US foreign policy, the Arab-Israeli dispute and the ‘Peace Process’ Mirage: Lausanne 1949 and Camp David 2000

The purpose of this thesis is to understand why the Arab-Israeli conflict has remained irreconcilable for sixty-one years. While the details and forms of the conflict have changed over time, the central factors dividing Zionists and Arabs in the Middle East have altered little. In this thesis I examine what these factors are and why they have been so effective in frustrating every peace effort. To understand the fundamental factors which keep the dispute alive I have conducted a comparative study of the two major peace initiatives which frame it diplomatically. The first formal peace conference between Israel and her Arab adversaries took place in Lausanne in 1949. The issues of borders, Jerusalem and refugees would not be seriously engaged with again until the last peace effort to date, the Camp David talks of 2000. Through a detailed comparative analysis of both conferences I seek to understand the positions taken by the warring parties towards these issues and the broader motivating factors separating them and preventing them from achieving peace. As the most important third party and supposed ‘honest broker’ in both talks, I also closely examine the behaviour and policy of the US at each case.I find that the positions taken towards each issue by Israel, on the one hand, and the Arab party, on the other, were remarkably consistent in 1949 and 2000. Israel was not fully committed to peace in either instance, while the Arabs twice refused to sign what amounted to documents of surrender. These consistent positions starkly contrasted with that of the US, which completely changed its positions in ways which, by 2000, had almost wholly aligned it with Zionist demands.I conclude that future peace will rest on the ability of each party to re-examine its past in order to produce a spirit of reconciliation. For Israel, this will mean honestly revisiting Zionism in order to confront what its triumph meant for the Palestinian inhabitants of the land. The Arabs must also seek a broader understanding of their role in the dispute and demonstrate forcefully to Israelis that they seek peace rather than retribution. Above all, if the US is to retain its role as mediator it must abandon its ‘special relationship’ with Israel and return to a more genuinely’ even handed alignment with the broader international consensus on the dispute. As it stands, the US’s more or less unconditional support of Israel has the effect of leading Israelis and Palestinians ever further from peace even as an ever more empty ‘peace process’ is rhetorically trumpeted abroad