prativanepal.com

Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East and an “all or nothing” attitude about a lasting peace, “which prevailed for most of the twentieth century”.[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.
Views of the peace process

 Palestinian views of the peace process
See Palestinian views of 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. 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 has been a fight to bring home refugees to a Palestinian state.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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. [5] [6]
 Israeli views of the peace process
See Israeli views of the peace process
There are several Israeli views of the peace process. One Israeli view is that the conflict stems from the 1967 Six Day War and consequently the peace process should stem from this and thus have negotiated on the basis of giving up some control of the occupied territories in return for a stop to the conflict and violence.[7] Hardliners believe that no territorial concessions should be given to Palestinians and want to maintain an Israeli sovereign state over the whole area it currently occupies, or if it does negotiate with territory in the peace process only with the Gaza Strip.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] The Oslo Accords and the Camp David 2000 summit negotiations revealed the possibility of a two state system being accepted as a possible peace solution by Israeli leadership. However the violence of the second intifada has strengthened the resolve that peace and negotiation is not possible and a two state system is not the answer [11] which is further enforced by the coming to power of Hamas. A common theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians ask for too much in their peace demands.
US views of the peace process
There are many divergent views on the peace process held by US officials, citizens and lobbying groups. The US government has contributed significant levels of financial and military support to Israel for decades. US aid to Israel exceeds the amount of foreign aid that the US provides to any other country. In 2002, the US began providing limited financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (about $100 million annually), and has encouraged European nations to contribute as well, leading to a total contribution of more than one billion dollars.

The US has veto power in the UN Security Council and is able to block resolutions it opposes, and it has frequently vetoed resolutions critical of Israel’s actions, while criticizing other nations for similar actions. This has been made explicit by the Negroponte doctrine – that the US will veto any resolution criticising Israel that does not also equally criticise terrorism, and actions of Arab groups it deems to be terrorist.

“The United States will always stand with Israel, always remember that only a strong Israel can make peace. That is why we were, after all, your partners in security before we were partners for peace; our commitment to your security is ironclad — it will not ever change.” — U.S. President Bill Clinton, 13 December 1998.[12]
“Israel is entitled to the land they have. . . it should not be a part of the peace process.” — US Senator James Inhofe, February 2002.[citation needed]}
“Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home.” — U.S. President George W. Bush, 3 June 2003.[citation needed]
“Palestinian leaders must bring an end to the violence against Israelis, and find a way, with the help of others, to rein in militant groups. Israel must be prepared to meet its obligations, as outlined in the Bush administration’s road map, and in the Mitchell plan, with respect to settlements.” — 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry, 17 October 2003.[citation needed]
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;[citation needed] that the Palestinians must actively prevent terrorism; and that Israel has an unconditional right to exist.