Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO): the Oslo I Accord, signed in Oslo in 1993 and the Oslo II Accord, signed in Taba in 1995. The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and to fulfill the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination". The Oslo process started after secret negotiations in Oslo, resulting in the recognition by the PLO of the State of Israel and the recognition by Israel of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as a partner in negotiations.

The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority, whose functions are the limited self-governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and, it acknowledged that the PLO is now Israel's partner in permanent status negotiations about the remaining issues. The most important issues are the borders of Israel and Palestine, the Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the question of Israel's military presence in and control over the remaining territories after the recognition of the Palestinian autonomy by Israel, and the Palestinian right of return. The Oslo Accords, however, did not create a Palestinian state.

The Oslo process

The Oslo process is the "peace process" that started in 1993 with secret talks between Israel and the PLO. It became a cycle of negotiations, suspension, mediation, restart of negotiations and suspension again. A number of agreements were reached, until the Oslo process ended after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000 and the outbreak of the Second Intifada.

During the Second Intifada, the Roadmap for Peace was introduced, which explicitly aimed a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The Roadmap, however, soon came into a cycle similar to the Oslo process, but without producing any agreement.

Background

The Oslo Accords are based on the 1978 Camp David Accords and show therefore high similarity. The Camp David's "Framework for Peace in the Middle East" envisioned autonomy for the local, and only for the local, (Palestinian) inhabitants of West Bank and Gaza. At the time, there lived some 7,400 settlers in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), and 500 in Gaza, with the number in the West Bank, however, rapidly growing. As Israel regarded the PLO a terrorist organisation, it refused to talk with the sole representative of the Palestinian people. Instead, Israel preferred to negotiate with Egypt and Jordan, and "elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza". Like the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords were an interim agreement, allowing first steps, followed by negotiations to complete within five years. The main difference was that the final goal in Camp David was a "peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, taking into account the agreement reached in the final status of the West Bank and Gaza", while the Oslo Accords aimed at a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Indeed, an Israel–Jordan peace treaty was concluded, but only on 26 October 1994, after the Oslo I Accord, and without the Palestinians.

Both plans had in common that, possibly intentionally, they did not have a "Plan B" in case a final agreement would not be reached within the set period.

Negotiation partners

Only after Israel's acceptance of the PLO as negotiation partner, serious negotiations could start. In their Letters of Mutual Recognition of 9 September 1993, days before the signing of the Oslo I Accord, both parties declared to accept each other as negotiation partner. The PLO recognized the State of Israel. Israel recognized the PLO as "the representative of the Palestinian people"; no more, no less.

Outline of the peace plan

Stated goals of the Oslo Accords were inter alia a Palestinian interim Self-Government (not the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Legislative Council) and a permanent settlement (of unresolved issues) within five years, based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian "legitimate and political rights", they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. The Oslo Accords do neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern.

The first step was a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho and transfer of some powers and responsibilities on civil matters to the interim Palestinian Authority. All to agree upon within two months from October 1993 (Oslo I, Annex II).

Then, Israeli troops to withdraw from populated Palestinian areas to pave the way for Palestinian elections to establish the Council. The Council would replace the PA, and the Israeli Civil Administration in the West Bank would be dissolved (Oslo II, Article I). Further redeployments of Israeli troops would follow upon the inauguration of the Council (Oslo II, Annex I, Article I).

Permanent status negotiations about remaining issues would start not later than May 1996 (two years after the signing of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement; Oslo I, Article V) and be concluded before May 1999 (end of 5 year interim period). A peace treaty would end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

End of the interim period

In May 1999, the five years interim period ended without reaching a comprehensive peace agreement, but elements of the Oslo Accords remained. The interim Palestinian Authority became permanent, and a dominant factor of the PLO. The West Bank remained divided into Areas A, B and C, the latter some 60% of the West Bank and under exclusive military and civilian control. Less than 1% of area C is designated for use by Palestinians, who are also unable to build in their own existing villages in area C due to Israeli restrictions. The Israeli Civil Administration, part of a larger entity known as Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which is a unit in the Defense Ministry of Israel, is still functioning in full. The Israeli–Palestinian Joint Water Committee also still exists.

At the 2000 Camp David Summit, the US tried to save the Accords by reviving the negotiations. After the failure of the Summit, the Second Intifada broke out and the "peace process" reached deadlock.

Key agreements

Key agreements in the Oslo process were:

• Israel–PLO letters of recognition (1993). Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO.

• The Oslo I Accord (1993). The "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements", which declared the aim of the negotiations and set forth the framework for the interim period. Dissolution of the Israeli Civil Administration upon the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Article VII).

• The Gaza–Jericho Agreement or Cairo Agreement (1994). Partial Israeli withdrawal within three weeks from Gaza Strip and Jericho area, being the start of the five-year transitional period (Article V of Oslo I). Simultaneously transfer of limited power to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was established in the same agreement. Part of the Agreement was the Protocol on Economic Relations (Paris Protocol), which regulates the economic relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but in effect integrated the Palestinian economy into the Israeli one. This agreement was superseded by the Oslo II Accord, except for Article XX (Confidence-Building Measures). Article XX dictated the release or turn over of Palestinian detainees and prisoners by Israel. The Paris Protocol was incorporated in Article XXIV of Oslo II.

• The Oslo II Accord (1995). Division of the West Bank into Areas, in effect fragmenting it into numerous enclaves and banning the Palestinians from some 60% of the West Bank. Redeployment of Israeli troops from Area A and from other areas through "Further Redeployments". Election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (Palestinian parlement, PLC), replacing the PA upon its inauguration. Deployment of Palestinian Police replacing Israeli military forces in Area A. Safe passage between West Bank and Gaza. Most importantly, start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999.

All later agreements had the purpose to implement the former three key agreements.

Additional agreements

Additional Israeli-Palestinian agreements related to the Oslo Accords are:

• Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities Between Israel and the PLO (August 1994)

This agreement was signed on 29 August 1994 at the Erez Crossing. It is also known as Early Empowerment Agreement (the term is used on the Israel MFA website). Superseded by Oslo II.

• Protocol on Further Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (August 1995)

This agreement was signed on 27 August 1995 at Cairo. It is also known as Further Transfer Protocol. Superseded by Oslo II.

• Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (January 1997)
• Wye River Memorandum (October 1998)
• Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (September 1999)
• Agreement on Movement and Access (November 2005)

Criticism

The Oslo Accords were undermined by actions from both sides. For example, intensification of Palestinian terror in the years immediately following the signing of the accord led to disenchantment on the Israeli side. These included a car bomb in Afula killing 8 people and a suicide bombing attack on the No. 5 bus on Dizengoff Street in Tel-Aviv killing 21 Israelis and one Dutch national. Similarly, the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, in which 29 Palestinians were killed and 125 wounded by a lone gunman is often blamed for undermining Palestinian trust in the process.

Continued settlement expansion

The Oslo Accords did not stop the continued settlement expansion and blockades which caused the deterioration of economic conditions, and much frustration for Palestinians. In 20 years since the Oslo Accords, until 2013, the settler population is tripled. Most new settlers moved to settlements near the Green Line. The vast majority of the settlers who moved to isolated settlements more eastwards were ideologically motivated. After Oslo, the Israeli government took upon itself not to establish new settlements. Instead, however, some 100 outposts were established, encouraged and supported by the government.

The 2013 third Netanyahu government drastically enhanced new constructions in settlements, most without tenders and most in isolated settlements scattered over all of the West Bank. Additionally, the government published planning tenders for large-scale settlement construction in the area around East Jerusalem.

Norway's role

Norwegian academics, including Norway's leading authority on the negotiations, Hilde Henriksen Waage, have focused on the flawed role of Norway during the Oslo process. In 2001, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who had been at the heart of the Oslo process, commissioned Waage to produce an official, comprehensive history of the Norwegian-mediated back channel negotiations. In order to do the research, she was given privileged access to all relevant, classified files in the ministry's archives. Waage was surprised to discover "not a single scrap of paper for the entire period from January to September 1993—precisely the period of the back channel talks". Involved persons kept documents privately and refused to hand them over. Waage concluded that there seems no doubt that the missing documents would have shown the extent to which the Oslo process was conducted on Israel’s premises, with Norway acting as Israel’s helpful errand boy. Norway played a mediating role as a small state between vastly unequal parties and had to play by the rules of the stronger party, acting on its premises. "Israel’s red lines were the ones that counted, and if the Palestinians wanted a deal, they would have to accept them, too."

Alternatives to the Oslo Accords

There have been suggested alternatives to boundary setting and creating principles that divide Israelis and Palestinians. One alternative is to move a peace process towards the creation of a bi-national state, a "one-state solution", that promotes co-existence rather than to continuing to divide. An argument for this as a possible way of reconciliation is that neither side can wholly justify a claim for homogeneity. Also, some Israeli and Palestinian thinkers have previously argued for a bi-national state as a more attractive alternative to separatism.