English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51510/86705 (59%)
Visitors : 8267726      Online Users : 96
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/30975

    Title: 柯林頓政府調停以巴和談之策略
    Other Titles: Clinton administration's strategy for mediating Israeli-Palestinian talks
    Authors: 黃旭詮;Huang, Hsu-chuan
    Contributors: 淡江大學美國研究所碩士班
    黃介正;Huang, Alexander Chieh-cheng
    Keywords: 柯林頓;調停;以巴和談;Clinton;mediate;Israeli-Palestinian talks
    Date: 2006
    Issue Date: 2010-01-11 00:06:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文的研究主旨在探討美國柯林頓政府任內,介入以色列與巴勒斯坦之和平進程所採取的策略。以色列與巴勒斯坦之衝突自第二次世界大戰以來,逐漸成為中東衝突的核心問題。由於美國在中東地區有重大的國家利益存在,然而維護以色列之生存卻與拉攏阿拉伯國家兩利益互相衝突,所以最好兼顧兩美國利益的方式,就是調解以巴雙方的衝突。柯林頓政府享有調停以巴和談之最好時機,2000之大衛營回合談判更是歷來最接近最終和平之高峰會,可惜仍功敗垂成。
    The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the strategy which Clinton administration had taken while mediating Israeli-Palestinian talks. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has gradually become the core issue of the Middle East disturbance. The U.S. found two of her national interests in the Middle East colliding, and the best way to both support Israel and promote good tie with Arab nations, is dissolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clinton Administration enjoyed the best opportunity to reach a permanent peace agreement. The Camp David Summit in 2000 was the talk the nearest to the final peace, however; peace didn’t succeed.
    Clinton Administration started the first term as a facilitator. As the Oslo framework slowly proceeded, Clinton became a mediator who dominated the peace process. During the process of mediation, right wing hardliners of both Israel and Palestine constantly provoked against each. Conflict arose from time to time as a result. Even the political leaders of both sides enjoyed games of provocation in order to please each own constituency.
    Clinton Administration made several strategic mistakes. By investigating the negotiation strategy that Israel and Palestine took, it is clear that both sides including the U.S. should share responsibility for the failure of peace process. While Israel and Palestine competed against each and both tried to win the U.S. endorsement, Clinton failed to take a hard position on restraining both from violating peace process, which led to a vicious circle of deal breaking. Extremists could therefore easily find their actions influential. On top of that, Clinton Administration did not expedite the time frame of peace talk. Instead, the U.S. left the most controversial issues of Jerusalem and refuge return under little discussion or mutual understanding until the 2000 final status talk, which further sentenced the death of peace deal. Moreover, Clinton Administration was not a neutral mediator, but more clinging to Israel and ignoring the endurance of Palestinians. Such a position introduced more Israeli unilateral violation and lost favor from Palestinians. Miscalculation and wrong strategy deployment turned a possible peace deal into another violence cycle.
    Appears in Collections:[美國研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback