Featured Analyses, The 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace Conference

Examine the events Leading up to the 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace Conference

May 30, 2025

Historical Context

Explore the historical context through the events and the documents leading up to the 1991 Madrid Middle East Peace Conference:

Document: U.N. Security Council Resolution 338, Oct. 22, 1973

Significance: This resolution reaffirms Resolution 242, emphasizes direct negotiations, and provides the basis for a peace conference in December 1973 in Geneva.

Document: Resolution of the Arab League Summit at Rabat, Morocco, October 30, 1974

Significance: The PLO wins recognition from Arab states as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, superseding any role or any land claims by Jordan and Egypt.

Document: U.S.-U.S.S.R. invitation to the Madrid peace conference, Oct. 18, 1991

Significance: The invitees know that they all must agree to turn the Madrid conference into a peace process.

Excerpt: “The United States and the Soviet Union believe that a historic opportunity exists to advance the prospects for genuine peace throughout the region. The United States and the Soviet Union are prepared to assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement, through direct negotiations along two tracks, between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians, based on United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The objective of this process is real peace. … The conference will have no power to impose solutions on the parties or veto agreements reached by them. It will have no authority to make decisions for the parties and no ability to vote on issues or results. The conference can reconvene only with the consent of all the parties.”

Document: Letters of assurance, mid-October

The following are paraphrased highlights of the letters, as reported in various media.
To the Palestinians: The United States is open to any outcome and to discussion of any issue the Palestinians wish to raise. The residents of East Jerusalem should be able to participate in any interim elections. The final status of East Jerusalem is open to negotiation, and no interim arrangements regarding the city will affect the resolution. The United States opposes Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. The United States opposes stalling and will push for a five-year process from interim arrangements to final agreement.
To Israel: Each set of bilateral negotiations is direct and independent. The PLO is excluded, and Palestinian delegates must live in the West Bank or Gaza. The United States does not support the creation of an independent Palestine. The United States will work to end the Arab boycott and to annul the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism. Israel deserves a secure border with Lebanon and negotiated borders with Syria.
To Lebanon: U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, calling for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, is separate from Resolution 242 and applies only to Israel, not to Syria.
To Syria: The United States agrees that simultaneous progress in all the bilateral talks is in the interests of a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Resolution 242 applies to the Golan Heights. The United States won’t recognize unilateral actions by Israel.

From these events and documents, consider whether the political and diplomatic conditions were ripe for successful negotiations.

Exit mobile version