Ghazal Sawez

2. Describe the main agreements that together constituted the Oslo process. List

each one and explain its main components, how it, at least on paper, advanced

the process forward, what its weaknesses were, and to what extent it was

implemented on the ground by each side.

The Oslo Accords was meant to be a large step in a positive direction for

the conflict between Israel and Palestine, however it failed to live up to its

expectations. Yet it was still a landmark occasion, seeing how it was the first time

that the government of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization met

and agreed on a deal. It was also the first time that the Israeli authority

acknowledged the PLO as the official Palestinian Authority. This was supposed

to be a basis for which other negotiations could follow in the future. The was

much discussion before leaders from both sides came to an agreement, in fact

Israel’s leaders “Rabin or Peres could not be involved before the Palestinians

had provided clarification on a number of issues.” (Qurie, From Oslo to

Jerusalem, 85) Both parties agreed upon the terms of the plan on August 20th,

1993. About a month later an official ceremony was held in order to mark the

signing of the accords, Yasser Arafat signed in representation of Palestine, while

the Israeli Prime Minister at the time Yitzhak Rabin signed on behalf of Israel;

American Bill Clinton was present for the signings. There were many reasons as

to why Oslo failed, most notably that people failed to notice the history between

these two countries (class notes, 10/14/09). However, the intentions of the plan

were good and would have allowed a chance for peace in this region if it had
worked. There were many key issues left out of the agreement because they

were topics that were of great importance and it was determined that they would

be discussed at a later date. Some of these issues included: refugees, borders,

settlements, and Jerusalem. These were to be brought up again in about 5 years,

once it was confirmed that the agreements were on course and working out well

for both countries.

One of the major points of the agreement was that Israel would withdraw

all troops from Gaza and the West Bank and would leave those regions to

Palestinian authority to govern. However, “Arafat had failed to obtain other

specific concessions concerning a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied

terroritories.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 135) Also the topic of

elections agreements was covered, there was established rules for running the

elections and campaigns. Israel also had to agree to withdraw all of their military

forces from Gaza and Jericho. The Palestinians would not be allowed to have a

military but would however get to have their own police force; this would help

allow for safe passage. This would help advance the idea of peace in the region

by making sure that neither side felt threatened by the other. Yet the key

component they did not realize was that in Israel’s history “security” has been

their major concern, and most of their money went to this cause. Therefore telling

them to withdraw their troops from Gaza and the West Bank would be a harder

task than imagined since many of the troops in those regions were patrolling over

the settlements which were constructed for security reasons, even though it

seems that the military that patrols the settlements is their to protect the land they

are expanding on rather than as a protective border to protect Israel (class notes,
10/28/2009). Despite what they agreed to, Israel refused to let Palestinians pass

through certain areas after these meetings. Also, while Israel refrained from

building new settlements for a period of time after the accords they still expanded

their current settlements. This of course discredited this part of the agreement.

A large part of the agreements was the idea of Economic cooperation; this

was an effort to make sure that the Palestinians would get the assistance they

needed. This was suppose to create jobs for Palestinians, since the Israeli

economy has been much more powerful from the start. There would also be a

fund to assist the Palestinian economy. “Israel’s plan was that Arafat and the

PLO would assume responsibility for local administration, free to receive and

distribute (or perhaps retain a portion of) the international financial support that

would be available to the Palestinians.” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,

136) The Oslo Accords called for them for cooperate in for water, electricity,

finance, energy, communications, labor relation, trade, media, and environmental

protection. This would advance the peace process forward because it would

allow both countries to be somewhat stable economically so that they would not

have to rely as much on other countries. However, the reason why this did not

worked on as planned on the ground was because there was not as much

incentive for Israel to participate and hold up its end of the deal. The Israeli

economy was not nearly suffering like the Palestinian economy. Also they felt no

need to offer jobs and promote economic growth for the Palestinians. Again this

mistake could have been prevented if they have looked more into the history

between the two regions. There were clear reasons as to why this agreement

never worked out, after the meetings in Oslo Israel closed their borders and
prevented Palestinians from coming to claim the jobs they were promised. (class

notes, 10/28/2009)

The last part of the plan was an effort to pave the way for future

negotiation. It called for both sides to assist in multilateral peace efforts to ensure

the economic and social welfare of the region, including the West Bank and

Gaza. There was much debate over the acceptance of all these condition; both

parties were split on the decision. On Israel’s side the left wing party was in

support of it while the right wing was against it, in the end they voted in favor of

accepting the agreement but the number of votes was very close. On the

Palestinians side, Fatah was in favor of the agreement seeing how they are the

more secular party and were willing to negotiate in peace talks. However at the

time Hamas, “an Islamic militant group that opposed recognition of Israel,

perpetrated acts of violence, and was increasingly competitive with Arafat’s

secular Fatah Party” (Carter, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, 144) was strictly

against the deal because they were only interested in a forming a Palestinian

state over the entire region, this has of course changed sine 1993 and they are

now willing to accept a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders.

There are many people that criticize the Oslo Accords today for not

accomplishing anything and for actually making matters worse for many

Palestinians. “Ariel Sharon declared the Oslo Agreement to be “national suicide”

and stated, “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can

to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay our” (Carter,

Palestine Pease Not Apartheid, 147). Many blame the Oslo Accords for the

outbreak of the second intifada. However, it is easy to look back at the plan and
criticize it now because everybody knows it did not help advance the peace

process whatsoever. More people should have criticized the plan when it was

created; while many of the people agreeing on the terms were skeptical they still

went forward with the deal. Nobody assessed the history behind the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict to understand why Oslo could never work. Some say it was

doomed from the start due to the lack of realistic goals. Yet the important thing to

gain from the Oslo Accords is to make sure all sides of future plans are revised

and thought over before being presented to both sides in order to ensure the

interests of everyone involved.