General information
Type of Incompatibility: Territory
Comment on Type of Incompatibility: The incompatibility concerns the territories of Israel and Palestine.
Territory: Palestine
Date of first stated goal of incompatibility: 1959-10-10
Date of first use of armed force: 1965-01-03
Comment on first use of armed force: The first Fatah raid on Israeli soil took place on 3 January. Fatah (a member of the PLO) however claimed that they carried out their first raid on 1 January. Israeli sources, however, have found that this first attack never took the form of violence, as the explosive device planted never exploded. Nevertheless, the event has been remembered and celebrated by Fatah supporters ever since on the so called Fatah day.
Date of first battle related death: 1948-05-15
Date of conflict reached 25 battle releated deaths: 1949-12-31
Annual information
This section contains annual information systematically collected by the UCDP.
1975
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1976
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1977
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1978
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1979
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1980
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1981
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1982
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Syria
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 1025 |
| Best | 1025 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1983
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1984
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1985
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1986
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1987
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 51 |
| Best | 51 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1988
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PLO, Rejectionist Front
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 50 |
| Best | 50 |
| Low | 0 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1989
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PFLP, PFLP-GC
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 106 |
| Best | 95 |
| Low | 95 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1990
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 100 |
| Best | 73 |
| Low | 70 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1991
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 69 |
| Best | 66 |
| Low | 66 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1992
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 82 |
| Best | 77 |
| Low | 76 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1993
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 94 |
| Best | 90 |
| Low | 90 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1993-09-13
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The Oslo agreement, kick-starting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, declared the establishment of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority and an elected Palestinian Council for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Israeli forces were to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinian Council was to fill the vacuum by establishing a strong police force responsible for law and order in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Yet the Israeli military will be responsible for the entire territory’s external defence and sovereignty, and reserves its right to protect Israeli citizens.
An Interim Self-Government Authority and an elected Palestinian Council was to be established and a preparatory transfer of power and responsibilities from Israel to authorized Palestinians was begun. A final settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 was to be reached within five years.
Future negotiations were to cover issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, and relations with neighbouring states. The agreement is categorized as a partial dyadic agreement with some of the characteristics that peace process agreements have.
Signatories: Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres and Abu Mazen of Fatah/PLO.
Witnessed By:
President Clinton The United States of America
Foreign Minister Kosirev The Russian Federation
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Prime Minister Rabin of Israel and Yasser Arafat of the Fatah/PLO were important forces behind the negotiations and attended the signing ceremony.
Third parties: Norway, President Clinton and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kosirev.
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: Norway mediated the negotiations. President Clinton of the USA and the Russian Foreign Minister Kosirev facilitated and attended at the signing ceremony.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
1994
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 76 |
| Best | 75 |
| Low | 72 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1994-05-04
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The agreement is a continuance of the 1993 Oslo Agreement and is categorized as a partial dyadic agreement.
The Gaza Jericho Agreement also known as the Cairo Agreement regulated the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho and established a Joint Security Coordination and Cooperation Committee for the recommendation and implementation of security guidelines and to deal with security issues and to provide a channel for information exchange. A 9000 strong Palestinian police force was to handle Palestinian security. It further stipulated how jurisdiction over the areas was to be shared and regulated the details for how the parties should coordinate civilian, economic and security matters.
Signatories: Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, Chair of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah.
Witnessed By: The United States of America The Russian Federation The Arab Republic of Egypt
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Third parties: Egypt, USA and Russia
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: The signing was hosted by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and was attended by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Kosyrev.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: The agreement was incorporated into and superseded by the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II).
The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
Name of peace agreement: Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities Between Israel and the PLO
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1994-08-29
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities also known as the Erez agreement was a further step in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and regulated what exact powers the Palestinian Authority would have.
The agreement contained one main document, six annexes and a budget proposal for the interim period. The main provisions were that Palestinian authority was extended to include the spheres of education and culture, health, social welfare, tourism, direct taxation and VAT. It was further specified that the Palestinian authority would not extend to Israelis, Jerusalem or Israeli settlers and settlements. The Palestinian Authority also received the power of secondary legislation, which could at any time be opposed by the government of Israel or the military government.
The Palestinian responsibility for law enforcement was reaffirmed, along with Israel’s position as the only sovereign entity that could pursue international relations, external defence and foreign policy. Further, some modalities for the transfer from Israeli to Palestinian officials were worked out.
Signatories: Major General Danny Rothschild and Nabil Shaath
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
The signatories were the chief negotiators of the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: By 1 September 1994 implementation had begun on only one of the five areas covered by the agreement: education. The transfer of power on the other areas awaited further talks on financing. Rabin also demanded that measures had to be taken against Islamic extremists if the transfer was to continue.
The agreement was incorporated into and superseded by the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II).
The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
1995
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 81 |
| Best | 77 |
| Low | 77 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Protocol on Further Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1995-08-27
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
This agreement lays out a transfer of powers and responsibilities to the PLO on issues of labor, commerce and industry, gas and petroleum, insurance, postal services, local government, and agriculture. It specifies rights and obligations of the local government and makes reference to the Gaza-Jericho Agreement.
With regard to the incompatibility, the agreement gives select rights of local governance to the PLO.
Signatories: Israel: Oren Shachor
PLO: Jamil Tarifi
Comment of signatories: Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in Cairo, Egypt on 27 August 1995
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: The agreement was incorporated into and superseded by the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II).
The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
Name of peace agreement: Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip ("Oslo II")
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1995-09-28
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The Oslo B agreement, or the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, should be viewed as the most important agreement following the 1993 Oslo agreement that begun this peace process.
The agreement stipulated further withdrawals of Israeli forces from the West Bank and Gaza, and the placement of Palestinian security forces in these areas.The terms of the Interim Agreement also stipulated the extension of the Palestinian power to include six more West Bank towns, including parts of Hebron, within six months. It further stated that Palestinian National Authority was to be extended over most of the West Bank by late 1997. The powers of the Council were increased and allowed the Palestinian Authority to conclude agreements with other states in some political spheres, and more importantly allowed the PA to pass both primary and secondary legislation.
As a confidence building measure Israel agreed to release prisoners and detainees that were residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Some refugees from these areas that were located abroad were also allowed to return, and would not be charged for crimes committed before the Oslo agreement in 1993.
The agreement contains: Annex I- Protocol Concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements, Annex II- Protocol Concerning Elections, Annex III- Concerning Civil Affairs, Annex IV- Protocol Concerning Legal Affairs, Annex V- Protocol on Economic Relations, Annex VI- Protocol Concerning Israeli Palestinian Cooperation Programs, and Annex VII- Release of Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees.
In combination, the annexes address the incompatibility by regulating the border issue, though not resolving the greater issue of power and territory. These annexes are part of the Oslo II peace process. Parts regulate interactions and sharing of boundaries between Israel and Palestine, provide a pathway for election of representatives to local governance bodies for Palestine, provides for transfer of various civil powers from the Israeli military and civil administration to the Palestinian Council, and create programs in the interest of striving for peaceful coexistence through economic, scientific, social, and cultural areas for cooperation. Discussion on permanent status was reserved for future negotiations. The annexes also included redeployment and security arrangements to be implemented during the interim period, various issues having to do with civil affairs, and release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.
Signatories: Yitzhak RABIN
Shimon PERES
For the Government of the State of Israel
Yasser ARAFAT For the PLO
Witnesses: William J. CLINTON Warren CHRISTOPHER The United States of America
Amre MOUSSA The Arab Republic of Egypt
Bjorn Tore GODAL The Kingdom of Norway
Andrei V. KOZYREV The Russian Federation
Hussein IBN TALAL The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Felipe GONZALEZ
The European Union
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement signed in Washington, D.C. on 28 September 1995.
The agreement was signed by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat,
and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, while observers to the signing ceremony included representatives from the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, the European Union and Norway.
Third parties: USA, Egypt, Norway, Russia, Jordan, EU, Egypt
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: The signing was prepared in Egypt and executed in Washington.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
1996
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PNA
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 77 |
| Best | 75 |
| Low | 75 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
1997
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 4 |
| Best | 2 |
| Low | 2 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Protocol on Redeployment in Hebron
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1997-01-15
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The Protocol was the first agreement between the new Israeli Likud government and PLO/Fatah/PNA. Although the agreement did not introduce any significantly new terms when compared to the Oslo B agreement it is still important as it was the product of intense bargaining in a new setting; Israel had a new government and the PNA and Israel had had their first violent clashes during 1996. Besides some details on the security arrangements the novelties of the arrangement were the Israeli withdrawal from 80 per cent of Hebron within ten days and that the first of three subsequent withdrawals from the West Bank should take place within six weeks of the signing. The other two redeployments were set to take place before August 1998. The agreement was a continuance of the 1995 Oslo B agreement and should be categorized as a partial dyadic agreement.
Signatories: D. Shomrom and S. Erakat
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Third parties: USA
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: The US special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace talks, Denis Ross, mediated the meeting between Netanyahu and Arafat that preceded the signing of the agreement.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2001-02-06
Comment of Duration: The peace process that is commonly known as the Oslo process started with the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements/ Oslo Agreement and ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada. However it was first after Ariel Sharon - who in his electoral campaign said that he would seek an alternative basis for peace to the 1993 Oslo Israeli-PLO accords, was elected Israeli Prime Minister 6 February 2001 the agreements within the Oslo process are considered as ended.
Full-text peace agreement
1998
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 15 |
| Best | 15 |
| Low | 15 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: The Wye River Memorandum
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1998-10-23
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
It was agreed that Israel should redeploy its troops from 13.1 per cent of the West Bank in three stages and that the Palestinians were to increase measures taken against terrorists. It was also stipulated that final status negotiations should be resumed by 4 May 1999. The agreement did not regulate any significantly new areas when compared to the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Agreements and should be categorized as a partial dyadic agreement with some characteristics of a peace process agreement.
Signatories: For the Government of the State of Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu
For the PLO: Yasser Arafat
Witnessed by: William J. Clinton The United States of America
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Third parties: USA, Jordan
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: King Hussein of Jordan and Albright, Ross, Tenet and President Clinton of USA mediated the talks between Arafat and Netanyahu.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 1998-12-20
Comment of Duration: Two days after the Israeli redeployment was to be implemented the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) voted to suspend implementation of the Memorandum, out of security reasons.
Full-text peace agreement
1999
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 4 |
| Best | 4 |
| Low | 4 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: The Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum Wye II
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 1999-09-04
Comment of peace agreement: Partial peace agreement
The Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum was in essence a continuance of the Wye River Memorandum but with some changes in the schedule and in what had been agreed on procedural matters. The parties agreed to resume the Permanent Status negotiations and to conclude a comprehensive agreement one year after the negotiations had been resumed.
The Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum does not address the incompatibility to a great extent.
Signatories: Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and Chair Yasser Arafat of the Fatah/PLO/PNA.
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Third parties: USA, Egypt, Jordan.
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: The memorandum was signed in Egypt in the presence of Egyptian President Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah and Madeleine Albright of the USA.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2000-09-13
Comment of Duration: The peace process that was restarted through the Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum Wye II broke down after negotiations at Camp David failed in August 2000 and the Second Intifada broke out in September 2000. The deadline in the agreement of 13 September 2000 (one year after the resumptiuon of the Permanent Status negotiations which should start not later than 13 September 19999) for the completion of the talks therefore failed and is seen as the end of this agreement.
Full-text peace agreement
2000
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, PNA
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 110 |
| Best | 107 |
| Low | 100 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2001
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, PFLP, PIJ, PNA
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 282 |
| Best | 260 |
| Low | 254 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2002
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - AMB, Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PNA
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 701 |
| Best | 641 |
| Low | 634 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2003
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - AMB, Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 331 |
| Best | 312 |
| Low | 312 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2004
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - AMB, Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 507 |
| Best | 451 |
| Low | 429 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2005
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 155 |
| Best | 142 |
| Low | 126 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2006
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, PIJ, PRC
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 493 |
| Best | 425 |
| Low | 390 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2007
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 324 |
| Best | 294 |
| Low | 293 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Peace agreements
Name of peace agreement: Israeli-Palestinian Joint Understanding on Negotiations ("Annapolis Conference Joint Understanding on Negotiations")
Date when warring parties signed the agreement: 2007-11-27
Comment of peace agreement: Peace process agreement
PNA President Abbas and Israeli PM Olmert met on 27 November 2007 in Annapolis, Maryland (the US), under the auspices of US President George W Bush in order to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The end result of the international conference in Annapolis was this peace process agreement, dubbed the "Israeli-Palestinian Joint Understanding on Negotiations".
The agreement was a peace process agreement in its true sense, containing only a pledge to continue negotiations on the core issues of the conflict and a time table for these negotiations.
Both parties pledged to end incitement to bloodshed and violence, and to initiate bilateral negotiations on "all outstanding issues", as specified in earlier agreements. In essence, this peace process agreement is therefore a continuance of the peace process that ended with the start of the Second Intifada.
Further, the parties agreed to conclude a final and comprehensive peace agreement before the end of 2008, through negotiations in a steering committee and through bi-weekly meetings between Abbas and Olmert.
Finally, both parties pledged to implement their respective obligations under the "Road Map for Peace", issued by the Quartet in 2003. A joint mechanism, chaired by the USA is to monitor the extent to which the parties fulfill their obligations.
Signatories: PLO Chairman and PNA President Muhammad Abbas
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
US President George W Bush
Comment of signatories: Dyadic peace agreement
Third parties: US
Comment of third parties role in peace agreement: The US mediated the talks that led up to the agreement and also chaired the international conference where it was signed.
Ended: True
Date agreement ended: 2008-12-31
Comment of Duration: The initial Annapolis deadline (to secure an agreement before the end of 2008) was not met. Israel launched Operation Cast Lead war in Gaza and the Annapolis initiative was buried as a consecuence.
Full-text peace agreement
2008
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 758 |
| Best | 709 |
| Low | 620 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2009
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 884 |
| Best | 713 |
| Low | 615 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2010
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 77 |
| Best | 72 |
| Low | 72 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2011
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 102 |
| Best | 102 |
| Low | 102 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2012
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 261 |
| Best | 252 |
| Low | 252 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2013
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 12 |
| Best | 12 |
| Low | 12 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2014
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 2413 |
| Best | 2410 |
| Low | 2398 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2015
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 15 |
| Best | 10 |
| Low | 10 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2016
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 8 |
| Best | 7 |
| Low | 7 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2017
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 24 |
| Best | 24 |
| Low | 24 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2018
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 77 |
| Best | 66 |
| Low | 66 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2019
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 91 |
| Best | 83 |
| Low | 83 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2020
Primary Parties: -
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 13 |
| Best | 13 |
| Low | 13 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2021
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 276 |
| Best | 276 |
| Low | 276 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2022
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, PIJ
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 105 |
| Best | 105 |
| Low | 102 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2023
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, PIJ
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Yemen (North Yemen)
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 26913 |
| Best | 26790 |
| Low | 26684 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2024
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, PIJ, PRC
Secondary Warring Parties Side B: Government of Yemen (North Yemen)
Dimension: Internationalized intrastate
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 21891 |
| Best | 21608 |
| Low | 21524 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
2025
Primary Parties: Government of Israel - Hamas, Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, PIJ, PRC
Dimension: Internal
| Estimated Fatalities | |
|---|---|
| High | 15138 |
| Best | 14458 |
| Low | 13839 |
Numbers include fatalities for all dyads both active and inactive for this year
Conflict Archive
This section contains annual information no longer systematically collected by the UCDP.
1975 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: On 12 June 1975 US President Ford held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Rabin on solutions both to the conflict with Egypt and the conflict over Palestine. The talks dealt mainly with trying to find a formula for negotiations with the Palestinians, with Israel proposing (and the US rejecting) an Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian confederation.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1976 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in thisconflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 25 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1977 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 25 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Egypt, UN, USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Several third parties were engaged in the Israel-Palestine conflict in 1977, primarily with trying to persuade the parties to come to terms on a modus operandi for negotiations.
On 5 February PLO Chairman Arafats met with the UN’s Kurt Waldheim to discuss the possibility of extending further diplomatic feelers to the US and Israel. Arafat meets UN’s Kurt Waldheim 5 February in Damascus to discuss diplomatic feelers with the US and Israel.
These diplomatic feelers took the form of unofficial talks with the US, via Egypt, in regard to what formulas for negotiations the PLO could and could not accept. The PLO was willing to talk peace and recognize Israel provided that the organization would then get at seat at peace talks that would deal specifically with the issue of statehood. At the time Israel did not view the PLO as a viable negotiating partner, the PLO was not willing to accept UN SC 242 without modifications, and the initiative thus failed.
The US was also involved in brokering a ceasefire between the PLO and Israel in Lebanon on 25 September, which ended PLO shelling of northern Israel and Israeli retaliatory strikes on Lebanon.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1978 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The figures given here should be viewed as being very crude estimates, and only include the most significant acts of fighting.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Following on the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in early 1978 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 425, calling for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, became assigned to observe this withdrawal and was stationed in southern Lebanon in April. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian side and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1979 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 25 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Following on the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in early 1978 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 425, calling for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, became assigned to observe this withdrawal and was stationed in southern Lebanon in April. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian side and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1980 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 25 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1981 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The figures given here should be viewed as being very crude estimates, and only include the most significant acts of fighting.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: In 1981 what was in essence the first negotiated agreement between Israel and the PLO was agreed upon. The year was plagued by a high level of intensity in Palestinian-Israeli fighting (in reality the run-up to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon) and the US, Saudi Arabia and UNIFIL rushed to end the spiral of violence that played out, especially in July of 1981. A ceasefire was negotiated between the PLO and Israel in late July and came into force on 24 July.
US envoy Philip Habib played a central role in the negotiations, through utilizing Saudi Arabian relations with the PLO to contact the former group’s leadership with Israeli demands. Also, UNIFIL commander William Callaghan approached the PLO and Israel directly and shuttled between the Beirut headquarters of the PLO and the Israeli government in Jerusalem to seal the deal.
The ceasefire ended this particular spiral of violence, but did not manage to hinder the Israeli invasion of 1982, or the PLO attacks on Israel that preceded it.
Third party involvement: NO
Third party involvement names: USA, UNIFIL, Saudi Arabia
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The USA, Saudi Arabia and UNIFIL were all active as third parties in putting together the Israeli-PLO ceasefire of 24 July. See Negotiations for more details.
UNIFIL also played a part as a third party in southern Lebanon (see below for information on that mandate).
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1982 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: "Figures regarding the deaths from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon are difficult to consolidate. Lebanese police statistics claimed a total of 17 825 dead, with some 75% of all deaths being civilian. Israel admitted losing some 420 dead and the PLO stated that they had lost 560 dead and approximately the same number of dead in other Palestinian and Lebanese militias on their side. Some 1200 Syrian troops are also though to have been killed.
The estimates given above should be treated with care. The high estimate includes the deaths counted by the Lebanese police, Israeli admitted losses and the 1200 Syrian soldiers. The best estimate reflects a calculation based on removing from the total the Syrian losses, as well as the thousands thought to have been killed in one-sided violence."
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Directly after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 a flurry of diplomatic initiatives began. On several occasions the US, through envoy Philip Habib, attempted to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and the PLO, but his attempts were rebuffed by Israel, which charged that the PLO constantly broke all negotiated ceasefires.
Following on the Israeli army’s encirclement and siege of Beirut in June further diplomatic activity commenced to defuse the situation. Israel demanded the capitulation of the PLO and other Palestinian forces and their departure from Lebanon.
At the forefront of the diplomatic initiatives were yet again US envoy Philip Habib, who served as an intermediary between the Government of Israel and the PLO. The PLO’s demands for an evacuation plan were relayed to Israel as early as 2 July, but were rebuffed. Negotiating also with the Lebanese government, Habib shuttled between the parties between 3 August and 18 August to secure an agreement on the PLO’s evacuation from Beirut. Such a plan was accepted by the Government of Israel on 12 August, and soon thereafter also by Arafat and the PLO.
The evacuation plan – which also included a ceasefire - stipulated that all PLO personnel were to be evacuated by boat to Arab countries that would accept them; in this instance Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen and South Yemen. In order to support the evacuation and vouch for the security of the PLO staff a peacekeeping unit referred to as the Multinatioal Forces (MNF) was to be stationed in Beirut. The MNF was made up of troops from the US, Italy and France.
The evacuation began on 21 August and the last ship sailed from Beirut on 1 September.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: UNIFIL, USA, France, MNF, Lebanon
Comment on Third Party Involvement: As the Israeli invasion of Lebanon began in early June 1982, with the goal of crushing the PLO, UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) attempted to secure a ceasefire between the parties. These initiatives soon failed however, as the peacekeepers did not gain access to the PLO and Israeli leaderships. UNIFIL, however, remained in Lebanon also after the Israeli invasion, where its mandate from 1978 was still relevant (see information for Third parties in 1978 for more information).
USA, mainly in the form of its envoy Philip Habib, was one of the main third party actors during the year. Between early June and late August he functioned as an intermediary between the Government of Israel and the PLO as they negotiated the PLO’s evacuation from Beirut. He served in this capacity together with the Government of Lebanon, which was also involved as a third party. France played a similar part as an intermediary, but did not meet with the same amount of success.
The agreement on the PLO’s evacuation from Beirut mandated that the evacuation be monitored and the PLO’s safety vouched for by a peacekeeping force. Subsequently, the Multinational Force (MNF) was stationed in Beirut to this end. The first contingent of the MNF was made up of troops from the US, Italy and France and in 1982 totaled around 2 000 soldiers. This contingent withdrew from Beirut in late August.
Following on the massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp on 16-18 September a second contingent was posted in Beirut to protect Palestinian refugees (oftentimes referred to as MNF II, but sometimes only as MNF). This new force contained approximately 1 500 American marines, 1 500 French paratroopers and 1 500 Italian soldiers.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1983 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 50 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: MNF, UNIFIL, Jordan
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The MNF (Multinational Force) continued to be stationed in Lebanon during 1983, to oversee the protection of Palestinian refugees. In addition to the US, Italian and French troops stationed there the UK also sent troops to the contingent in February. Total troop strength was by then approximately 5 000 men.
Throughout the year the MNF lost its neutrality in the eyes of the antagonists in Lebanon and became embroiled in the Lebanese civil war. Some of the member countries of the MNF thus became warring parties to that conflict. In terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict this did not happen and the MNF is seen as being a third party throughout the entirety of 1983.
During 1983 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
During 1983, in order to circumvent US and Israeli attempts to exclude the PLO from any formal negotiations (the US and Israel being more interested in negotiating only with Jordan over the Palestine issue), the PLO attempted to formally align itself with Jordan to create a Palestinian-Jordanian axis of negotiations. The PLO and Jordan subsequently held a few meetings during the year so as to secure a common negotiating front in future talks with Israel. Jordan is thus viewed as being a third party during the year.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1984 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 50 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: MNF, UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The MNF (Multinational Force) continued to be stationed in Lebanon until March 1984. Though remaining neutral in the PLO-Israel conflict (and thus being seen as a third party in this conflict) some of the MNF’s participating countries had gotten embroiled in the Lebanese civil war during 1983. Especially the American contingent had been attacked on several occasions and also itself attacked the leftist side in the conflict. A troop withdrawal began in February and the last troops (French) left in late March.
During 1984 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1985 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The figures given here should be viewed as being very crude estimates, and only include the most significant acts of fighting.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Jordan, UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: In 1985, Jordan continued to play a role as a third party through its meetings with the PLO. Beginning in 1983 the two parties had begun to formulate a joint negotiating strategy so as to circumvent Israeli and US objections to dealing directly with the PLO.
Jordan thus worked with the PLO to make the group accept the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions on the partitioning of the Palestine; something that the PLO did (unofficially) in 1985.
On 11 February 1985 Jordan and the PLO drafted the Amman Accord as the basis of a joint negotiating stance, calling for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in return for a comprehensive peace, the option of Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, and the aforementioned joint negotiation team. Groups aligned with the Rejectionist Front vehemently opposed this accord
During 1985 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1986 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this dyad is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 50 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Jordan, UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The joint negotiating stance agreed upon in 1985 gained further prominence during early 1986, as the PLO and Jordan held further talks to modify the PLO’s stance on the conflict issues. In mid-February Jordan also met with Israeli Prime Minister Peres in London in order to get a feel for the Israeli stance on negotiations.
This initiative, however, fell apart during 1986, since the PLO would not finally and officially accept UN Security Council Resolution 242 (the partitioning of Palestine). Subsequently, Jordan withdrew from the joint negotiating initiative, severing the PLO’s possible inlet into negotiations.
During 1986 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1987 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 50 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: (USA), UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: In 1987 the PLO’s Arafat for the first time accepted UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in an interview towards the end of the year, and reiterated this in his New Year’s address on 31 December, thus opening up for negotiations on terms that were relatively agreeable to Israel. This opening soon had an effect, as US Secretary of State Shultz began to conduct shuttle missions to the region in February. He did however not meet with the PLO but only with prominent Palestinians, since the US was at this time, not willing to accept the PLO as an equal negotiating partner.
It is unclear if Schultz met with Israeli representatives during this year to discuss the conflict issue and the US is thus not coded as a third party in 1987.
During 1987 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1988 Conflict Archive
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The number of battle-related deaths in this conflict is unclear, but activity at the least surpassed 50 battle-related deaths.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA, UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: In 1988 the PLO officially accepted – and adopted into their political programme – UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, thus cementing the movement’s stance on a two-state solution and condemning terrorism in all its forms. Further modifying its stance in December 1988 the PLO finally met the demands set up by the US for negotiations to take place.
Subsequently, and official dialogue was opened between the US and the PLO, with meetings being held towards the end of the year between PLO negotiators and US Secretary of State Shultz. This first round of talks in December did not go well.
Further talks followed in March 1989, in which the US wanted only to discuss the issue of ending terrorism and also proposed that the Palestinians would be represented by a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. A few more meetings during the year between the US and the PLO did little to assuage the PLO’s temper, as the PLO would only accept that representatives of the organisation itself would take part in any peace talks
During 1988 UNIFIL also played its part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1989 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: UNIFIL
Comment on Third Party Involvement: During 1989 UNIFIL played a part as a third party actor.
UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was established in 1978, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 and 426. The mandate’s main point is to oversee the implementation of an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The mission was also to oversee the deployment of Lebanese army troops in this area.
The mandate contains no mention of the PLO or other Palestinian guerrilla groups, but is still viewed as being a conflict resolution mechanism between the Palestinian guerrillas and Israel since it monitors and reports on the situation on the ground.
1989 is, however, the last year that UNIFIL is viewed as being a third party in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is due to the fact that guerrilla activity in southern Lebanon had, in 1988, decreased significantly as Palestinian militant activity moved mainly to the West Bank and Gaza. Also, as the civil war in Lebanon was moving towards a close in the late 1980s the so-called “security zone” maintained by Israel in southern Lebanon had ceased to be a buffer zone against Palestinian militants and instead become a buffer zone against Hezbollah. UNIFIL is thus, from 1990 an onwards, seen as third party measure in the Israel (Southern Lebanon) conflict.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1990 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In the first months of 1990 US and Egypt made efforts to hold negotiations between Israel and Palestinians over elections in the Occupied territories based on the US Secretary of state Bakers 5-point initiative, the efforts failed and no negotiations were held during the year.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: US and Egypt
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Tried to mediate.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1991 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In October 1991 the first session of talks between Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian-Jordanian delegations were held in Madrid. The first session did not cover any substantive issues and no Palestinian party active since 1989 participated. To facilitate Israeli demands the PLO was not allowed to participate and represent the Palestinians.
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1992 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: In the beginning of 1992 a series of official bilateral talks were been held between Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian-Jordanian delegations. PLO representatives were not a part of the Palestinian-Jordanian delegation as a prerequisite for Israeli participation. The official negotiations did not achieve anything substantive.
By 19 June 1992 Israeli negotiators Yossi Beilin and Yair Hirschfeld met with Faisel Husseini of the in East Jerusalem to discuss the possibility of less official talks between Israel and the Fatah/PLO. The meeting was facilitated by Terje Larsen of Norway. The prenegotiations continued on 4 December 1992 when Yair Hirschfeld met with Abu Ala in London.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Norway, USA.
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The USA mediated the Arab-Israeli official negotiations during 1992. Norwegian officials facilitated the prenegotiations between Israel and the Fatah/PLO.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1993 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Official negotiations brokered in Washington continued during the first half of 1993. On 20 January 1993 the first substantive Oslo talks were held between the teams of Israels Yair Hirschfeld and Fatah/PLOs Abu Ala. The first breakthrough of the talks continued when an Israeli and a Palestinian negotiator signed an agreement on 19 August. The Declaration of Principles was then signed officially on 13 September 1993.
On 11 October 1993 Yasser Arafat, the leader of Fatah/PLO, and Israeli negotiator Yossi Beilin had their first meeting. After the Tunis meeting it was decided that informal talks on the Final Status was to commence between Beilin and Abu Mazen.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Norway, USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The official rounds of negotiations continued mediated by Americans alongside with the back channel negotiations mediated by Norway.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1994 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: On 13 May Israels withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho was completed, in accordance with a 4 May agreement. On 17 May the PLO formally assumed control of the administrative installations in the areas.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Talks initiated on 14 February, regarding the implementation of the first stage of Palestinian self rule, were broken off following the murder of several Palestinians by an Israeli extremist. The talks were resumed at the end of March when the parties agreed on security arrangements in Hebron and parts of the occupied territories. By early May an agreement on autonomy for Gaza and Jericho was reached. Talks were held on 18 May between Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres, and on 1 September 1994 negotiations continued between Ahmed Khalidi, Hussein Agha of the Fatah/PLO and Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak of Israel, mediated in Sweden.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Sweden
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1995 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: The negotiations were lagging behind the schedule stipulated by the 1993 Oslo Agreement but after months of negotiations the parties finally signed the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, also known as Oslo B, on 28 September 1995.
On 7 October Yasser Arafat, the leader of PLO and chairman of the PNA, met with Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shimon Peres to discuss the timetable for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Palestinian elections. By 31 October additional talks in Stockholm, Sweden, were concluded by a meeting between Abu Mazen and Yossi Beilins teams in Tel Aviv.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Sweden
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1996 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: During 1996 the Tunnel Riots broke out after the Israeli government opened an archaeological site in the Old City of Jerusalem to tourism. During demonstrations the Palestinian police and IDF soldiers ended up fighting each other for the first time.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: On 5 May the third and final stage of the negotiations were officially initiated. During the "final status" stage Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and Palestinian statehood were the issues to negotiate. It was however reported that the parties would not come to any agreement before the Israeli elections, held on 29 May, were concluded. The first meeting between a member of the new Israeli government, headed by Netanyahu, and the Arafat (PLO/Fatah/PNA) was held on June 27 in Gaza. That meeting was however most likely a prenegotiation. Further negotiations that were more like prenegotiations were resumed on 23 July between Israeli Foreign Minister David Levi and Yasser Arafat and between Netanyahu and Arafat on 4 September. Negotiations were also held on 9 September, and on 16 October on the subject of Israeli redeployment within Hebron. Although there were some progress in the talks between Netanyahu and Arafat on 24 December no agreement was reached.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: TIPH (Norway), USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Following the September 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip the parties negotiated another agreement that regulated the presence of third parties and not the core of the incompatibility: The Agreement on Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron, 9 May 1996. This agreement established a Temporary International Presence in the city of Hebron (TIPH). The TIPH was to consist of 50-60 Norwegians with the tasks of, amongst other: providing a feeling of security for the Palestinians of Hebron, promoting stability and preparing the establishment of the new TIPH.
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher met with Prime Minister Netanyahu on June 25 and with Chairman Arafat the following day to discuss the peace process. He mediated once again on 5 October in preparation for the 6 October negotiations.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Other
Date of termination: 1996-12-31
Comment on Termination: As Israeli-Palestinian negotiations gained pace, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements began to be implemented, there was a notable decrease in armed activity amongst all Palestinian insurgent groups. This relative calm lasted until 2000, when the final status negotiations failed to resolve the incompatibility.
1997 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: After many rounds of negotiations concerning Israeli redeployment in Hebron an agreement was finally reached on 15 January 1997. The Israeli decision to allow the building of new houses by Israelis on disputed land, East Jerusalem, prompted the Palestinians to withdraw from the final status talks scheduled to begin on 17 March. Negotiations over significant issues were again resumed in early November, but without result.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: TIPH (Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey), USA, Jordan
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) was further regulated by the parties with the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of a Temporary International Presence in Hebron. The TIPH was to consist of up to 180 members.
Denis Ross of the USA, and King Hussein of Jordan mediated the January peace talks.
US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, mediated between the parties during 10-15 September and as a result of her visit Netanyahu and Arafat met in October for the first time in eight months.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1998 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: The negotiations reached a stalemate during the first half of 1998 that was broken on 17 July when the negotiation teams met for three days. Arafat recalled the Palestinian team since the Israelis reportedly proposed that 3 per cent of the 31.1 per cents of the West Bank negotiated over should be turned into a nature reserve. After some new contacts in September the parties met on 15 October at the Wye Plantation, USA. By 23 October an agreement had been reached that stipulated the Israeli withdrawal from the additional 13.1 per cent of the West Bank.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA, Jordan
Comment on Third Party Involvement: American Denis Ross mediated between Israelis and Palestinians on 6-9 January but failed to bring them to negotiations at that time. President Clinton had separate meetings with Netanyahu and Arafat on 20 and 22 January.
King Hussein of Jordan and Albright, Ross, Tenet and President Clinton of USA mediated the talks between Arafat and Netanyahu.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
1999 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: The first meeting between Yasser Arafat and the new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, occurred on 11 July 1999. The negotiations, which resumed after that meeting, were interrupted by late July and early August because of differences regarding the implementation of the Wye River Memorandum. After negotiations had resumed in mid-August the parties reached an agreement on 4 September: The Sharm el-Sheik Memorandum.
On 13 September prenegotiations concerning the final status talks were symbolically opened on the sixth anniversary of the 1993 Declaration of Principles. The actual final status negotiations were initiated on 8 November 1999 in the West Bank city of Ramallah. (Parallel rounds of negotiations concerning the Framework Agreement on Permanent Status (FAPS), and other details concerning interim arrangements, were held at the same time as the final status negotiations, but they did not move forward.) On 6 December Arafat suspended the final status negotiations because of differences on the settlement issue. After mediation efforts by Madeleine Albright the negotiations resumed on 19 December.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: US officials participated in the process on a number of occasions; amongst those were Madelene Albrights mediation efforts during the final status negotiations.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2000 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Final status negotiations were held during ten days from 26 January 2000. The delegations were led by Oded Eran of Israel and Yasser Abd ar-Rabbuh of the Palestinian side. The negotiations, which did not move forward, were resumed on 30 April but stalled on the refugee and Jerusalem issues.
After being invited by President Clinton Prime Minister Barak and Yasser Arafat resumed the negotiations at Camp David on 5 July. There were progress on some areas: the Palestinians were to get a state that included the Gaza Strip and at least 90 per cent of the West Bank, 80 per cent of the settlers would be annexed by Israel in return for territory within Israel. The talks failed in the end of July, once again because of the refugee and Jerusalem issues.
On 16-17 October a summit was held between Barak and Arafat at Sharm el-Sheik, but without successful results.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA, UN, EU, Egypt and Jordan.
Comment on Third Party Involvement: On 5 February US officials Ross and Indyk tried to mediate between Israeli Oded Eran and Palestinian Saeb Erakat. This, and other mediation attempts on 28 June, 5 and 23 July, and 4 and 16-17 October, bore little fruit. On the last occasion UN, EU, Egypt and Jordan were also involved.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
Type of termination: Not terminated
2001 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: There were no negotiations over the incompatibility during 2001.
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2002 Conflict Archive
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: There were no high-level negotiations involving Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Yasser Arafat. However, Israeli and Palestinian security officials met a few times, mainly during the beginning of the year.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Jordan, USA, EU, UN and Russia.
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The US sent a number of envoys to the region, but they were not successful. Two peace proposals received a lot of public attention. Firstly, in February, the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince suggested that all 22 members of the Arab League would normalise their diplomatic relations with Israel in return for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces. Secondly, towards the end of the year, “the Quartet” (US, EU, UN, Russia) came up with a road-map for peace, but both Palestinians and Israelis seemed more occupied with the planned elections in Israel in January 2003 and a possible reform of the Palestinian Authority.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2003 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In sum, the year of 2003 saw a decline in the number of battle-related deaths. Even though the numbers were cut by almost half the violence continues to claim lives. The year was characterized by tit-for-tat violence with Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli military counter strikes. As a result of last years wave of suicide bombings, the Israelis launched a military clampdown as well as demolishing houses belonging to families of militants. According to Israel, this has been a way to preempt suicide bombings from occurring.
Following a suicide bombing by al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade on 5 January, Israel’s army stepped up operations targeting Palestinians under pretexts of “terrorism-combat”. Also, the Israeli military has intensified the sweep for suspected Palestinian militants amid fears of a surge of violence ahead of Israel’s general election on 28 January. After Hamas blew up an Israeli tank in February and killed 4 Israeli soldiers, Israeli Defence Minister vowed “to strike hard at our enemy Hamas”. Following this statement, Israeli forces stepped up raids on military strongholds.
On 29 June Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah declared a temporary three-month ceasefire. However, the Islamic Jihad / Hamas suicide bombing that killed at least 20 people on 19 August left the truce hanging in the balance. Israel responded by killing a top Hamas leader and two of his bodyguards, which in turn made Hamas and Islamic Jihad to declare the unilateral ceasefire over. This was once again followed by a tit-for-tat wave of violence with suicide bombings and military counter strikes. The Palestinians and the Israelis blamed each other for the collapse of the peace hopes.
In October, Israel once again stepped up its military strikes against Palestinian militants in response to the 4 October suicide bombing that killed 20 Israelis. The raid into Rafah refugee camp on 10 October was the biggest in Gaza in nearly half a year. The raid was part of a stepped-up military strategy to uncover and destroy arms-smuggling tunnels. The tit-for-tat violence continued throughout the year.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Best estimate: 307
Low estimate: 307
High estimate: 485
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: In early January, British Prime Minister Tony Blair invited Palestinian delegates to London for talks attended by representatives of the U.S., the UN, Russia, the EU, Jordan and Egypt. However, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon refused to let the Palestinian delegates travel after suicide bombings killed 22 people in Tel Aviv. On 5 January two left-wing Israeli politicians met senior Egyptian officials in Cairo for talks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In late January, the first face-to-face talks of twelve Palestinian factions were held in Cairo where they discussed a proposal for a unilateral ceasefire. The factions failed to agree on a proposal to halt attacks. Hamas, Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade were not attending the talks.
In February Israeli Prime Minister Sharon held his first direct talks with Palestinians in nearly a year, meeting senior officials to discuss ending more than two years of violence. Sharon met Palestinian Legislative Council speaker Ahmed Korei to discuss ways to reach a ceasefire and resume their talks. In February, Israeli officials held several meetings with Palestinian counterparts to discuss a possible ceasefire that would lead to Israels withdrawal from West Bank cities.
Sharon and Abbas had talks on 29 May intended to prepare the grounds for a three-way summit with U.S. President Bush in Jordan on 4 June, which was supposed to put the peace initiative by the Quartet (U.S, the UN, the EU and Russia) into motion. Sharon’s office said the Israeli leader announced a series of goodwill gestures, for instance a review of which Palestinian prisoners might be released. Even though the talks were described as positive, there appeared to be little chance of putting the peace proposal into motion before the June-meeting. On 4 June, the two parties met in Aqaba, Jordan under the supervision of President Bush. At the summit Sharon agreed to the creation of a temporary, demilitarised Palestinian state whose final borders would be defined by 2005. Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas pledged to stop militant violence, one of the requirements of the road map. Sharon also pledged to begin immediately to remove some Jewish settlement outposts in the West Bank. On 27 June, Israel and the Palestinian Authority reached an agreement in U.S.-mediated talks. The agreement was reached over the issue of the Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza and Bethlehem. It was not official what security measures Palestinian security forces would take in exchange for the troop pullback. Also, Israel promised to end its attacks on militants.
On 29 June Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah declared a temporary three-month ceasefire. Fatah declared a six months truce provided Israel fulfilled a number of conditions, such as halting the track-and-kill operations against militants. A senior Fatah official said all groups in the faction, including the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades (AMB) would abide by the truce agreement. However, the following day, AMB shot dead a foreign worker in the West Bank and stated that it would not abide by the ceasefire. Some Brigades members backed a truce but others rejected it. The announcements of the ceasefire were followed by partial Israeli troop withdrawals from parts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The pullouts were a result of U.S. mediation. However, the truce fell apart in August following a series of violent attacks involving both sides.
On 20 July, Israel’s Prime Minister and his Palestinian counterpart met in Jerusalem to forge ahead with a U.S.-led peace plan before both were due to make separate progress reports in Washington in July.
In early December, attempts were made to reach agreement on a Palestinian truce offer to Israel. Talks in Cairo failed as militant groups rejected a comprehensive ceasefire.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: U.S, the EU, the UN, Russia, Jordan, Egypt, Switzerland
Comment on Third Party Involvement: A plethora of third parties made attempts to start a dialogue between the warring parties. Also, the international community presented two peace proposals: the so-called “Road map for peace” and “the Geneva peace plan”. Neither has generated any real change.
In early January, British Prime Minister Tony Blair invited Palestinian delegates to London for talks attended by representatives of the U.S., the UN, Russia, the EU, Jordan and Egypt. However, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon refused to let the Palestinian delegates travel after suicide bombings killed 22 people in Tel Aviv.
On 5 January two left-wing Israeli politicians met senior Egyptian officials in Cairo for talks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In late January, the first face-to-face talks of twelve Palestinian factions were held in Cairo where they discussed a proposal for a unilateral ceasefire. The factions failed to agree on a proposal to halt attacks.
On 30 April, after several weeks of drafting, the UN, the U.S, the EU and Russia officially presented a “road map” for peace, which spelled out three reciprocal steps the Israelis and Palestinians should take to end the violence. The plan also seeked to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by 2005 on condition Israel’s security is safeguarded. The Palestinian Authority accepted the plan. Israel on the other hand had reservations about it, saying it wanted to see a Palestinian crackdown on militants before taking any steps. Palestinian militants rejected the plan. Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades called the plan “the road map to hell. The Road Map was finally launched in Jordan on 4 June when Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas met in Aqaba under the supervision of President Bush.
In October the unofficial plan supported by the Swiss government, the so-called Geneva peace plan, drawn up by Israeli opposition and former Palestinian negotiators, was completed. The peace plan offered precise maps on borders and spells out compromises on issues that have torpedoed previous peace efforts. The plan calls for Israel to return almost all land it captured in the 1967 war. In return, Palestinian refugees would largely be blocked out from returning to what is Israel today. The peace initiative is similar to the road map but the latter is more general in nature. The creators of the plan say that the “road map” is “the mother of all initiatives” and the accord is meant to be complementary. However, the Geneva accord is not officially endorsed by the Palestinians and is rejected by Israel’s government. Sharon has expressed opposition to the accord.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2004 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The major event during 2004 was the death of Yasser Arafat on 11 November 2004. A month after his death the new chairman of PLO (and later new President of the Palestinian Authority), Mahmud Abbas, called for an end to the armed uprising. The initial reaction of Hamas, one of the armed groups who resist peaceful negotiations, was to not join a possible ceasefire.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The best estimate include the combined best estimates for all active dyads in the conflict during 2004. For these groups, the combined low estimate is 358 and high estimate 421.
Negotiations: NO
Comment on Negotiation: Following earlier mediation attempts by USA the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon intended to replace the Road Map with a Disconnection Plan, which mainly stipulates a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the annexation of the six largest settlements in the West Bank. This was by many considered the end of the negotiations between the parties. The Israeli parliament was however reluctant to accept the initial plan and following several modifications the parliament still did not approve of it.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA, Egypt
Comment on Third Party Involvement: US attempts at mediating included a meeting in January 2004 between Condoleezza Rice and an Israeli delegation resulted in the Road Map being set aside for another plan of Palestinian independence which required a higher commitment from the Palestinians.
The Israelis were not talking directly to the Palestinians during 2004 and Egypt acted as a mediator. On 11 March the Israeli Foreign Minister flew went to Cairo to discuss the Israeli plan to disengage the Gaza Strip. Further talks between the Palestinians and Egypt and Israel and Egypt followed in May. On 7 June it was announced that the Israel and Egypt were disussing the deployment of more Egyptian troops by the border with Israel to increase security after Israeli withdrawal.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2005 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict in Israel (Palestine) became less intensive in 2005, as the parties upheld a ceasefire for most of the year. Both sides, however, continued in attempts to provoke the other as the rebel groups continuously fired rockets from the occupied territories against Israeli settlements and government installations, and the Israeli forces launched missiles and surprise attacks targeting suspected rebels. At several occasions did these provocative moves initiate a few days of intensive retaliatory offensives before the parties again restated their commitment to the ceasefire.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The best estimate include the combined best estimates for all active dyads in the conflict during 2005. For these groups, the combined low estimate is 119 and high estimate is 181.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Israeli Prime minister Sharon and the leader of Fatah, and also President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas met in Sharm e-Sheikh, Egypt on 8 February 2005. At the meeting, the two parties agreed to a ceasefire and a process to transfer the security responsibility for Palestinian areas to the Palestinian Authority. This transfer would be concluded while Israel evacuated settlements and military installations on the Gaza strip and some settlements in the West Bank as suggested by the “Roadmap to Peace” and approved by the Israeli Knesset in 2004.
The Israeli government was only interested in negotiating with Abbas who proceeded after the Sharm e-Sheikh summit to convince the other Palestinian rebel groups to respect the ceasefire. With some Egyptian mediation, the Palestinian authority and thirteen political organizations signed the Cairo Declaration on 19 March 2005 which committed all factions to a ceasefire throughout 2005.
Throughout the rest of the year, contacts between Israel and the Palestinian leadership were occasional and mainly focused on attempts to maintain the ceasefire. Preparatory talks for a new high-level summit failed after several attempts in October-November, especially as disputes surfaced about the details for the handover of authority to the Palestinian forces.
Talks continued between the parties throughout the year, focusing mainly on practical issues that arose following the Israeli pullout from the Gaza strip.
Towards the end of the year, the contacts were suspended as Fatah became more critical towards the Israeli government in the campaign leading up to elections for the Palestinian authority, held in January 2006. Also, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon suffered a heart attack on 18 December, and the ensuing administrative changes in the government led to a temporary restriction of contacts with the Palestinian Authority during the last weeks of 2005.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Egypt, Jordan, United States, European Union, Russia, United Nations
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak hosted the summit at Sharm e-Sheik in February 2005 where the Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and the leader of Fatah, and President of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas met. Talks at the meeting were further facilitated by the presence of Jordan’s King Abdullah II.
The main responsibility for mediating in the conflict remained with the efforts of the quartet consisting of the US, EU, Russia, and the UN. The work of the quartet continued throughout the year in attempts to find a solution to the conflict and further reduce the violence.
There were also several actors involved in talks with the two sides in attempts to make the transition of authority less difficult. One of the key factors were resolved in mid-November, when the US Secretary of State Condalezza Rice negotiated a deal which led to the opening of an airport in the Palestinian-administered Gaza strip.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2006 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Elections on 25 January 2006 saw Hamas’ ‘Change and Reform’ party sweeping to victory, ousting Abbas’ Fatah from its dominant position within the PNA, which it had held since the Authority’s inception. The Hamas-led government assumed its position on 29 March, with Ismael Haniyah becoming PM, but with Abbas remaining as the PNA’s president. Israel (now lead by Olmert following Kadima’s victory in Israeli elections and Sharon’s slip into a coma following a stroke) and a high number of key Western states responded to Hamas’ electoral victory with a diplomatic and economic boycott in an attempt to force Hamas to recognize Israel and to state its respect for the peace agreements entered into by the previous rulers of the PNA and the PLO. The suspension of aid and tax revenues led to a large-scale financial crisis within the PNA, with Hamas being unable to pay for salaries, gas and electricity or medical care; further deteriorating the situation in the already unstable Gaza Strip.
Adding to the deepening crisis was the continued launching of Qassam rockets by Palestinian militants against Israeli cities and villages, and the continuous IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) incursions into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in search of the militants responsible. These crises grew to full-scale clashes following the capture and abduction of IDF solider Gilad Shalit in late June in a joint Hamas-PRC cross-border raid. With the stated bid of freeing Shalit and ending Qassam fire the IDF launched massive air and artillery strikes, coupled with infantry and tank incursions, into the Gaza Strip; mainly focused on Gaza City, Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya. The Palestinians suffered heavy casualties in this fighting, with both gunmen and many civilians being killed. Large-scale incursions ended with the conclusion of Operation Autumn Clouds in mid-November, without Shalit having been retrieved. A shaky ceasefire was agreed upon in late November, but failed to stop low-level activity such as Qassam launches and Israeli incursions for the purposes of arresting militants. Abbas and Israeli PM Olmert met on 23 December however, discussing ways of extending the shaky, but holding, ceasefire and possible confidence-building measures.
Another troublesome aspect of the crisis in the Palestinian territories was the worsening of already shaky relations between the ousted Fatah and the victorious Hamas. Talks on a unity government, mediated mainly by Egypt and Qatar, failed to reach agreement, to which President Abbas responded by raising calls for early elections to resolve the government crisis. Hamas vehemently opposed this. The Fatah domination of the PNA had also lead to a situation in which the PNA’s police and security apparatuses were dominated by Fatah cadres, still under the control of President Abbas. This prompted Hamas to create its own ‘police force’ (the Executive Forces), controlled by the Hamas-led Interior Ministry. Violent clashes ensued, especially from October and onwards, when Executive Force members and Fatah/PNA activists confronted each other following strikes, abductions and attacks on party-affiliated infrastructure. Towards the end of the year clashes, abductions and mutual political recriminations were epidemic in the Gaza Strip.
Not only did Israel’s problems in the occupied territories increase sharply in 2006, but the conflict with Hezbollah once again became active. See Israel (Southern Lebanon) conflict for more detail.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The best estimate for 2006 includes all dyads that reached minimum activity, i.e. 25 battle-related deaths. The bulk of deaths are attributed to Israel-Hamas and Israel-Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
There is also a category labelled ""Palestine insurgents"", comprising battle-related deaths that cannot be attributed to a specific dyad."
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: There were few direct negotiations between any of the primary parties during 2006. Hamas’ victory in the PLC elections lead to an almost complete freeze in Israel-PNA relations, due to Israel’s claim that there was no party to talk with. Also, the Quartet stated that three criteria needed to be fulfilled by the Hamas government for relations to normalize; the most important ones being that Hamas should recognize Israel and secondly that it should respect the agreements entered into by the preceding PNA government. Hamas refused, and negotiations on the main incompatibility between Palestinians and Israel were frozen. However, at the end of 2006 Israeli PM Olmert met with Abbas in Jerusalem to discuss ways of shoring up the shaky November ceasefire, and try to agree on a few confidence-building measures, such as easing travel restrictions and transferring withheld taxes.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Egypt, Qatar
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Negotiations and third party involvement during the year, being deadlocked on the main incompatibility, focused instead on resolving the pressing issues at hand, namely the abductions of the Israeli soldiers, a ceasefire with Gaza militants and the perceived calm solutions to these issues would yield. In indirect negotiations with Hamas and the PRC (most likely led by Hamas), Egypt and Qatar acted as interlocutors in attempts to arrange a prisoner exchange, but these efforts were not successful. Egypt also attempted to mediate in the intra-Palestinian confrontations, mainly between Hamas and Fatah, which was also an active conflict in 2006.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2007 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict in the Palestinian territories continued in 2007, with three dyads being active; the government of Israel versus Hamas, Fatah and the PIJ. The intensity of the fighting was however lower than in 2006.
For the most part of the year the political situation continued to be deadlocked, the legacy of Hamas’ electoral victory in the Palestinian elections of 2006 and the subsequent Israeli and international boycott of Hamas’ Palestinian government. The Hamas government refused to acquiesce to the Quartet’s and Israel’s demands of recognizing Israel and the previous agreements entered into, and Palestinian rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel continued. At the same time inter-Palestinian fighting increased between Hamas and Fatah. The two parties, battling over supremacy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, however reached an agreement on power sharing in Mecca in February, designed to defuse tensions and break the sanctions placed on the Palestinian authority. This agreement however soon faltered, leading to a coordinated military take-over of the Gaza Strip by Hamas. The Palestinian territories thus became, after fighting that claimed hundreds of Palestinian lives, separated into a Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and a Fatah-controlled West Bank.
Abbas of Fatah subsequently sacked the Hamas government and created a technocrat government of his own, to which Hamas responded by claiming that its own government was the democratically elected one. Siding with the Fatah faction the international community and Israel lifted the economic blockade on Abbas’ administration, whilst not recognising the Hamas government. Israel also entered into negotiations with Abbas; PM Olmert meeting several times with Abbas. These meetings culminated with the international conference in Annapolis, during which Fatah and Israel agreed to negotiate a “final status” agreement before the end of 2008.
Israeli military action against Palestinian militants took place during the entire year, but was mainly focused on Hamas and the PIJ, the main culprits in attacks against Israel. AMB and other Fatah elements that continued to launch rockets and mortars towards Israel were however also targeted. As in the past few years, military action by Israel took the form of only limited ground incursions into the Gaza Strip, with an emphasis being placed on air and missile strikes targeting Palestinian rocket-launching squads and militant leaders. PIJ and Hamas casualties thus make up the bulk of this year’s battle-related deaths. The West Bank was markedly calmer than the Gaza Strip, but continued to be under tight occupation by Israeli forces that from time to time raided towns and villages, hunting wanted militants.
At the end of 2007 Israel and the severely weakened Fatah had thus embarked on a shaky round of negotiations to secure a peace agreement by the end of 2008, whilst the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip remained blockaded, in abject poverty and outside the reach of the budding peace process.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: "Low estimate: 271, high estimate: 342, best estimate: 272
The best estimate for 2007 includes all dyads that reached minimum activity, i.e. 25 battle-related deaths. The bulk of deaths are attributed to Israel-Hamas and Israel-Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
There is also a category labelled ""Palestine insurgents"", comprising battle-related deaths that cannot be attributed to a specific dyad. If this group is added to the estimates the numbers are; Best: 312, low: 311, high: 342"
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Negotiations in the conflict took place between the government of Israel and Fatah.
Fatah leader and PNA President Abbas met several times during the year with Israeli PM Olmert to discuss methods of reaching a peace agreement. Especially Hamas’ take-over of the Gaza Strip and the creation of a government void of Hamas elements thawed the relationship between these two actors. The thaw in turn led to the release of funds to Abbas, the provision of amnesties and an agreement on the removal of a few roadblocks in the West Bank.
urther meetings culminated in the late-November Annapolis conference, where Israel and Fatah on 27 November agreed on the “Joint Understanding on Negotiations”. This declaration stated that both parties agreed to immediately launch bilateral negotiations to conclude a peace treaty on all core and outstanding issues (as specified in earlier peace agreements), to do this before the end of 2008 and to revive their obligations under the Road Map agreements. The judge of how well the Road Map obligations were implemented was to be the United States, and Olmert and Abbas were to meet on a biweekly basis.
During the year Israel and Fatah also agreed on prisoner releases, such as the one in July, when 225 Palestinian prisoners were released from Israeli custody.
It has been stated by Hamas, but also vehemently denied by Israel, that Hamas and Israel negotiated on prisoner exchanges during the year. This has however not been proven beyond doubt. In the matter of the incompatibility, negotiations remained frozen, due to Israel’s no-contact policy with Hamas. The PIJ continued to reject negotiations with Israel
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: US, the Quartet, UN, Egypt, Jordan
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The US worked ardently during 2007 as a third party. Secretary of State Rice initially spearheaded this US push for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, pushing both Fatah and Israel to agree to the holding of a peace conference towards the end of the year, and also participated in the meetings that led up to the conference. Visits to Israel began as early as in January, and Fatah’s Abbas and Israeli PM Olmert met for the first time in February. After Hamas’ take-over of Gaza, US involvement increased further, culminating in the hosting of an international conference in Annapolis in November. Israel and Fatah agreed at the conference to conclude a peace agreement, including all core issues, before the end of 2008.
The UN continued to be involved in the conflict, with the UN Special Envoy for the Middle East pressing Israel to bolster Abbas and the Fatah in order to create momentum for a new peace process. In addition, the UN held a few meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials in regard to the conflict.
Members of the Quartet met several times during the year with Fatah’s Abbas, to discuss how a Palestinian government of national unity would be able to meet the Quartet’s requirements so as to ease the blockade of the Palestinian authority and launch a new peace process. During the year former UK PM Tony Blair was appointed the Special Envoy of the Quartet, with the mandate to initiate and support negotiations on the Palestinian question. Blair met with both Fatah and the government of Israel during the year to discuss the conflict.
Egypt and Jordan took upon themselves to try to persuade Israel to revive an earlier Arab peace plan, and held a few meetings with government representatives. Egypt also hosted Israeli-Palestinian talks, and acted as an intermediary in talks on prisoner exchanges.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2008 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine continued to be active during 2008, with two dyads being active; the Government of Israel versus Hamas, and the Government of Israel versus the PIJ. The Government of Israel versus Fatah dyad became inactive during the year, presumably because of Fatah leader Abbas’ negotiations with Israel. The total activity in the conflict was, however, more intense than in 2007. The vast majority of battle-related deaths are Hamas casualties incurred by Israeli air strikes.
The political situation remained much the same as in 2007, with Hamas reigning supreme in the Gaza Strip and refusing to negotiate with Israel, whilst Fatah (controlling the West Bank) continued to take part in the slow-moving negotiations. Both these Palestinian parties continued to claim to be the legitimate government of the PNA. Also, the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, cutting off all entry points, continued to be in place.
The first few months of the year (January to June) mainly saw armed activity that resembled the dynamics during 2006 and 2007; with Hamas and the PIJ firing rockets into southern Israel and Israeli forces responding through air- and missile strikes, and minor ground incursions into the Gaza Strip. Targeted strikes against leaders of Palestinian militant groups also continued throughout the year.
Through Egyptian mediation Israel and Hamas agreed on a period of calm (a ceasefire), which began on 19 June. The ceasefire charged Israel with easing the blockade of the Gaza Strip in exchange for Hamas ending its rocket-fire into Israel, as well as controlling the launching of rockets by other militant groups. Following on the ceasefire’s initiation, conflict activity dropped significantly.
Fatah and PNA President Abba’s negotiations with Israel continued throughout the year. Not much became public regarding the negotiations, but an agreement seemed to be far away. The initial Annapolis deadline (to secure an agreement before the end of 2008) was thus not met. Some details of the ongoing talks became public, and according to the Palestinian Chief Negotiator (Quray) Israel wanted, among other things, to annex 6.8% of the West Bank. The status Jerusalem was yet to be addressed in the talks.
Throughout the latter half of the year both Hamas and Israel accused the other of violating the ceasefire. Hamas claimed that Israel had not eased the blockade and also continued to attack its fighters (which was definitely true of certain attacks in early November). Israel however claimed that the continuance of rocket fire forced the government to close the entrances into Gaza at times, and that strikes against the militant groups either took place in the West Bank (which was not included in the ceasefire) or targeted militants preparing to attack Israel. The tensions led to Hamas refusing a prolongation of the ceasefire when it expired on 19 November. Soon after the expiration of the ceasefire rockets were once again launched in large numbers towards Israel.
Israeli retaliation came in force on 27 December, as over a hundred air- and missile strikes rained down on the Gaza Strip, targeting Hamas and Hamas-affiliated targets. Israel stated that it could not sit idly by as rockets attacked the state’s civilians, and that the attack was meant to destroy “terrorist infrastructure”, end rocket fire towards Israel and topple Hamas. The air assault continued into 2009, claiming approximately 395 Palestinian casualties (with circa 5 Israelis being killed in retaliatory fire) between the 27 and 31 December. In the first days of 2009 Israeli ground forces also entered the Gaza Strip.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: "Low: 584, high: 712
The best estimate for 2008 includes all dyads that reached minimum activity, i.e. 25 battle-related deaths. The bulk of deaths are attributed to the Israel-Hamas dyad (approximately 90%).
There is also a category labelled ""Palestine insurgents"", comprising battle-related deaths that cannot be attributed to a specific dyad. If this group is added to the estimates the numbers are; Best: 713, low: 632, high: 762"
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Negotiations in the conflict took place between the Government of Israel and Fatah.
Not much is known about the abovementioned negotiations, which were carried out mainly by Palestinian Chief Negotiator Ahmed Quray and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. These two, and their negotiating teams, met several times throughout the year. Meetings were both bilateral and multilateral, at times including US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the Quartet’s representative Tony Blair. The peace process and the negotiations came to shorter halts at times during the year, for example after heavy fighting in Gaza in March and when Israel launched its heavy air assault in late December.
Some of the major issues appear to have been discussed in these talks, but not agreed upon. Ahmed Quray stated in an interview with the Al-Ayam newspaper that Israel sought to annex 6.8% of the West Bank (its largest settlement blocks) in exchange for Israeli land, and that the return of refugees was also touched upon. Quray pointed out that the talks had ground to a standstill as Israeli elections were coming up. The gap between the parties in regard to Jerusalem was also said to be wide.
Talks came to a definitive halt with the start of the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip in late December.
No negotiations over the incompatibility took place between Israel and Hamas or the PIJ.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Egypt, US, Quartet, EU
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The US (mainly represented by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice) and the Quartet (comprising the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, and represented by Tony Blair) functioned as third parties throughout the year. The US and the Quartet supported the slow-moving but ongoing Annapolis process, and the Quartet also assisted the West Bank PNA authorities in implementing its obligations under the Road Map (which were part of the Annapolis agreement). Egypt also gave good offices during the abovementioned process.
Egypt’s main role as a third party during the year was, however, its work as an intermediary between Hamas and the Government of Israel. Egypt worked together with both these warring parties in order to secure the ceasefire agreed on 19 June (Hamas referred to this agreement not as a ‘ceasefire’ but as a ‘tahdia’, or ‘calm’). This was an unsigned agreement, which was to last between 19 June and 19 December. After the expiry of the calm Egypt also attempted, but failed, to negotiate a prolongation of the agreement. The calm agreement, which covered only the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank, was based on Hamas and other Palestinian militants ceasing to fire rockets towards Israel, in return for an easing of the Gaza Strip blockade and an end to Israeli incursions and air assaults.
In the last days of the year the EU also acted as a third party, trying to influence Israel to agree to a humanitarian ceasefire during its assault on the Gaza Strip. A number of other countries also had sporadic contacts with Israel and PNA President (and Fatah leader) Abbas.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2009 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine continued to be active during 2009, with two dyads being active; the Government of Israel versus Hamas, and the Government of Israel versus PIJ. The total activity in the conflict was remained at a relative high level of intensity. The vast majority of battle-related deaths are Hamas casualties incurred by Israeli air strikes in Gaza.
The Israeli operation, codenamed “Operation Cast Lead” that were put into action in December 2008 continued into 2009. The first phase of the operation, the air attacks continued until 3 January and were followed by a ground invasion that continued until 18 January.
Israel continued to state that the attack was meant to destroy "terrorist infrastructure", end rocket fire towards Israel and topple Hamas. The operation in Gaza that began in December 2008 claimed approximately 1038 Palestinian casualties according to UCDP. Israeli, Palestinian, and third-party sources disagree on the total death figures from the Gaza war, and the number of Palestinian casualties who were civilians. Palestinian sources put the death number between 1387 and 1444. An Israeli investigation put the death toll at 1166.
The UN fact-finding mission led by Richard Goldstone reported that Palestinian sources put the death toll at between 1387 and 1444. Israeli sources put the death toll at 1166. The UCDP death toll for the Gaza operation in 2009 is put around 651.
All battle related deaths in 2009 are; best: 682, low: 580, high: 853.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: "The vast bulk of the battle-related deaths were located to the Gaza strip. The Israeli military operation in Gaza began in December 2008 and continued into 2009.
The best estimate for 2009 includes all dyads that reached minimum activity, i.e. 25 battle-related deaths. The majority of deaths are attributed to the Israel-Hamas dyad (approximately 95%).
The military operation in Gaza that lasted from 27 December 2008 to 18 January, claimed approximately 1038 Palestinian casualties according to UCDP. This number is lower than the numbers presented in the report by the UN fact-finding mission led by Richard Goldstone. The report concludes that Palestinian sources put the death toll at between 1387 and 1444. Israeli sources put the death toll at 1166. There are a number of reasons why UCDP’s death numbers are lower than the ones mentioned in the UN report: one is that UCDP only records deaths that are a result of direct battle. The UN report does not specify if this is the case or not. Thus, it is possible that some of the deaths included in the UN report may be a result of indirect deaths. Also, the death numbers in the report is not split for 2008 and 2009 respectively. Therefore, it is difficult to verify those numbers with the ones of UCDP who code battle related numbers on a yearly basis. Furthermore, the UN report might not disaggregate between different types of armed violence and may also include accidents and other non-violence related deaths. Finally, UCDP is always conservative in coding battle related deaths.
The battle related deaths estimates for 2009 are; best: 682, low: 580, high: 853. Around 651 of the best estimate are relating to the military operation in Gaza.
There is also a category labelled ""Palestine insurgents"", comprising battle-related deaths that cannot be attributed to a specific dyad. If this group is added to the total estimates of 2009 the numbers are; best: 700, low: 598, high: 871."
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Negotiations took place between the Government of Israel and Hamas.
In early January, Egypt worked intensely to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and held contacts with Hamas. In line with these efforts, Egyptian President Mubarak proposed a temporary, immediate ceasefire in order to enable humanitarian relief to Gaza and give Israel and Palestinians time to begin negotiations. As a result of the proposal, a delegation representing the Hamas leadership held talks with Egyptian officials and a Turkish delegation to discuss the Egyptian ceasefire initiative. Also, two delegations respectively representing Hamas and Israel met in Cairo on 11 January to discuss the Egyptian initiative and on 16 January, the Hamas and the Egyptian government reached a version for a ceasefire which would end the Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip. The version stipulated the Israeli armys immediate withdrawal from Gaza in addition to lifting the blockade and opening all the crossings. On 18 January, Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire in its military operations in the Gaza Strip, thereby ending the Gaza war. Although Hamas initially defied Israels declaration of a unilateral ceasefire by continuing rocket attacks into southern Israel, the group responded the following day by announcing a one week ceasefire to give Israel time to withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip.
Indirect negotiations under Egyptian mediation between Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement and Israel was held in March in order to reach an agreement to release Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held prisoner in Gaza. In November, after months without any real progress, new negotiations over a prisoner exchange under German mediation took place. By December, the issue had still not been resolved. Hamas demanded the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, 450 of whom are prisoners serving lengthy sentences, in return for Shalit, who had been in captivity for three and a half years.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Egypt, Germany
Comment on Third Party Involvement: A number of countries participated in peace efforts, especially during and immediately after the end of the Gaza war that lasted until 18 January. Egypt was particularly active, initiating and participating in a number of talks and contacts. Germany also took part in negotiations between the parties to the conflict.
In early January, Egypt worked intensely to reach a ceasefire and held contacts with Hamas. In line with these efforts, Egyptian President Mubarak proposed a temporary, immediate ceasefire in order to enable humanitarian relief to Gaza and give Israel and Palestinians time to begin negotiations. As a result of the proposal, a delegation representing the Hamas leadership held talks with Egyptian officials and a Turkish delegation to discuss the Egyptian ceasefire initiative. Also, two delegations respectively representing Hamas and Israel met in Cairo on 11 January to discuss the Egyptian initiative and on 16 January, the Hamas and the Egyptian government reached a version for a ceasefire which would end the Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip. The version stipulated the Israeli armys immediate withdrawal from Gaza in addition to lifting the blockade and opening all the crossings. On 18 January, Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire in its military operations in the Gaza Strip, thereby ending the Gaza war. Although Hamas initially defied Israels declaration of a unilateral ceasefire by continuing rocket attacks into southern Israel, Hamas responded the following day by announcing a one week ceasefire to give Israel time to withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip.
The Egyptian peace efforts continued in January and February. On 18 January, an international summit hosted by Egypt started in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Shaykh. The summit, which was co-chaired by Mubarak and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, was attended by a number of European leaders, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Arab League Secretary General as well as Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. Also, in January talks between Hamas representatives and Egyptian officials were held over measures to consolidate the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and ways to achieve a peaceful situation with Israel. Talks continued in early February when Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, Egyptian President Mubarak and Saudi foreign minister met at the Egyptian presidential palace. Parallel to efforts by Egypt to reach a long-term ceasefire, Egypt was also trying to establish a dialogue between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority.
Indirect negotiations under Egyptian mediation between Izz-al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement and Israel was held in March in order to reach an agreement to release Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held prisoner in Gaza. In November, after months without any real progress, new negotiations over a prisoner exchange under German mediation took place. By December, the issue had still not been resolved. Hamas demanded the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, 450 of whom are prisoners serving lengthy sentences, in return for Shalit, who had been in captivity for three and a half years.
Beside the intense Egyptian mediation, other international actors took part in peace initiatives. In early January, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Mahmud Abbas, head of the PA held a phone conversation where they discussed means to stop the war in Gaza and return calm. The German Chancellor Angela also discussed the situation by telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Also, Mahmud Abbas met with Alexander Sultanov, Russian envoy for the peace process and deputy Russian foreign minister, Quartet Envoy Tony Blair. Ibn January, Israeli President Shimon Peres met with Chinas special envoy on the Middle East to talks about the latest developments in the Gaza Strip.
Another major actor to get involved was the EU. The organisation held talks on 4-6 January with foreign ministers of Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Palestinian authorities. EU foreign ministers also met with the Israeli Foreign Minister.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2010 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine continued to be active in 2010, but at a significantly lower level of activity than in 2008 and 2009, when the Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip reaped over 1000 fatalities. The only active dyad was the PIJ versus the Government of Israel, which caused 27 battle-related deaths in the best estimate category. These figures should be viewed as reflecting both Israel’s and Hamas’ restraint, as well as Hamas’ policing of rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. Most of those killed were PIJ militants attacked and killed during rocket fire operations; attempting to fire rockets into Israel proper from the Gaza Strip.
Activities within the negotiation sphere included both Fatah/PNA and Hamas. The Government of Israel and Fatah/PNA held both indirect and direct talks throughout the year, but failed to come to an agreement. In early December the direct talks on a peace agreement were cancelled by the mediator, the US (see Negotiations for more details).
Hamas the Government of Israel also negotiated, through Germany as a mediator, on the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. These negotiations did not produce an agreement.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The estimates given here are all from one dyad; PIJ versus the Government of Israel. All of these deaths were PIJ fatalities incurred in the Gaza Strip. Figures for the low and high estimates also stand at 27 deaths.
There is also a category labelled "Palestine insurgents", comprising battle-related deaths that cannot be attributed to a specific dyad. If this group is added to the total estimates of 2010 the numbers are; best: 41, low: 41, high: 42.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Attempts at reaching an Israeli-Palestinian settlement were initiated again in 2010 under the leadership of US President Barack Obama. Since the Operation Cast Lead war in Gaza (December 2008-January 2009) the Palestinians had been reluctant to return to direct negotiations as the Annapolis initiative had been buried after the Gaza war and a right-wing government had come to power in Israel. The Palestinians were also firm that no direct negotiations could begin before Israel stopped building settlements in the West Bank.
On 8 March 2010 both the Fatah/PNA and the Government of Israel gave the green light to initiate “indirect talks” with the US as a mediator. A 10-month moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank is by some thought to have been key in initiating these indirect talks. George Mitchell, the US Special Envoy, and Secretary of State Hillary Clintion were important actors in getting indirect talks going and were also key figures in getting direct talks started.
The international efforts to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinians (Fatah and the PNA in essence) culminated in the 2 September 2010 initiation of direct talks between the Government of Israel and Fatah/PNA at the Washington Summit. These were to be the first face-to-face talks between these two parties since December 2008. At the first meeting it was decided that follow-up talks would be held on a bi-weekly basis. The triggering factor for the initiation of direct talks was the Israeli ban on the building of further settlements in the West Bank. Hamas and the PIJ both condemned the initiation of talks.
The direct talks did, however, not go on for long as the Israeli settlement ban was not renewed after 26 September; the ban’s expiration date. Talks were subsequently suspended as the PNA demanded a continued freeze to continue negotiations. Key in the Israeli decision to not extend the ban is said to have been the fractious nature of the Israeli government coalition, in which right-wing parties have a significant role.
The suspension of the direct talks led to weeks of intense US diplomatic action, aimed at getting Israel to extend the ban or the PNA to continue talks despite this sticking point. On 7 December the US, however, announced the failure of this initiative. The US would instead hold bilateral talks with the parties with the intent to keep the process alive.
The talks made no real progress on the core issues of the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu held a somewhat tougher stance in the negotiations than his predecessor (Ehud Olmert), wanting a demilitarized Palestinian state, the recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state and that Jerusalem should remain undivided. The Palestinians stuck mainly to their traditional demands; East Jerusalem as its capital and an independent and viable state within the 1967 borders. The Palestinians also accepted a partial land swap, so that some of the larger Israeli settlements in the West Bank would become integrated into Israel proper.
By the end of 2010 the talks had thus reverted back to the US maintaining separate talks with the parties.
The Israeli government also negotiated with Hamas throughout the year, but then only on a possible prisoner swap in regard to captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Not much is known in terms of the formalities or content of these talks, except that Hamas demanded between 600 to 1 000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. German intelligence services were employed as the mediator in these talks, which had not come to fruition at the end of 2010.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: US, Egypt, Jordan, Arab League, Germany
Comment on Third Party Involvement: A number of third parties had high-profile roles throughout 2010. Of these the most important was the US, which was the most important actor in getting direct talks between Fatah/PNA and the Government of Israel started. Before entering those negotiations as a mediator the US Special Envoy (George Mitchell) and US Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton) engaged in shuttle diplomacy and held bilateral talks with the parties in order to convince them to start direct talks. The US also hosted the Washington summit, where the direct talks begun.
Egypt and Jordan both participated in this summit, as well as serving as direct supporters of the talks. The Arab League was another prominent actor, meeting often with Fatah/PNA and acting as a supporter of the talks.
Germany acted as a mediator in indirect talks between Hamas and the Government of Israel regarding a possible prisoner exchange for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2011 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine continued to be active in 2011, with both Hamas and PIJ fighting the Israeli government. Missile fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel proper increased in 2011, as well as the Israeli retaliation attacks, but the conflict did not escalate to the levels prior to 2010. Almost all of the battle-related deaths in the conflict were related to Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, in response to rocket attacks into Israel proper by Palestinian militants. The amount of airstrikes and rocket attacks, perpetrated by both sides in the dyad, were particularly intense in March-April and in late October.
While no negotiations between the Government of Israel and Fatah/Palestinian National Authority (PNA) were held in 2011, Fatah/PNA and Hamas signed a reconciliation agreement in May. The Israeli government immediately denounced the agreement and announced a freeze of the transfer of the tax and customs revenues that it collected on behalf of the PNA.
On 27 September, the Israeli interior ministry approved a plan to construct 1 100 new housing units in the Gilo settlement in East Jerusalem, a decision which was widely criticised by the Palestinians, the USA and the Middle East Quartet. A few days later, on 5 October, the Israeli government formally accepted the call from the Middle East Quartet to return to the negotiating table. However, the PNA stated on the following day that they would not enter into negotiations with the Israeli government until it halted all the settlement constructions. The last round of negotiations ended in October 2010, because of the settlement issue.
In October, representatives for both Hamas and the Israeli government signed a prisoner exchange agreement, resulting in the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip in 2006. In return, the Israeli government immediately released 477 Palestinian prisoners and released a further 550 Palestinian prisoners in December.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: The estimated number of battle-related deaths in the conflict between the Israeli Government and the two active insurgent groups (Hamas and PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) in 2011 was set to 56, with a high estimate of 58.
Negotiations: NO
Third party involvement: NO
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2012 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine continued to be active in 2012, with both Hamas and PIJ fighting the Israeli government. Almost all of the battle-related deaths in the conflict were related to Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, in response to rocket attacks into Israel proper by Palestinian militants. The amount of airstrikes and rocket attacks, perpetrated by both sides, were particularly intense in March, late October and the second half of November.
On 14 November Israeli military killed a top Hamas military commander in a strike on Gaza city. This was preceded by intense rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel proper as well as several Israeli deadly attacks on Palestinian targets.
Palestinian and Israeli representatives held the first talks in more than a year in Amman, Jordan, in early January. The Jordanian minister of foreign affairs and representatives of the Middle East Quartet also participated in the talks. Further rounds of talks were held throughout the month. The talks mainly focused on borders and security. After a fifth round of talks on 25 January, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas announced that there would be “an evaluation phase”. No further negotiations were held during the rest of 2012.
President Abbas and Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, met in Doha, Qatar, on 4-6 February and signed the “Doha Declaration” with provisions for a the creation of a new consensus government. The two parties had signed a reconciliation agreement in May 2011, but failed to reach an agreement on a consensus government. Analysts, however, argued that the declaration lacked several important details, including when this new government would formed. The formation was stalled and a new West Bank-based cabinet was formed in May 2012, without Hamas. The formation was subsequently criticised by Hamas which stated that it strengthened the divisions between Hamas and Fatah.
Comment on Yearly Battle Related Deaths: Almost all of the battle-related deaths in the conflict were related to Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, in response to rocket attacks into Israel proper by Palestinian militants. The amount of airstrikes and rocket attacks, perpetrated by both sides, were particularly intense in March, late October and the second half of November.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Palestinian and Israeli representatives held the first talks in more than a year in Amman, Jordan, in early January. The Jordanian minister of foreign affairs and representatives of the Middle East Quartet also participated in the talks. Further rounds of talks were held throughout the month. The talks mainly focused on borders and security. After a fifth round of talks on 25 January, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas announced that there would be “an evaluation phase”. No further negotiations were held during the rest of 2012.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA, the EU, the UN, and Russia (the Middle East Quartet) and Jordan
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The Jordanian minister of foreign affairs and representatives of the Middle East Quartet also participated in the talks.
Victory: NO
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Ceasefire
Date of termination: 2012-11-21
Comment on Termination: On 21 November 2012 Israeli and Hamas agreed on a Egyptian-brokered ceasefire accord. The ceasefire paved the way for a relatively calm 2013, when the conflict again became inactive. Explanations for the calm can be found in the re-initiation of Israel-Fatah/PNA talks, and the fact that both Israel and Hamas respected the ceasefire (although violations took place), with Hamas also controlling the levels of violence perpetrated by the PIJ.
2013 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The conflict over Palestine became inactive in 2013, as a consequence of the parties’ relative adherence to the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that was agreed upon in late 2012. Under U.S. auspices the peace talks between Israel and Fatah/Palestinian National Authority (PNA) began in late July. Very little headway was, however, made, and the talks once again collapsed in April-May of 2014.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: During 2013 new face-to-face talks were held between the government of Israel and Fatah/PNA. Hamas and the PIJ did not participate, but instead urged the initiation of a ‘third Intifada’. These talks were initiated under heavy pressure from the U.S. (represented mainly by John Kerry) and came on the heels of both parties carrying out activities that appeared to intensify the deadlock. On its part, Israel continued to approve the construction of more settlements in the West Bank, while Fatah/PNA threatened to press its attempt to become a full member of the UN (which could potentially have legal consequences that were detrimental to Israel’s position). While the application for full UN membership was rejected, several UN sub-organizations admitted Palestine as a full member state.
Direct negotiations began on 29 July 2013, under the auspices of the U.S. These talks aimed to, within nine months, reach a final status agreement via negotiations in Washington, Jerusalem and Hebron. The main pre-talk concessions meant that the PNA would give up its push for international recognition and UN membership, while Israel promised to release a number of Palestinian prisoners. Both parties’ leaders and delegations met with the U.S. representatives many times over the months that followed. Reports regarding the talks signaled that several final status-issues were discussed in these meetings. Little headway appears to have been made, and the talks subsequently collapsed in early 2014 as Israel refused to release the last batch of 26 Palestinian prisoners, and the PNA signed 15 international conventions in the continued push towards recognized state-hood.
Negotiations included face-to-face talks between the parties, and were mainly facilitated by U.S. officials Martin Indyk and Frank Lowenstein. On the Israeli side the negotiations were led by Tzipi Livni, and by Saeb Erekat on the Palestinian side. Reports clearly point to most final status issues being discussed, and several leaks regarding the issue of borders and territory support this. Talks were complicated by the fragile nature of Netanyahu’s government coalition, where pro-settler parties threatened to withdraw from the coalition if concessions were made to the Palestinians. In addition, settlement construction in the West Bank continued during the talks. Israel, however, blamed the stalling of progress on Palestinian ‘incitement’ and ‘imaginary crises’
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: USA
Comment on Third Party Involvement: The U.S. facilitated the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during 2013.
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
2014 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: 2014 is sometimes called the Gaza War. The conflict over Palestine again escalated over the war threshold as Operation Protective Edge was launched on 8 July 2014 in the Gaza strip. The operation followed the 12 June kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Talks once again collapsed in April-May of 2014 after Hamas and Fatah had agreed to form a unity government.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: U.S., Egypt
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: Ceasefire
Date of termination: 2014-12-31
Comment on Termination Date: On 26 August, an open-ended ceasefire was announced, although minor clashes continued the main war de-escalated below the 25 threshold after this date.
2015 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2016 Conflict Archive
Terminated: NO
2017 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Since 2014 a ceasefire has been in effect between Israel and Hamas. Much of the violence since 2015 has occurred between Palestinians unaffiliated to any armed group, and Israeli settlers or security personnel. No armed group has been active during 2015-2017.
Terminated: NO
2018 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2018, three years after having become inactive, the conflict over Palestine became active again. Protests in Gaza against Israel and the United State's decision to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem ignited a complex dynamic of nonviolent protests, Hamas organized protests turned violent, and air & ground operations by Israel targeting Hamas in Gaza.
Terminated: NO
2019 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2019, the conflict kept being active as the PIJ being the primary actor against the government of Israel. Concentrating around the Gaza Strip, clashes emerged in the first week of May 2019, after two Israeli soldiers were injured by a sniper on 3 May. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed that the sniper was linked to the PIJ and deadly clashes continued until 6 May when an Egypt-mediated ceasefire was reached. In November 2019, the conflict between the Israeli government and PIJ reemerged on which Israel targetted some senior members of the group. After several days of heavy fighting, similar to what happened in May, an Egypt-mediated ceasefire was assured on 14 November. Meanwhile, the intensity of the Hamas-involved clashes was lower when compared to the previous year.
Terminated: YES
Type of termination: No or Low Activity
Date of termination: 2019-12-31
2020 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In 2020, the conflict was inactive. Nevertheless, the violence continued in an unorganized manner, with several lone-wolf attacks targeting Israeli checkpoints and military personnel, leading to the death of Palestinians who were not affiliated with any of the non-state groups challenging the Government of Israel. In January, US President Donald Trump announced his administration's proposal to end the Israel - Palestine conflict. However, the proposal was not welcomed by the majority of Palestinian actors. It was widely argued that the plan favored the state of Israel, and it was a smokescreen for annexations.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: United States
Comment on Third Party Involvement: In January 2020, US President Donald Trump announced his administration's proposal to end the Israel - Palestine conflict.
Terminated: NO
Type of termination: Not terminated
2021 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The state-based conflict over Palestine became active in 2021 with two organized actors, namely Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, challenging the Government of Israel. Following the Israeli Supreme Court's decision to evict six Palestinian families living in East Jerusalem on May 6, tensions between Israel and Palestinian armed groups had gradually increased. Four days later, deadly confrontations began as Hamas and the PIJ launched rockets from Gaza while Israel conducted airstrikes in the Palestinian territories. More than 250 people were killed in just 12 days until the Egypt-mediated ceasefire was reached on May 21.
Terminated: NO
2022 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: The state-based conflict over Palestine became active in 2022 with two organized actors, namely [Fatah] (/#actor/207) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, challenging the Government of Israel. Throughout the year, the Government of Israel carried out multiple raids against various Palestinian groups in the West Bank, most of which were carried out in Jenin, Nablus, and Hebron. The Government of Israel also carried out airstrikes in Gaza during August, killing 15 combatants from Palestinian Islamic Jihad and 1 civilian.
Terminated: NO
2023 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: On October 7, 2023, the conflict between Israel and Hamas entered an unprecedented new phase. In a highly coordinated surprise assault, Hamas breached the border between Gaza and southern Israel, launching a barrage of rockets while armed groups simultaneously infiltrated Israeli territory. The attack resulted in many deaths, and hundreds of people were taken hostage and transported to the Gaza Strip.
Israel’s response was swift and overwhelming. The government declared a state of war and launched the most destructive bombing campaign the region had ever witnessed, targeting Hamas strongholds, infrastructure, and densely populated urban areas in Gaza. Civilian casualties in Gaza rapidly increased, with widespread destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals.
Terminated: NO
2024 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: Throughout 2024, the war in Gaza escalated into a devastating conflict, resulting in unprecedented levels of destruction and civilian suffering. Israeli ground operations focused on dismantling Hamas’ military infrastructure, including its tunnel networks and command centers, while urban combat led to widespread devastation in cities such as Gaza City, Khan Younis, and Rafah. The humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorated rapidly and access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, and medical care severely limited by the ongoing blockade and repeated military strikes. International aid agencies warned of a famine and the collapse of healthcare services as the conflict continued.
Terminated: NO
2025 Conflict Archive
Comment on Activity: In January 2025, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire that included the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza in exchange for the release of Palestinians detained by Israel. Fighting decreased substantially during the following weeks. However, the ceasefire collapsed in March 2025 and Israel resumed large-scale military operations in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, an Israeli blockade of Gaza restricted the entry of humanitarian aid, resulting in worsening humanitarian conditions. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), established with Israeli and US support, began distributing aid through an alternative mechanism to existing UN-led operations. Several deadly incidents occurred at or near GHF distribution sites during the year, generating significant international concern.
In October 2025, Israel and Hamas reached a second major ceasefire agreement that substantially reduced the level of violence. The remaining living hostages held in Gaza were released, as well as almost 2000 Palestinian detainees. As fighting subsided, humanitarian access to Gaza improved although the situation remains fragile.
Negotiations: YES
Comment on Negotiation: Throughout 2025, Israel and Hamas engaged in indirect negotiations mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States. Discussions focused on ceasefires, hostage releases, prisoner exchanges, humanitarian access, and arrangements for the future governance of Gaza. These negotiations resulted in a ceasefire agreement in January 2025 and a second ceasefire agreement in October 2025, although implementation remained contested and fighting resumed between the two agreements.
Third party involvement: YES
Third party involvement names: Qatar, Egypt, United States
Comment on Third Party Involvement: Qatar, Egypt, and the United States mediated negotiations
Victory: NO
Terminated: NO
Type of termination: Not terminated
