In the flood of interviews and articles marking the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords, I also found those who welcome the agreement but reject the partner and claim that an agreement should have been reached with the Palestinians in the territories, not with the PLO. One of them is veteran journalist and commentator Ehud Yaari.
With the attitude that rejects Oslo because of religious opposition to the division of the land, it is very difficult to argue, just as it is difficult to argue with the religious elements on the Palestinian side, who claim that Palestine is holy land and therefore it is impossible to talk about dividing it with non-Muslims. Once G-d is brought into the equation, the only way to reach an agreement is a willingness to reach a "temporary" agreement, until the end times event arrives (the coming of the Messiah, for example), and then everyone will understand what the right path is, and our local conflict will also be resolved. The religious opposition is not unique to the Oslo process, but to any partition solution.
It is hard to argue with the opponents of Oslo, who reject the agreement because it is supposed to lead to the division of the land, while opposing it on security grounds. The proof that the status quo is much more serious, and that the behavior of the parties changes when peace prevails, lies with those who change the situation, and this cannot be proven except retroactively, based on what happened between Israel and Egypt and Jordan following the peace agreements.
From HBO's film "Oslo" // Archive photo
It is easier to argue with supporters of the agreement, who disagree "only" about the "choice of partner." Well, the Israeli establishment, which understood that only dividing the land could guarantee Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, first turned to King Hussein as a possible partner for dividing the land. Hussein (despite the Arab League's "three no's" of September 1967) was willing to reach a solution with Israel but repeatedly rejected Israel's demand to annex some 30 percent of the West Bank (claiming that even the Soviets had not annexed such a proportion of Finland after the war...). Attempts to establish a Palestinian state under the leadership of the heads of local authorities (especially the attempt to do so under the auspices of former mayor of Hebron and former justice minister in the Jordanian government, Muhammad Ali al-Ja'bri) in the 70s failed.
The next attempt was that of Ariel Sharon, who in the early 80s saw the "village associations" as an alternative Palestinian partner to the PLO. This initiative also quickly evaporated. Prof. Menachem Milson, who was appointed head of the Civil Administration of the Judea and Samaria region, failed in his efforts to establish a local leadership as an alternative to the PLO.The rejection of understandings between King Hussein and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1987 put an end to the last attempt to see Jordan as a partner for dividing the West Bank, and a year later the king announced that he was renouncing his claim to the West Bank and recognizing the Palestinians' right to this territory.
In 1988, the PLO recognized UN Resolution 242.
When I began negotiations to open the Oslo process, the original intention was to hold the secret dialogue with Faisal Husseini, the most important Palestinian figure in East Jerusalem, but Husseini made it clear to me that the address for negotiations was not him and his friends, but the PLO leadership in Tunisia. He did not heap praise on Arafat, but said that only after we reach an agreement with him will it be possible to involve the Palestinians living under our occupation in the implementation of this agreement. It was Hanan Ashrawi who suggested that we talk to Abu Ala, the PLO finance minister.
The option of holding talks about the future of the West Bank and Gaza with local residents was the first preference of anyone who wanted a partition arrangement. It has proven hopeless time and time again, and the attempt to present it today as a missed opportunity 30 years ago is only wishful thinking. √
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us