Alexander V. Krylov – Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Oriental Studies, Leading Researcher, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Institute of International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Russian Federation. Russia. Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia. E-mail: email@example.com
Vladimir M. Morozov – PhD in History, Vice-Rector for Personnel Policy, Associate Professor of the Department of Diplomacy, MGIMO Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation. Russia. Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The article examines the attempts of American diplomacy to achieve a breakthrough on the Palestinian-Israeli track between July 29, 2013 and April 24, 2014 in order to come close to signing the Permanent Status Agreement between the conflicting parties under the US mediation within the framework of the previous agreements reached at the tripartite Summit of 2000 in Camp David. The study is based on an analysis of the “Kerry Plan” prepared by the US State Department, which laid the foundations of solving key issues of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation. Details of the Kerry Plan were never disclosed, but its content was reconstructed by the authors on the basis of an analysis of the materials of the negotiations that were conducted under the auspices of the United States in the past.
The article draws a parallel between the negotiation process in 2013-2014 and the process that was initiated by the administration of President B. Clinton in 2000-2001. The plan proposed by J. Kerry, like the initiative of B. Clinton, was focused on solving only the issue of future borders by exchanging territories, but did not touch upon other principal issues of the Permanent Status (refugees, Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem). It is obvious that such an approach, which completely disavowed the existing international legal basis for the Middle East settlement, was leaning to deliberate failure.
The study allows to conclude that the settlement of the conflict under the auspices of the United States on a separate basis under the “Camp David scheme”, successfully approved by the US diplomacy in resolving disputable issues between Egypt and Israel in the late 1970s, does not work on the Palestinian track.
Key words: Middle East, USA, Israel, Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian problem, Middle East settlement.
1. Abilov K.A. SShA i problema palestinskikh bezhentsev [USA and the problem of Palestinian refugees]. SShA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul’tura [USA and Canada: economics, politics, culture], 2007, no. 1, pp. 69-80. (In Russian)
2. Antiukhova E.A. Posledstviia realizatsii strategii NATO v konfliktakh «Arabskoi vesny» dlia gosudarstv Blizhnego Vostoka i Severnoi Afriki. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta – MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2016, no. 2 (47), pp. 118-124. (In Russian)
3. Ivaina M.Sh. «Arabskaia vesna» i palestinskaia problema [The Arab spring and the Palestinian problem]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Politologiia, 2014, no. 2, pp. 83-88. (In Russian)
4. Kasatkin P.I., Ivkina N.V. Lichnost’ prezidenta kak faktor formirovaniia vneshnepoliticheskoi povestki dnia SShA (nekotorye itogi prezidentstva B. Obamy) [Presidents personality as a factor of US foreign policy agenda setting (some outcomes of B. Obama presidency]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia, 2017, no. 1, pp. 125-135. (In Russian)
5. Loshkarev I.D. K voprosu ob agentakh etnicheskogo lobbizma vo vneshnei politike SShA [On the issue of agents of ethnic lobbying in the US foreign policy]. Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek [Law and Governance. XXI century], 2015, no. 3 (36), pp. 148-152. (In Russian)
6. Loshkarev I.D. Resursy etnicheskogo lobbizma vo vneshnei politike SShA [Resources of ethnic lobbying in the US foreign policy]. Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 2017, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 76-83. (In Russian)
7. Maslova E.A. Sovremennaia politika Italii v uregulirovanii konflikta na Blizhnem Vostoke. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta –
MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2011, no. 6, pp. 241-247. (In Russian)
8. Mirskii G.I. Palestinskii uzel: ni razviazat’, ni razrubit’ [Palestinian deadlock: can’t be broken, can’t be solved]. Rossiia v global’noi politike [Russia in global politics], 2007, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 225-238.
9. Timofeev P.P. Frantsiia i ES na Blizhnem Vostoke [France and the EU in the Middle East]. Aziia i Afrika segodnia, 2011, no. 11, pp. 31-36. (In Russian)
10. Bland B. Searching for Mandela: Finding a way beyond the Israeli–Palestinian impasse. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 2014, vol. 7, no. 2-3, рр. 183-197. DOI: 10.1080/17467586.2014.968795
11. Cohen S. Revisiting Territorial Pragmatism in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2010, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 733-743. DOI: 10.2747/1539-7126.96.36.1993
12. Farsakh L.A Common State in Israel–Palestine: Historical Origins and Lingering Challenges. Ethnopolitics, 2016, vol. 15, no. 4, рр. 380-392. DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2016.1210348
13. McMahon S.F. Temporality, Peace Initiatives and Palestinian-Israeli Politics. Middle East Critique, 2016, vol. 25, no. 1, рр. 5-21. DOI: 10.1080/19436149.2015.1107997
14. Rowland R.C., Frank D.A. Mythic Rhetoric and Rectification in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Communication Studies, 2011, vol. 62, no. 1, рр. 41-57. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2011.532428