What is the Oslo Agreement ?
The Oslo accords were a result of the secret negotiations between the PLO and Israel. Negotiating directly, and sitting face to face for the first time, they agreed upon a declaration of principles that would lead to creating the Palestinian Authority as an interim government that would pave the way for a final settlement. Although these talks would kickstart what came to be known as the “peace” process and the two-state solution, they were mostly a declaration of principles which did not contain any concrete specificities for a resolution. As a matter of fact, the word “state” with regards to Palestinians was never mentioned once.
It was two years later, in what is referred to as Oslo II, taking place in the Egyptian city of Taba, that negotiations earnestly began. In these negotiations more concrete parameters were discussed, and the logistics as well as method for instating the Palestinian Authority on the ground were determined. It is also worth mentioning that during this period, Jordan would go on to sign the Wadi Araba peace treaty with Israel and officially normalize its ties, making it the second Arab country after Egypt to do so.
Originally, the interim Oslo agreement and the Palestinian Authority were meant to be of a transitional nature, only lasting 5 years leading up to the final settlement. Interestingly enough, the form of this final settlement was never concretely defined as resulting in a state for Palestinians. Oslo II resulted in dividing the West Bank into three areas, labeled A, B and C.
Areas A: These areas were to be under complete civil and security Palestinian (Palestinian Authority) control. This includes the major Palestinian cities and population centers. There should have been no Israeli presence in this area. This area makes up approximately 18% of the West Bank while containing 55% of the Palestinian population.
Areas B: These areas were to be under Palestinian civil control, but Israeli security control. Many Palestinian villages and smaller population centers fall within this area. Areas B constitute approximately 21% of the West Bank while containing 41% of the Palestinian population.
Areas C: These areas were to be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council.. Areas C constitute the majority of the West Bank making up approximately 61% of the land. It is in these areas where the majority of settlement activity takes place, as they are abundant in land and resources while containing a relatively small portion of the Palestinian population. Israel controls them fully until this very day.
The labeling and designation of these areas continues to be an issue of importance to this day, as increasing numbers of Israeli officials call for the complete annexation of areas C to Israel. This means that Israel makes life as difficult as possible for Palestinians in areas C to encourage their exodus. Other issues of importance such as the use of water resources are heavily affected by which area you live in. Naturally if you are an illegal Israeli settler, such distinctions do not matter.
Today Israel barely distinguishes between these areas, as it is seen operating freely in Areas A, as well as retroactively recognizing new settlement outposts in Areas B.
In theory, then, the two-state solution calls for establishing two states, as the name implies. The Palestinian state would be erected in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. On the question of refugees, this topic was always postponed for future negotiations. The Palestinian Authority insists that there will be a “just solution” to the refugee question, but internal documents reveal that they have basically given up on the matter. Not even a token amount of refugees would be permitted to return to their homes. Another issue is borders, where Israel has attempted to keep control of its illegal settlement blocs in the West Bank.
The Oslo accords came bundled with the Paris protocol, which dictated the economic policies the Palestinians were allowed to make, and directly tied the Palestinian economy to the Israeli one. In essence, what the Paris protocol achieved was a structured subordination of the Palestinian economy to the Israeli one, giving the Israeli market immense control and power over it. As a matter of fact, many aspects of the Oslo accord were just a reformulation of occupation policies with a civil face; domination and exploitation were simply rebranded as cooperation.
Setting aside the practical issues and stalemates in the negotiation, the two-state solution has many conceptual problems that make it unfitting as a mechanism through which a resolution can be found. To put it bluntly, Israel is not a normal state. It is a settler colony. I am not talking about two naturally occurring populations which have a land dispute. Israelis are descended from settlers that arrived from abroad with the goal of erecting an ethnocratic settler state in an area that was already home to the Palestinians.
Additionally, this approach is inadequate to right historical wrongs, as it focuses on the pre-1967 borders as a starting point, which are in themselves a product of this colonization, and not the root cause of it. It is thus preoccupied with finding solutions to symptoms, rather than dare address the root cause, which is Zionist settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
This automatically means that Palestinians must relinquish any rights or hopes for their millions of refugees, and it also means that Palestinians must relinquish their rights to live in over 80% of the land they were ethnically cleansed from. Naturally, this promises that resource distribution, from water to fertile land, will be heavily stacked in Israel’s favor.
All of these shortcomings are often countered with the assertion that Palestinians must compromise to reach peace. Israeli control is treated as a fait accompli and that Palestinians must deal with it, rather than demand justice. This is the whole premise of the two-state solution, that Palestinians must compromise on their rights to be granted a small, powerless sham of a state in part of their homeland. Israel, of course was not asked to compromise on anything substantial. The only “compromise” asked of Israelis is to stop its illegal occupation of foreign lands, as well as stop its illegal settlement enterprise, which it should cease regardless of any negotiation with the Palestinians. This attitude basically boils down to “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.”.
Yet despite all of this, Palestinians were willing to agree to these terms. The PLO was willing to give up on the Palestinian people’s historical rights in order to find peace and have a state. But none of this was sufficient for Israel. Even Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the Oslo accords, who is considered a holy martyr for peace among the Israeli peace camp was notprepared to give the Palestinians a real state. He spoke of a sham “state-minus” with nosovereignty, and the offers did not get better than that throughout the history of negotiations.
So even when Palestinians accepted the 1967 borders, an incredibly limited return of refugees, and other compromises, this was still not good enough for Israel that sought to shrink the Palestinian Bantustan even further. These arrangements seek to formalize the status quo with cosmetic changes. Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, promised that no sovereign Palestinian state will emerge, and in the case of any limited self-rule arrangement for the Palestinians, there will be a permanent IDF presence in the West Bank, as well as Israeli control of the borders and airspace. As it stands, Palestinian aspirations cannot exceed the ceiling of Israeli table scraps, and any rejection of this ridiculous premise is framed as irrational intransigence.
Needless to say, the Palestinian Authority, which was supposed to last only 5 years still exists to this day. No Palestinian state has materialized, and the Israeli matrix of control is more far-reaching than ever.