First Intifada

The First Intifada appears as both an ongoing conflict and a force reshaping the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The account links its violence and mounting political costs to pressure for practical decisions, while showing that the resulting talks remained constrained by disagreement over territory, security, and the substance of proposed documents.

Conflict and Political Pressure

Jan Egeland describes the First Intifada as having continued in Gaza for five years. Yossi Beilin sets out its toll and reach: Palestinians, Israeli settlers, and soldiers were being killed, and children were among those killed as the Israeli army responded. The conflict was also visible internationally through CNN coverage. Beilin says that European opinion was turning against Israel, sharpening his sense that the parties were racing toward a precipice while remaining stuck at the negotiating table.

For Beilin, the crisis exposed a defect in the prevailing negotiating approach. He agrees with Terje Rød-Larsen that the model was fundamentally flawed, even as he admits that he continued to hope for two peace plans at once. The conflict therefore functions not only as background to the talks but as evidence, in Beilin’s account, that negotiation without a workable model could not meet the urgency of events.

A Killing and the Sealing of Gaza

A separate episode marks the conflict’s immediate political consequences. In March 1993, a Palestinian youth killed two Israelis in Tel Aviv. Yitzhak Rabin responded by sealing Gaza. Israeli citizens are shown chanting for Palestinians to be shut out as Mona Juul recounts the killing and the government’s response. The sequence places public anger alongside a state measure affecting Gaza, making the connection between an attack, political reaction, and a tightened boundary explicit.

From General Statements to Concrete Offers

The conflict’s pressure is reflected in the substance demanded at the negotiating table. Ahmed Qurie challenges the Israeli drafters over the absence of a direct reply to a concrete Palestinian offer to take control of Gaza. Yair Hirschfeld answers that the draft Declaration of Principles contains specific Israeli proposals; Qurie rejects that characterization, calling the document’s content general rather than responsive. The exchange shows a central friction: the Palestinians seek answers to defined proposals, while the Israeli side points to the draft as its own statement of positions.

The talks later turn to an explicit territorial exchange. Uri Savir says Israel is willing to relinquish control of Gaza; Qurie responds that the Palestinians would accept that only if Israel relinquishes control of Jericho at the same time. Savir also refuses to negotiate over sovereignty in Jerusalem, demonstrating that willingness to discuss a transfer of control did not extend to every issue. The conflict’s political stakes thus emerge through specific limits and conditions, not merely through declarations of a general desire for peace.

Concessions and Unresolved Security Terms

At another impasse, Qurie offers to drop the Palestinian demand that outstanding disputes be referred to international arbitration, while Savir agrees to negotiate the transfer of Gaza and Jericho. Savir proposes an indirect next step: each would report the other’s rejection to his own leadership, and Terje Rød-Larsen would call two days later to communicate agreement to the demands. The exchange dramatizes how movement depended on concessions and on a carefully managed channel between the negotiators and their political leaders.

Security remains contested even as the talks advance. Qurie accepts that Israeli forces would be responsible for border security but insists on joint control of all checkpoints. Shimon Peres rejects ceding the checkpoints, soldiers, or that point of control, while Qurie leaves open the possibility of a counterproposal alongside his threat to abandon the document and return to war. The continuing dispute gives the First Intifada’s negotiation context an unsettled ending: violence has made agreement urgent, but the practical terms meant to address its consequences remain in conflict.