Moreover, many believe that Clinton has not abandoned her idealistic dream of peace, despite a growing global consensus on breaking peace – perhaps irretrievably. Distracted by Iraq and terrorism, the administration of George W. Bush made little progress in the peace process, President Barack Obama made two unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement. Many observers believe that the so-called Oslo trial, which was committed by Clinton at the White House in 1993, has taken its course. Clinton`s parameters (in Hebrew: Mitveh Clinton) were guidelines for a lasting status agreement to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They were proposed by the United States. President Bill Clinton after the stagnation of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians from 19 to 23 December 2000. The parameters were the compromises that Clinton considered the best possible outside the positions of both sides. Clinton`s parameters should serve as the basis for further negotiations. Therefore, while there are clear benefits for both sides, or at least for leaders on both sides, Israel and Jordan have taken steps to weaken the peace agreement in recent years.
The latest such incident concerns the enclave of Arava and Naharayim (Peace Island), two areas adjacent to the border, leased for 25 years after the signing of the agreement, with the possibility of extension. In October 2018, King Abdullah announced that he would not renew the leases, a step that has caused much controversy in Israel and has worried some about the total termination of the agreement. The parameters received a mixture of support and criticism within Israel, with some in the Israeli government and the mayor of Jerusalem opposing them. There were also concerns that the parameters would not be adopted in a public referendum and that the Palestinians would violate the terms of the agreements. Jerusalem`s new mayor, then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, rejected the agreement and spoke of a « dark cloud over the city. » He preferred to bring more Jews to East Jerusalem and extend Jerusalem to the east.  I have many questions about the return of refugees to their homes and villages. I had a negative experience of the return of displaced Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the transition period. Since the terms remained bound by an Israeli veto, no refugee could return through the mechanism of the interim agreement, which required a quadrangle committee of Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine to decide on their return. Similarly, I do not see a clear approach to compensation for refugees for their country, property and funds that Israel has received under the aegis of the Israeli Administrator of absent property. The parameters demanded that this agreement put an end to the conflict and all other claims. This could be implemented by a UN Security Council resolution declaring that Resolutions 242 and 338 have been implemented.