Rabin was skeptical of Oslo

By Arlene Kushner

[..]
Yesterday the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was marked.

Because of his association with Oslo, Rabin has been seen over the years as someone who enthusiastically embraced “the two-state solution.”  Or, I might better put it, came to be seen thus, as his memory was co-opted by those eager to promote that “solution.”  To this day, there are those who promote this distorted vision of Rabin as rationale for pursuing negotiations.

The reality is far more complex.

On October 5, 1995, Rabin brought to the Knesset the Interim Agreement for ratification.  Note the following that he proposed (emphasis added):

[] No sovereign Palestinian state.

“[The] State of Israel…will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

“We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state…”

[] United Jerusalem.

”First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev.”

So what Rabin envisioned for Jerusalem 20 years ago, the Arabs are stills screaming about, with regard to building in E1, between Ma’ale Adumim and Jerusalem.

[] No return to ‘67 borders (sic).

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

“Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the ‘Green Line,’ prior to the Six Day War.

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.”

[] Settlements.

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

And then there is this, additional, regarding our relationship with the PA. Said Rabin to the Knesset (emphasis added):

”We are aware of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not — up until now — honored its commitment to change the Palestinian Covenant, and that all of the promises on this matter have not been kept. I would like to bring it to the attention of the members of the house that I view these changes as a supreme test of the Palestinian Authority’s willingness and ability, and the changes required will be an important and serious touchstone vis-à-vis the continued implementation of the agreement as a whole.”

My friends, this was 20 years ago, and to this day the necessary changes in the Palestinian Covenant have not been made – essentially what was required was removal of clauses that called for Israel’s destruction.

We must ask, even now, what pressures were brought to bear on Rabin: why he felt the need to continue with the Oslo process, which, it seems, had already become something of a runaway diplomatic train.  If he viewed the PA’s changing of its Covenant as the supreme test of its seriousness, why did he not demand those changes before implementing the next stage of Oslo?

We see here the unfolding of a very unfortunate pattern, and I would suggest that at his core, Rabin seemed to know better.