Middle East Peace Process

This article examines the rise and fall of the Peace Process and questions the reason for which the United States of America was successful in bringing the two sides to the negotiating table during the 1990s. It investigates the reason for which the process ultimately failed, as well as the reason for which Washington was unsuccessful in restarting the peace process in the past decade. It is argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Arab states’ most important ally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)’s decision to back Saddam Hussein during the First Persian Gulf War, and the rise of Islamic movements in the occupied territories were the main reasons for which the PLO decided to negotiate with Israel. The subsequent Peace Process was a major political, economic and public image success for Washington and Tel-Aviv, while it was damaging to the Palestinian cause. Not only did the PLO recognize Israel and the Zionist movement, but it also ceded most of the West Bank in the process. Finally, it is argued that after the collapse of the process during the early 2000s, Donald Trump has attempted to restart the negotiations, but has failed thus far due to the inexistence of strong leaders in both Palestinian and Israeli sides, the rise of Hamas as a resistance movement, and the disenchantment of the Palestinian people with the Peace Process.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the complicated crises that traces back to nearly a century ago. It caused severe challenges and brought about disastrous consequences both for the Middle East region and the conflicting parties. Numerous attempts have taken place so far by different states, organizations and individuals to establish a lasting and comprehensive peace in this conflict, but given the intransigence positions of the conflicting parties, the attempts were futile and still there is no light at the end of this tunnel. The limitations of the realistic viewpoint that dominates the conflict and considers its signs rather than its root causes, made us tackle the issue through a proper, more appropriate approach.. To us, critical studies, particularly the emancipation approach which goes beyond the realistic limitations, deliberates the contemporary and historical conditions together with its nature and tries to remove situations leading to the conflict is a more viable strategy to achieve a lasting peace.

US- Iran relations were special and strategic ones and after the Islamic revolution and upon suspension of diplomatic ties, these relations were replaced by a sustainable enmity and hate even after four decades. This matter is unique in the history of diplomatic relations. Based on the direct and face to face negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding nuclear issues in the 11th government, the necessity of the analysis of the factors contributing to the continuous conflicts between two countries has attracted the attention of the researchers and scientists in the field of international relations and has posed the question as to why even four decades after Islamic Revolution, the two countries have failed to establish a rational, logical and free from slogan relations. This question can be addressed from various viewpoints including nuclear deal, terrorism, Middle East peace process and human rights. The aim of the present study is to investigate the role of the human rights’ issue and its effect on the US – Iran relations, with a descriptive-analytical manner, hypothesizing that this issue has no noticeable weight and importance in the continuous conflict between two countries .To confirm this hypothesis, human rights situations in Pahlavi era are considered and compared with similar situations in Islamic Republic, and then their contribution to the US – Iran relations is analyzed . A historical - analytical method is used to explain the evidences and findings .