By Zalman Shoval, ISRAEL HAYOM
“Be gone, Oslo criminals.” No, this call has yet to be heard in Ramallah and Nablus, although Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself is raising the possibility of cancelling the accords. How the wheel spins. There was a time that the protests and condemnations were on the Israeli side, and for good reason: Many commentators have noted that the Oslo Accords would have been appropriate material for historian Barbara Tuchman’s book, “The March of Folly;” and then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, despite eventually being convinced to sign on, believed the Palestinians were negotiating in bad faith.
Anyone with a pair of working eyes and a functioning brain should have understood, even then, that it was a lopsided agreement in favor of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, who himself declared that he had no intention of implementing his end of the agreement. (He compared Oslo with the agreement the Prophet Muhammad made with the Jewish Quraysh tribe, with the intent of breaking it, and referred to the supposedly revoked anti-Israel PLO Charter using the French word “caduque” — lapsed, invalid, void — implying that it could be brought back in the future.)
The agreement was sneakily pushed through the Knesset, but proof of the bad faith quickly became apparent in the field: Although Arafat documented his intention on paper to abandon terrorism and violent tactics, shortly thereafter buses began exploding in Tel Aviv, Palestinian terrorist organizations did not disband and weapons were channeled to them with even greater vigor, and although the Palestinian Authority promised to “recognize the State of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security,” official Palestinian media outlets and school books continued spreading radical anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic propaganda on a daily basis.
On the other end, Israel, and the rest of the world, recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and allowed its leadership into the territories, thus stifling any chance of a more legitimate leadership rising from the local population. Meanwhile, Rabin told the Knesset that an independent Palestinian state was not being created, rather an “entity that was less than a state.”
The nearly universal understanding associated with the Oslo Accords, however, was that despite the prime minister’s statements the objective was to indeed create a full-fledged Palestinian state. The Israeli negotiators never even tried conditioning the progression of the process on meeting Israel’s essential security needs, or determining issues like borders, settlements, water, and so on.
In reality, even the obligation to end the conflict peacefully was baseless in light of the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to actually reach real compromises with Israel, which became apparent throughout the entire twisting road known as the “peace process” — beginning in 1993; to Netanyahu’s Wye summit; Barak and Clinton’s Camp David summit (which led to the Al-Aqsa Intifada); Sharon’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of northern Samaria; and Olmert and Livni’s Annapolis summit.
The current Palestinian initiative to bypass negotiations by turning directly to the United Nations is not only a breach of the Oslo Accords; it is final confirmation of the fundamental Palestinian position that seeks to avoid any scenario that may require them to make concessions, not to mention finally and fully recognizing the State of Israel.
In light of all this, the various Israeli governments have still not cancelled the Oslo agreement (although international law makes doing so possible) — either because of the negative consequences on the international front, or because counter-intuitively, Oslo’s negative “record” strengthens Israeli determination to insist that its basic demands are met in any future arrangement.
Why then is the Palestinian leadership toying with the idea, at least outwardly, of “cancelling the agreements,” or at least the economic clauses (the Paris agreement), because the economic situation in the PA territories has reached rock bottom. After all, what is more convenient than deflecting public anger toward Israel and the agreements signed with it? One can assume that Abbas, and certainly his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, know the truth, including the fact that Israel transferred a $100 million down payment in recent weeks to alleviate the distress, and that they aren’t really considering revoking the Oslo agreement. They also surely understand that unilaterally cancelling the agreement will cause their complete financial bankruptcy.
However, if they decide to annul the economic agreement regardless, such a matter can be discussed. Israel though, for its part, could then demand to revoke other appendices as well.
And sure enough, he didn’t.
Were the Accords not contractual?
If so, then one party’s failure to perform relieves the other of his OWN obligations under it.
The Palis effectively abrogated Oslo long ago.
The beast is dead.
Bury it.
I would like to see Israel “unofficially” cancel the Oslo accords by annexing Judea and Samaria as recommended or implied by the development in the recent Levi report should Obama be elected. What would happen. Obama would be upset. So what. If we throw a monkey wrench into his “real” plans and bring out his true agenda, it will essentailly stir up the pot allowing a more legalistic discussion of the legitimacy of the Judea and Samaria (see Howard Gried on this) and by preempting the Palestinians change the dialogue away from the Oslo mantra. There is absolutely nothing to lose and it also preempts Obama vis-a-vis the so-called land for peace “peace” process. What could Obama say No you have to sit down and discuss it. Okay, let’s sit down, but where are the Palestinians. In the meanwhile, we build. Why? How can we do that?” It’s unthinkable. Well, with the work of Howard Grief on San Remo and the Mandate for Palestine and the lack of illegality of settlements in J & S in the Levi report, we really can’t lose. If there is an uproar, we just reply, where are the negotiations agreed to by the Palestinians in the Oslo agreements. After four years of this Obama will be gone and we will have established a new dialogue based on Israel’s legal rights in J & S by international (ironic huh) law which certainly precedes the Oslo agreements. Obama has a legal mind. What does he say to that. No, we must keep and follow Oslo even though the Palestinians refuse to negotiate as dictated by those agreements.In summary, use the Levi report to justify building in J & S and let the fallout allow Israel to make it’s legal claim in the International forum based on San Remo and the rest based on Howard Grief’s fantastic work.It will take educating the politicians but in the real long term will start changing the dialogue while being significantly more proactive in the process. My ultimate question is: Can Obama refute Israel’s legal rights once they are clearly out there and if he objects simply because he doesn’t like it how does he claim it violates the Oslo accords when the Palestinians are making preconditions. This is how the four years of a second term of Obama could go. At least with regards to how the Palestinian issue goes.
When I read all the things written against Israel, it really disturbs me. I am not Jewish, but I am a Christian, and I know what the Bible says. I don’t know when the rest of the world will come to realize that Almighty God WILL have the last word. Israel is God’s land, and I, for one don’t want Him to tell me that I was against His land.
It is time to cancel the Oslo Accords and implement the recommendations of Dr. Martin Sherman of Hebrew University. Another poster commented that BB’s policy is only encouraging the Arabs (yes, that is what the Palestinians really are) to stay. MISTAKE!!!!! Why?? Because the Arabs, whether under the PLO or Hamas, have never altered their respective charters which require the annihilation of Israel. And the Arab hatred will never end, certainly not in our lifetimes. As Dr. Sherman admitted, changing the current regimen will not be easy, but with application of effort, it is doable.
Bibi’s policy of economic growth for the pals is encouraging them to stay. Counterproductive. Its deportation time, get up! 100 mill could transfer how many?
Time to cut the Palis loose. EU and America Love them so much, pay them.
Paris agreements had a terminating date of 1996 or 98 and was never re-ratified. Technically they are not legally enforce or enforceable. Only stupid Israeli willingness to pay them keeps the agreement and the Pa on life support in-spite-of the lies by the World Bank and BB that the Territories are booming economically.
Israel transferred a $100 million down payment in recent weeks to alleviate the distress,
Stupid Jews!!!
Good!! Lets do it.