Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Oslo Accord v. Road Map to Peace. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page research paper that compares and contrasts the Oslo Accord with the Bush administration road map to peace. The writer argues that periodically, Western powers, particularly the US, intervene in the Middle East and endeavor to forge a path to peace between Israel and the Arab states. These efforts to find a solution to the animosity that has characterized this situation since the inception of the Israeli state have, thus far, been unsuccessful. An analysis of the Oslo Accord and the current Bush Administration "Road Map" for peace in the Middle East suggests that efforts toward peace will continue to fail as long as US leaders refuse to learn from the lessons of the past. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khosrmp.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
states, which would see its dissolution. These efforts find a solution to the animosity that has characterized this situation since the inception of the Israeli state have, thus far,
been unsuccessful. An analysis of the Oslo Accord and the current Bush Administration "Road Map" for peace in the Middle East suggests that efforts toward peace will continue to fail
as long as US leaders refuse to learn from the lessons of the past. Just as there are critics of the current template for peace in the Middle East,
ten years ago when the Oslo Accord was first proposed, there were pessimists who criticized that peace process, which reached its culmination with a signing ceremony on the White House
law in September of 1993 (Pryce-Jones, 2002). The fundamental concept behind this agreement and the Oslo peace process in general was that Western leader saw the Arab world as being
divided into two basic categories -- nationalists, who were loyal to the state, and Islamists, whose principal loyalty was to their religion and saw Islam as a motivating cause (Pryce-Jones,
2002). At that time, Western leaders reasoned that if Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian rebel forces, was allocated power, and thereby legitimizing the nationalistic feelings of
his faction, he would suppress the Islamists and, essentially, police the Palestinians, controlling extremist groups (Pryce-Jones, 2002). The saying that was going around Washington at this time was that
"The more you give them, the more theyll have to lose" (meaning the Palestinians)(Pryce-Jones, 2002, p. 49). In other words, the reasoning was that if the Palestinians felt that they
had a stake in the peace process, that they had gained power through this accord, they would not want to lose this advantage and would actively pursue abiding by the
...