From Oslo to Wye

The Sharm Accords - Echo Sounding

In late September, Yassir Arafat admitted that Israel had "fulfilled all its obligations" under the Sharm Accords. This acknowledgement came as a first after a number of difficult years, but we are still at the beginning of the implementation of the Sharm document as an adjunct to the Wye River Memorandum of 1998. It would be difficult to give an exact evaluation of the Sharm Accords today, since the process is in a state of continual flux: for example, Israel finds that her sovereign control of its "safe passage" route between Gaza & the "West Bank" is being challenged; tomorrow it might be something else. You can see these issues under "The Main Problems" on the outline map on http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/oslo.html and http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/wye.html

The various accords are located along the flow of documents from the Declaration of Principles in September 1993 towards a Permanent Status Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. All have been either planned or accidental landmarks on the designated path to Peace, a road which has been paved with many good intentions, but piled with roadblocks and other obstacles.

We offer here a programming series designed to explore the nature of the changes engendered by the Sharm Accords and to open the underlying issues for discussion. Use is made of various online source and analysis materials from the Israeli press which are essential to the development of the activities. The series requires prior acquaintance with the Middle East Process and a suitable level of analytical and discussion skills.

Essential Documents

The Israel Ministry for Foreign Affairs : http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0fnq0

Ha'aretz summary of the Sharm Accords;

Official text - translation of the Accords;

Jerusalem Post articles on the differences between Sharm & Wye documents.

Extension & References

The Pedagogic Center: Wye - Rabin's Dream Come True?

Programming Series

1. Each participant should have a copy of the Sharm Accords and each pair of participants requires a copy of both the summary article and that listing differences between Wye & Sharm documents.

2. Look first at the article about the differences and ask if any of the terms are unfamiliar, requiring clarification.

3. In pairs, have the group work on charting the differences according to topic, provisions, definition of mechanism, advantages & disadvantages. Here is a sample chart:

4. Double up the pairs so that they can review their work together and come down to a one-line definition of the mechanism. Have them read the original text of the Sharm Accords and list any major questions about the document or its implementation.

5. Bring the entire group together and review the mechanism and its value to the Process (see Notes below).

6. Collect ideas about the advantages and disadvantages of the Sharm "adjustments" and review them.

7. Collect any major questions raised about what is happening. Some of them may be featured in the follow-on activity (see below), but those that are not addressed there should be opened only after trying out one or both of our suggested clarification debates. We suggest two format frameworks if you prefer to create your own debates.

Notes to the Educator:

A. The significant differences are based on a return to the (Oslo) approach of dated deadlines, rather than targets, to be reached before implementation. This acts as a vehicle to move the process forward, but with fewer safety valves to control the quality of implementation.

You might want to consider that progress in an impasse only comes with an offer someone cannot refuse - is this what happened - see B & C, below?

B. Furthermore, a major importance is that there will be no unilateral acts in the period before the signature of a Permanent settlement on 10th September, 2000, which also pre-empts the creation of a Palestinian state before this date.

C. The added value of this insertion is that, during this period, the Israeli Government will be able to set out on other tracks of the Peace Process without a sword of Damocles hanging over its head.

Follow-On Clarification Debates

There are many issues of principle and others which are purely pragmatic within the Middle East Process, many specialist opinions, and a great deal of rhetoric around all of these.

There are two options to debate and explore the intentions behind these:

A. The Values Clarification Approach

Define different positions without stating their underlying values and debate assigned positions, the possible compromises; review the values and the dissonances; allow a free choice and wrap.

This can be done in a triangular or 4-corner debate, through role-playing or dramatic scenarios, using mock demonstrations (if you have the time).

The classical "This house believes that…" is another debate format for coming to results on issues with narrower options.

B. The Interpretations Saga

Using a newsclip or articles, create one statement of principle on an issue, select one pragmatic solution, one specialist opinion, one rhetorical statement - but do not define the nature of the statements to the participants.

Participants view the newsclip and receive articles plus the 4 statements. Working as groups or as panels of 4, 2-minute speeches are prepared for each statement. One panel will eventually go up in front of the entire group with the moderator and take questions on their presentations. The process is then reviewed in terms of the realities and the illusions presented and their application to other issues.

Suggested Debate Topics

I.Triangular Debate

Participants may have raised questions about the essential meaning of peace, simply by asking what will happen if prisoners are released, the powers that should be granted to the Palestinian entity, who is doing the giving & taking...

1. One does not make peace with friends, but with one's former enemies. It was also much easier to impose peace from a position of power and influence at the end of a major war than it is in the Middle East today. Let us address the meaning of peace and ask where sincerity leads in terms of 3 points on a triangle.

A. We must put old scores behind us in every way.

B. We can forgive everything but acts of terrorist murder.

C. Each issue has to be addressed.

2. Designate 3 points of the room to represent the triangle and have participants move their chairs to the position to which they feel closest.

3. Someone from each point on the triangle is asked to speak without preparation, and then others are brought in.

4. If there are participants who could not take up one position and are seated along the lines of the triangle or within it, they are now given the floor.

5. There is time to change seating positions and to say why.

6. Review:

If this were not the Middle East Peace Process, would the responses have been different? Why, or why not?

What are or should be the intentions of those engaged in the Peace Process on both sides?

With what issues do we personally have major difficulties and can we look at them objectively?

II. Bi-polar debates plus

A. You may wish to debate the value of the timing mechanism in the Sharm Accords versus the control of implementation mechanism in the Wye Accords. Explore other mechanisms from contemporary regional discords.

B. You may prefer the more open topic of the Sharm document as the "irresistible offer": vote whether or not this was the only way forward in a no-win impasse, and have all participants suggest other options.