The so-called 'Road Map to Peace' looks in many ways more like a 'Road Map to War'. How far would you agree with this assessment of US efforts to settle the Palestinian Question?

Essay by neddy96University, Bachelor'sA, March 2006

download word file, 11 pages 5.0

Downloaded 94 times

On September 17 2002 the Bush Administration made the unprecedented move of acknowledging the Palestinian right to a state - the first time any US government had done so, and with the backing of the UN, the EU and Russia (the 'quartet') the 'Road Map to Peace' was shaped - a plan that would result in an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. It is no secret that the US have been a strong supporter of Israel. The legitimacy of a US-backed peace plan, then, can be seriously questioned. The 'Road Map to Peace' is clearly biased, and while Israel ignore and refuse to adhere to elements of the 'Road Map' the US look the other way and in some instances actually validate Israel's actions. The peace plan puts a high amount of pressure on Palestinians who clearly don't have the strength or resources to carry out the plan.

The plan states that Palestinian militant groups must disarm, but if the Palestinian Authority (PA) tried to enforce this it could lead to civil war. The road map specifies that by 2005, the Palestinians would have their own state. It is now nearing 2006 and any vision of a Palestinian state is looking more remote as Israel usurp more land by the day. Since the introduction of the road map the country has continued to see the endless cycle of suicide bombings and Israeli retaliation - the violence that permeates everyday life in Israel/Palestine, but no road to peace.

Only war.

The aim of the Road Map to Peace is to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory that began in 1967, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The Road Map is divided into three phases- the first phase states that Palestine are to...