, as people, regardless of nationality, to ask questions. On the topic of important issues are genetically modified foods. The specific tangent on genetically modified foods is the question of whether or not genetically modified foods should have mandatory labeling. Instead of being a staunch absolutist and deciding so hastily on the matter of GMOs, the merits and drawbacks of this issue need to be discussed.
With all of the controversy surrounding GMO foods: health versus biodiversity; benefits versus dangers; pros versus cons, a topic that always arises is the subject of labeling. Labeling has been a matter of discussion for years and
If crops were affected by droughts, disease and insects, having destroyed many acres across America’s Midwest region, the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) would not be beneficial in regenerating new crops. Genetically modifying foods (GMOs) “are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding” (nongmoproject.org). Most research done has concluded no positive benefits in using GMOs. There are serious health risks associated with eating GM foods based on scientific research done around the world. The purpose of GMOs are to increase production of crop yield and reduce pesticide use but research says otherwise. If farmers wanted to continue using GMOs to produce crops, labeling should be mandatory to allow consumers to have a conscious choice whether or not to eat GM food. Through research it has been proven that the use of GMOs to increased production of crops during a time of drought or disease have no benefits, just risks.