By essentially unilaterally declaring the existence of an Arab Palestine, the world has abrogated the Oslo accords.
The Palestinian leadership, abetted by many Western governments, has now torn up every agreement it made with Israel. Once the efforts of two decades of negotiations – including irrevocable Israeli compromises in giving the Palestinian Authority control over territory, its own armed forces, dismantling settlements and permitting billions of dollars of foreign aid to the Palestinians – were destroyed, the world decided to focus the blame on Israel for approving the construction of 3,000 apartments.
In 1993, Israel signed an agreement with the PLO to make peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The accord, known as the Oslo agreement, included the following passage in Article 31: “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”
By essentially unilaterally declaring the existence of an Arab Palestine, the world has abrogated that agreement.
What is shocking is not just that this has happened, but that it was many of the same countries that hitherto supported this agreement that, without discussion or hesitation, now agreed to destroy it.
Indeed, a study of the history of this agreement shows clearly that the Palestinian side prevented the accord from succeeding, most obviously by permitting and carrying out continuing terrorism and rejecting Israeli offers for a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem both in the 2000 Camp David summit and in the ensuing offer conveyed by president Bill Clinton at the end of that year.
Now, the current move has certain implications. I am completely aware that virtually no one in a position of power in the Western world cares about these implications, but it is necessary to remind them, and others, of just what they have done. And at least the Western public should know how this all looks from an Israeli perspective, information often denied it altogether or distorted by the mass media.
• They have rewarded the party that refused to make peace.
• They have rewarded the side that rejected the offer of a state and pursued violence instead, cheering the murder of Israeli civilians.
• They have removed the framework on the basis of which Israel made numerous risky concessions including letting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians enter the West Bank and Gaza Strip; establish a government; obtain billions of dollars; create military organizations that have been used to attack Israel; establish schools and other institutions which teach and call for Israel’s destruction; and a long list of other things.
As a result of these concessions, terrorists were able to strike into Israel. Today, Hamas and its allies can fire thousands of rockets into Israel. Israel has paid for the 1993 deal; the Palestinian Authority has only taken what it wanted.
Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, was one of many who stated that the Oslo Accords have now ceased to exist. What then governs the situation and Israel-Palestinian (Palestine?) relations? Nothing.
There is, for example, no standing for any claim that the Palestinian side has recognized – much less accepted – Israel’s existence. Indeed, a “one-state solution” is daily advocated by Palestinian leaders.
Yet the world’s outrage is reserved for Israel’s announcement that 3,000 apartments will be constructed on land claimed by Israel on the West Bank, all built in settlements whose existence until a bilateral agreement was reached was accepted by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. Incidentally, decisions by Israeli zoning boards that permit construction in future repeatedly provoke global hysteria about the bulldozers moving in next week. Perhaps if the Palestinian Authority would make peace, those buildings would never get built.
Whether or not the announcement of this construction was a good idea, the fact is that it is hardly the biggest outrage in what has just happened. The decision is a signal that if the Palestinian side, or indeed the world, isn’t going to recognize what was in effect a treaty – contrary to international practice – and instead chooses to favor of the side that violated the treaty – even more contrary to international practice – Israel is not going to be bound by those that tore it up’s interpretation of that document.
Again, what’s important here is not to complain about the unfairness of international life, the hypocrisy of those involved, and the double standards applied against Israel.
What’s important is to do what’s necessary to preserve Israel’s national security and to ignore to the greatest possible extent anything that subverts it.
What has experience taught us? Simply this: The Palestinian leadership’s priority is not getting a state of their own – they have missed many opportunities to do so – but to gain total victory. Taking a state is only acceptable if it serves to promote that goal. Even if moderation provides material rewards, they prefer militancy. But after all, suffering – even if self-inflicted – brings massive political gains for them.
What has the world’s behavior taught us? Simply this: Nothing we can do will suffice. If Israel were to accept unconditionally a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with its capital in east Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority would then demand that all Palestinians who so wished to do so and had an ancestor living there before 1948 must be admitted to Israel with full voting and all other rights. And then what would the UN do? What has diplomacy taught us? That the other side will not keep commitments and those guaranteeing those commitments will not keep their word to do so. Not only that, but when they break their word, they will complain that Israel doesn’t take enough risks and make enough concessions, and defends itself too vigorously.
Well, that’s the way things are, and in some ways they’ve been like that for decades; from a Jewish standpoint, for centuries. So what else is new? Of course, all the proper statements will be made and diplomatic options pursued by Israel. It will not make any difference to the rhetorical dynamics, but the point is to limit the material effects.
That is not a pessimistic assessment at all. Basically, this process has now been going on for about 40 years. It will continue to go on, partly because the West has been and will continue to be content with purely symbolic anti- Israel measures so it can reap some public relations benefits without any costs.
By coincidence, several surveys have just been published which pertain to Israel’s achievements in the face of such obstacles as small size, lack of resources, international hostility, and war waged against it by neighbors.
In its November 21, 2012, issue, The Economist Intelligence Unit, a respected research group which is part of The Economist (which has been bitterly anti-Israel in recent years) published a study – “The lottery of life: Where to be born in 2013” – of the best places for a baby to be born in 2013 and subsequently live its life. Israel was rated at number 20, just behind the United States (20, incidentally down from being number one in the 1980s!) and ahead of Italy (21), France (26) and Britain (27).
In the World Happiness Report, Israel rated 14th and in health it was in the 6th position, ahead of the United States, Germany, Britain and France. Living well, as the saying goes, is the best revenge.
Meanwhile, Israel’s neighbors don’t get criticized by the UN – many of them get elected to the Human Rights Council despite their records – but are sinking into violence, disaster, and new dictatorships.
So which fate is preferable? To win the wars forced on you, to develop high living standards, to enjoy real democratic life, or to writhe under the torture of dictators, terrorists and totalitarian ideologies? Israel’s fate includes to be slandered, its actions and society so often distorted by those responsible for conveying accurate information to their own societies. And that also means to be attacked violently by its neighbors, though it can minimize the effectiveness of that violence. Like our ancestors, we have to deal with this bizarre situation, this mistreatment that others don’t even understand still exists.
But we cannot let this nonsensical excuse for reality drive us mad, or make us mad.
There are only three ways, which must be combined, to survive: to believe truthful things, do constructive things, and laugh at the absurdity of the situation.
For such a set of alternatives to exist – the fictional world of hypocritical and misinformed Israel-bashing or the real world – is ridiculous, empowered by the behavior of the world and especially by the West. But that’s what exists in this early 21st-century era. Truly, as the Israeli saying puts it and as the story of the Oslo agreement so vividly proves, en breira – there’s no choice. Fortunately, the real-life alternative available is a good one.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, and editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
www.gloria-center.org
@ NormanF:I agree with your remarks completely. I too believe that the principles and substance per Oslo were ill-conceived from the getgo. Israel must now recognize the error, abandon Oslo and move on, in order to survive. A “Palestinian” (Fakestinian) state is anathema to the existence of Israel.
@ dweller:
:
Even the secular political establishment advance the divine plan. Maybe not lineally but advances it all the same. Real Jews who study the Tanach believe the Tanach is our guideposts to the present and future. Principles of commandment in the Torah are never limited to time unless stated explicitly.
What does your Youska have to say about that?
Annexation is first and foremost a result of balance of power in our favor and it need not be in your sense a legal or legalistic act by the government of Israel, it could also be de-facto or as they say a “Fait accompli” after successfully asserting our desire, and power to retain such territories. Oslo is no barrier, it can be rescinded at any time by Israel citing a myriad of infraction by the Palis first and foremost their many times over rejection of violence which they never observed to the spirit or letter of OSlo nor any other signed agreement with us by them.
The biggest barrier to annexation is not ‘Oslo’ it is the unwillingness of all Israeli governments till now to annex them mainly because of the large Arab population and the aversion of your secular Jews here do do what the biblical commandments have demanded of us. Historically we are in our present circumstances because in 1948 and 1967 Israel did not forcibly remove enough Arabs when there was more ideal conditions for doing so and were even expected to do so by many especially the Arabs themselves.
Wrong!! Oslo is dead but has not been voided or replaced so it’s Dead only when we say it is and act accordingly. Till then even if it’s in name only, it serves a political purpose for our political establishment. You may argue that it does not serve such a purpose but that cannot conclude that it’s dead.
Sure, right, Oslo was contracted with martians? Sans Palestinians from those Territories who would be the contracting sides to the agreement? Israel with herself?
Wrong again , Oslo stand as long as all the parties especially the Americans to maintain it even if it’s mostly a fiction.. There is a whole international diplomatic cottage Industry dependent on maintaining the fictional illusion of 2 states and (Comprehensive Peace in the ME) Thousands of books and articles have been written, think tanks staffed with failed but hopeful diplomats politicians, academics and bureaucrats. Many billions of dollars have been invested in this project and nobody is willing to forgo the Golden goose called Oslo.
Again you offer chicken fore the egg. We want the land not the Arabs and gaining the land with the Arabs is more problematic than what we have to contend with today. Only within the framework of a defensive war will we have a third opportunity to do what we failed to do in 48 and 67.
Your way is really stupid from any standpoint when a rational and workable way is staring you in the face.
Maybe yes, maybe no but it really doesn’t matter if we do it so that there is no possibility of any Arab ever returning. I would blow up and bulldoze every standing structure concurrently.
@ yamit82:
Beyond the fact that you’re trying to superimpose a scriptural template over a govt whose mandate is strictly secular:
— Annexation is a legal process. The only legal barrier to that process is ANOTHER legal process: Oslo.
Oslo is dead. Legally, annexation is in order. The diplo universe would see the linkage (even if they didn’t like it).
From the standpoint of law, Oslo does not rise or fall on the physical presence or absence of the Palis.
Oslo rises or falls on the performance of the parties: PA & GOI.
PA has breached the Treaty. Repudiating it should lead directly to annexation. And lockout of the PA.
If annexation prompts any attempt at forcing the issue by resort to arms, that will be the time for expulsions. Not before.
I seriously DOUBT that [what would surely be characterized as] the “unprovoked transfer of the Palis” (even to a de-coronated Jordan) would meet with less resistance from US & EU than would annexation.
Bernard Ross Said:
I am in principle still against but, if there is no other option It’s gotta be Jordan but we can’t have massive refugee camps on our border.
There must be a major war involving more than just the Palis and it must be a real war in all that entails. Severe enough that Israel will have no choice but to use it’s max military might. Nothing changes status quo as a real war in order to change not only facts on the ground but to ensure that those facts are irrevocable and internalized in Israel and the world.
I think first Obama will have to overstep and force BB to do what would be political suicide for him and Israel.
Israelis must be convinced that they are really on their own and can’t look to anyone one else to bail them out. To that end my hopes are pinned on Obama and Europe following his lead.
Ted Belman Said:
Can you elaborate on your bases for this conclusion? I agree on annexation but I am wondering about tactics and timing. As Yamit says the bottleneck is the arab population, although I think they are only concerned about the west bank and have finalised Gaza
yamit82 Said:
I agree with this but I thought you were against them going to Jordan. My point of view is that anywhere they go is better than them being in YS. It appears to me that west bank arabs to Jordan is the most likely destination that might occur. It would likely be convenient for everyone for this “solution” to occur. Although I believe that it is through war that transfer wold become palatable to Israelis I can also envision a scenario where it could all occur peacefully; however the important thing is for arab emigration to occur as I see little chance of peaceful coexistence with them in YS judging from all prior evidence regarding their behaviors. I am also for anything that facilitates Jewish settlement of YS immediately and at a fast speed.
yamit82 Said:
Although Jews would accept transfer more readily in a context of war I do not see the Euros and Americans operating similarly and that they would operate in a framework of international law and consider it as ethnic cleansing and a violation of GC. The only legal concept to counter that viewpoint is the legal basis for Jewish settlement in San Remo(of which they are signatory guarantors), LON mandate, UNcharter80. The combination of Jewish settlement and war would do the trick. In fact jewish settlement would likely lead to war or to an acceptance of a peaceful emigration plan. In a scenario where Jewish settlement is considered legal, even if “unhelpful”, US/Euro resistance would be lessened. In looking ahead I think it would be wise to confront the euro statements, in legal and PR fashion, that jewish settlement is illegal as a strategy with a future goal in mind.
Right now there are opportunities which enable the leaving of the Oslo paradigms whether overtly or by stealth. These appear to have presented themselves almost as a miracle. I think the opportunities should be seized; as to the timing, of the parts and phases, this becomes tactical. The main thing is the goal: at this moment Jews are more likely to accept Jewish settlement than annexation or transfer. Look at the small settlement of E1: the majority of Israelis agree to this yet they can see how quickly the foreigners jump on the bandwagon to deny the Jews the smallest part of their due. It is good that this should be seen by all Jews as this unreasonable rejection paves the way for the repudiation of double standards along with the ultimate repudiation of Oslo paradigms and the acceptance of transfer later or in war.
@ Ted Belman:
“‘Beware of what I command you Today: Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant not to seal a covenant with the inhabitants of the Land to which you are coming, since they will be a fatal trap for you.'” (Exodus 34:11-12)
I disagree in so far as the order of progression is concerned.Oslo in-itself no longer has much meaning as neither side abides by them anymore. It is a fiction kept alive in name only because it still serves the Israeli governments interests. We can argue whether those interests are viable and even real interests in fact, but any one-sided declarative position of Israel were she to proclaim them in fact dead carries with it problems this and past governments would rather avoid for the time being. That’s what governments due, avoid like the plague difficult, costly and unpopular decisions and in that Israel is no different than any others.
It seems obvious to me that the bottleneck against annexation is the Arab population on the West Bank and Gaza.
The Biblical mandate was to first conquer the land and drive the inhabitants out. Seems to me that’s the only perscription that has a chance of working.
First cleanse the Land then annex, in that order.
To that effect The Monarchy in Jordan must be brought down and replaced by militant Palis Hamas and or MB, doesn’t matter. They will turn Jordan into a replica of Gaza using West Bank Arabs as willing helpers and surrogates creating the basis and scenario for Israel to push force and encourage the population of the West Bank to move a few miles east and be resettled in Jordan/Palestine. ( won’t matter what they call themselves)
That would open the way for annexation with least resistance from America and the Europeans. This will not bring peace but we will have our land whole and few if any Arabs. It will also allow for a systematic programed opening for the removal of most of the Arabs with Israeli citizenship.
“HaShem spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab, by the Jordan [River], at Jericho, saying, ‘Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, “When you cross the Jordan [River] to the Land of Canaan, you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the Land from before you; and you shall destroy all their prostration stones; all their molten images shall you destroy; and all their high places shall you demolish. You shall possess the Land, and you shall settle in it; for, to you have I given the Land to possess it. … But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, those of them whom you leave shall be pins in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you upon the Land in which you dwell. And it shall be that what I had meant to do to them, I shall do to you.”‘” (Numbers 33:50-56)
@ Ted Belman:
How (and why) does a fundamental breach not, of itself, constitute abrogation?
Are you saying that abrogation, in its nature, presumes:
— at minimum, a deliberate statement of express repudiation of the Treaty?
Absolutely. Must be.
dweller Said:
Not exactly. Yes you are right to point out that the request is the key act. But that act is only a fundamental breach of Oslo. Israel is the one who can abrogate Oslo as a result. If she chooses not to, Oslo remains. It she chooses to abrogate Oslo a vacuum will be created in the absence of the Oslo rules. Areas A, B, and C will be meaningless and so on.
I have come to the conclusion that the abrogation of Oslo must be accompanied by the annexation of J&S.
It is important for Israel to clearly demonstrate to the UN, EU, Russia, as road map members that business as usual must not be expected of Israel. Israel is percieved as weak in diplomatic resolve. That it is an insult to participate in the destruction of the accords and then to demand Israel to be observe them. It is insulting because it exhibits a double standard which is the usual sign of anti semitism. Furthermore, it is time that Israel reminds the relevant participants in San Remo, LON and UN charter that they have legal obligations towards Jews and to Israel regarding the “encouragement” of Jewish settlement and ask them how their obstruction of settlement observes those agreements. Ask them why do they think is is valid to break agreements with both Jews and Israel; is it just a matter of 2000 years of habit? GOI is too soft and weak and needs to raise a STINK!! There must be a clear distinction between Israel considering giving up jewish rights in a lasting agreement and assuming those rights to be forfeited before there is an agreement. The EU is stating Jewish settlement to be illegal: this is a blood libel. Israel should sue the EU and the individual countries in their courts to observe their legal commitments. By saying nothing and doing nothing they are let off the hook to run with their blood libeling narrative.
If Oslo is declared dead it cannot be demanded that the status of the west bank remains unchanged in law. It does not matter whether a palestinian state is precluded with settlement as without Oslo there is no obligation on Israel to facilitate a Palestinian state. Oslo must die. Furthermore, any sanctions should be met with pal deportations.
it is sensless to talk to the nations. everything written in this article is well known to them and they simply don’t care.
after the BB-merkel 3 hours meeting, merkel said before the press: “we agree that we don’t agree on the settlement policy of the Israeli government”
well, when does a german say “we agree that we don’t agree”? – only when the other side has manoevered him to the wall and he has not a single argument left to rebuke, but still the truth doesn’t interest him neither, so he finds the exit whole: “we agree that we dont agree”, because as long as he still can rebuke the other side he would say: “I firmly state that I do not agree with this”
Barry Rubin is a “moderate” – even a liberal Israeli who for a long time backed the Oslo Accords. Moshe Feiglin, Steven Plaut and yours truly are no longer on the margins in the Israeli debate on what do about the Arabs.
I was always against them from the outset and thought they were a disaster for Israel. Its time for Israel to undo the mistake of “Palestine.” Israel will be harshly condemned for it.
But a condemnation is preferable to a beautiful eulogy. An Arab state run by Hamas is not in Israel’s interests. This is where the so-called “two state solution” will lead if its not repudiated and abandoned.
Israel has no good choices. All things considered, living is the choice every nation that wants to survive must make and Israel is no exception to that rule.
“The world” has NOT ‘abrogated’ Oslo.
Only somebody (or something) who is PARTY to Oslo can ABROGATE it.
That’s not merely a technical matter; there’s an issue of perspective at stake here, and Barry Rubin is ignoring it.
“The World” wasn’t party to Oslo.
— GOI & PA were. (The World was WITNESS to Oslo, not party to it.)
That doesn’t leave The World off the hook — not by any stretch of the imagination.
But Oslo was abrogated when PA made its REQUEST to the General Assembly, Nov 29 — NOT when the Gen.Ass. granted it.
YES, Israel should declare Oslo dead, dead-as-a-doornail, dead as Marley’s Ghost — null-&-void — betrayed by the Palis.
But, having said that — she should then ADD that while the PA broke the Treaty
— it is the UN’s FAULT that the PA broke the Treaty
because the UN played an enabling role, giving the Palis to understand that they could get away with breaking Oslo this way.
It’s entirely proper that GOI promptly set about taking back everything it can get.
If the world is displeased by that, the proper response is,
— “If you don’t like it, you can thank YOURSELF for that; because it’s your own damned fault.”