Back to Oslo

“Whoever occupies territory is responsible for the needs of the population in it. That’s simply how it is” – this is the quote next to the photo of journalist Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps in an advertisement for the “Relevant” website. Why did Phelps-Elbaz bother to explain the obvious? Because Israel has invented an international ploy for itself: it is possible to occupy territory, control it security-wise, yet completely shirk responsibility for the needs of the occupied civilian population.

Although the ploy is not easy to execute, with a bit of creativity and chutzpah one can certainly become an invisible occupier. To achieve this, of course, one needs to find a partner willing to be dazzled by an original combination of flattery, false promises, and threats. This is what happened in 1993, when retired Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin met the legendary leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat. Rabin convinced Arafat to sign the Oslo Accords with the unwritten promise that one day the Palestinians would receive a state. Thus began the bloody saga that culminated on October 7, 2024.

The most terrible aspect of the Oslo Accords was that they tainted the word “peace.” Although Rabin, Peres, and Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, it was for an agreement that created a reality that did not fulfil the aspirations of either the Palestinians or the Israelis. In fact, the Oslo Accords provided fertile ground for the growth of the twin phenomena we have come to know: the extreme right in the form of Netanyahu and the settlers, and Hamas, which opposed Oslo for the opposite reasons. The Israeli right wants a Greater Israel, and Hamas wants Palestine from the river to the sea. Thus, for thirty years, extremists have taken over Israeli and Palestinian internal politics. The word “occupation” disappeared from the Israeli lexicon, and Israel disappeared from the Palestinian lexicon. Israelis and Palestinians stopped communicating, each side accusing the other of nationalist extremism.

While the Israeli left invented Oslo, the Israeli right, despite initial vehement opposition, did everything to maintain it, finally recognizing its advantages. The Israeli left fully supported Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the Israeli right vigorously opposed it. However, after Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, the right again embraced this new arrangement: the existence of two separate, divided, and conflicting Palestinian entities eliminated any future danger of a political settlement.

The Israeli left also adapted to the new situation, and when Bibi’s right-wing brought “regional peace” with the Gulf states, it was the left that got excited about it, even though it came at the expense of a political solution with the Palestinians. Things reached a point where left and right united in the “government for change,” headed by Bennet-Lapid which lasted only one year. What characterized it was a mutual agreement to give up in advance on any “ideological” agreement, which is a euphemism for the Palestinian issue. They thought they could fight Netanyahu without a political programme and without ideology.

Another party that did everything to uphold the Oslo Accords was the Palestinian Authority. Without its consent the agreements could not have lasted until this very day. Thus, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) swallowed the bitter pills of settlement construction; the separation wall; checkpoints; the “hilltop” settler youth; the dispossession in south Hebron hills, and the severe violations of Palestinian human and civil rights. Abu Mazen repeatedly declared that security coordination with Israel was sacred. He quickly became a corrupt dictator, disconnected from his people, and primarily concerned with the privileges of his close associates.

It seems that the American perception dictates that whoever lives in the Middle East must come to terms with the existing autocratic regimes there when there is not a single democratic regime to be found.

Hamas also accepted the arrangement but demanded special conditions befitting its status. While Israel had full control over the West Bank, the disengagement from Gaza and the absence of an Israeli presence there created a unique situation where Hamas became the sole and all-powerful ruler under the envelope of Israeli occupation. Gaza did not separate from Israel; instead, Israel became entirely dependent on Hamas. It acceded to all its demands, from Qatari suitcases stuffed with money through close ties with Iran, the construction of an elaborate tunnel network, turning UNRWA into its executive arm, transforming schools into hotbeds of Islamic brainwashing, and every hospital into a military headquarters. Israelis became so addicted to Oslo that the commanders of the women surveillance soldiers on the Gaza border treated their warnings about Hamas’ invasion preparations with complete disdain and ignored them.

After October 7th, when Israel justly mourns the fate of the murdered, kidnapped, and displaced, when Gaza has become a battlefield with thousands of men, women, and children dead and wounded amidst an ongoing humanitarian crisis of immense proportions, both sides, the Israeli left and Hamas, want to continue maintaining the arrangement that led to this disaster. A long line of retired generals, speaking on behalf of the Israeli protest movement, emphatically tell the press that the war must stop. Retired general Israel Ziv said in an interview with Channel 12 what Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz have not yet dared to say explicitly, “It seems that Gaza will be controlled by some sort of coalition, and that unfortunately Hamas will be a part of it.”

This is in essence the proposal in dispute between Defence Minister Gantz and Netanyahu. Gantz expressed strong opposition to the establishment of an Israeli military government in Gaza, which he perceives as a national disaster. The alternative he proposes: “The day after Hamas can only be achieved through the control of Palestinian forces with international supervision, which would serve as an alternative to Hamas.” The problem is that any Palestinian faction that takes responsibility for Gaza will depend on Hamas’s consent, as described by Ret. General Ziv above.

This formula is promoted by the Biden administration, which sees it as a magic solution to all of Israel’s pains – releasing all the captives, normalization with Saudi Arabia, an agreement with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Iran regarding its nuclear program and securing shipping routes in the Red Sea. It seems that the American perception dictates that whoever lives in the Middle East must come to terms with the existing autocratic regimes there when there is not a single democratic regime to be found. All that remains is to try to contain extreme Islam in its Iranian or Saudi version. This is the essence of American policy not only in the Middle East. According to this model, Zelensky will also have to come to terms with Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, because the US is not seeking wars and is willing to go to great lengths to prevent them.

And so, we find ourselves at the threshold of an imagined “upgraded” Oslo, based on an upgraded Palestinian Authority and with a supposedly “tamed” Hamas, and we must choose between an Israeli military government and the same magic solution that brings us back to the reality of October 6th. The truth is, neither the Americans nor the Israeli military and its representatives in the government have any real alternative to a military government. And since “whoever occupies territory is responsible for the needs of the population in it,” as Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps rightly said, Israel will have no choice but to establish a military government as the only realistic alternative to Hamas rule.

Apart from defending Israel as a democracy (albeit flawed) against the right wing’s attempt to impose an undemocratic coup, the Da’am Party has found itself at variance with the Israeli left at every historical juncture: we vehemently opposed the Oslo Accords in 1993, we also opposed the unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza in 2005, and we strongly oppose the current American plan for an upgraded Oslo. All of these agreements have served only to strengthen the right and wipe the left off the political map – witness the fate of the Labor and Meretz parties.

Each of these plans has been designed to perpetuate Israeli control over the Palestinian people and has only increased hostility between the two nations. In 1993, the opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel was missed. In 2005, the chance to reach an agreement with the Palestinians regarding the withdrawal from Gaza was also missed. Now, the left is working to revive the monster of the upgraded Oslo Accords to separate from the Palestinians at any cost, without considering their fate at all.

October 7 must become a lesson. The world is tired of the occupation, Hamas and Abbas are not partners for peace, and only a true pursuit of peaceful coexistence on an equal basis with the Palestinians will ensure both our and their survival in this region. The Israeli true interest is to encourage the growth of a democratic Palestinian movement, and the Palestinian true interest requires dialogue and cooperation with democratic and liberal Israeli forces. Unfortunately, the existence of military rule in Gaza will illustrate to Israelis that there are no shortcuts and no subcontracted occupation. The only way to exist here is on the basis of national and civil equality between the two peoples. Only with such an understanding can a political settlement be reached that will ensure the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Print Friendly