Following the publication of the protocol of the decision on the Oslo agreement

25/9/2023

Idan Kedem

The Oslo Accords is one of the historical points of contention between the right and the left wings in Israel. The left has traditionally claimed that conflicts must be resolved through negotiations with the enemy, and this is what must be done with the Palestinians as well. The left also argued for the protection of the Jewish majority in the country, which it believed was in danger due to mixing with the Palestinians. While the right-wing opposed it, firstly, with the claim of 'our right to the land', that even if it is provided with suffering, it cannot be withdrawn; And also that such negotiations will only strengthen the Palestinian enemy and give him an impetus to continue the violent resistance against the State of Israel. In all the years since then, and in fact, even until then, this was the framework of the discussion regarding Israel's position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. One must therefore ask what is the basis for these positions and whether they are valid.

First of all, what is the Oslo agreement? Well, this is a solution, or a proposed solution. And what problem is it trying to solve? Of course, the problem of the conflict or war with the Palestinians. But to be honest, the problem is that there is not and has not been in all the years of the state a war against Palestinians. Because as peace is made with enemies, so war is made against two or more parties of equal status. For example, between countries; or between non-state societies such as the Palestinian Community; or between criminal organizations; and the like. But there cannot be a war between two bodies unequal in status. Just as there is no war between students and teachers; between police and criminals; or between a government and its citizens. Conflicts between unequal parties are of different nature and essence, they are not war. Moreover, Israel was all this time the party with sole responsibility for everything related to the territories, because it was the one that occupied the territory, and it was the one that controlled it all this time. The Palestinians, at that time, were an occupied population, which is not even the legal claimant to the territory, because it was not occupied from them.

In fact, there are no Palestinians either. At least not in the sense that there are Israelis, because there is no place called 'Palestine'. 'Palestine', as an Arab identity factor, is a concept that was actually created as a response to the rise of Zionism as a political entity in the region and as a justification for this response, and does not stand on its own. True, Zionism encountered resistance from the Arab inhabitants of the land when it came to the Land of Israel. But only when it started to become clear that Zionism is a significant political factor; That it came here to stay; And that it would not be possible to get rid of her easily; Only then a situation arose that forced the local Arabs to find a unifying identity factor for them as well. On the other hand, from the Israeli side, the conflict and the war against the entity called Palestine were invented, out of self-interested considerations, so that the situation of the State of Israel vis-à-vis the Arabs would be framed in a legitimate framework, and not in an illegitimate one. First, to justify the dispossession of the Arabs from their lands in all the years preceding the establishment of the state; And after the Six Day War, to justify the hold on the occupied territories and the undemocratic control over the Palestinian residents of the territories.

As for the pre-state Zionist struggle for the land, it can be said that the mutual use of the term 'Palestinian' is reasonable, because it simply expresses a correct situation: a struggle between two groups with the same status over one piece of land. In the end, the fact that one side lost in this struggle is of course unfortunate on the part of the Palestinians, but it is a natural result that must occur as long as there are violent struggles over territory. Provided that they will be conducted under equal conditions for all parties.

This was not the case after the establishment of the State of Israel. That's when the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians changed. No longer two societies with the same status, but two societies with a different status: a state on the one hand, and a non-state Community, on the other. In fact, while Israel received an official international seal of approval for its status as a state, Palestinian Community remained a Community without official status. This was the situation when Israel conquered parts of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War. Non-Israeli populations that stayed in these territories usually had some kind of state citizenship, even if they were also identified as Palestinians. Later, when the occupation continued, and especially when the first intifada began, it was also convenient for Israel to recognize this population as having an identity of its own, which ties them to the territory, in order to make the situation warlike, and one that was imposed on it, and therefore essentially legitimate and equal; And to slyly link this to the completely different situation that prevailed before the establishment of the state, in which an egalitarian struggle between two populations really took place. Now, when Israel had to deal with the "good" results of the Six-Day War, Israel tried to be too wise, and make its problematic control of the occupied territories part of an ongoing conflict over the land that began even before the establishment of the state, between two equal and bitter rivals. In short, Israel, since 1967, abdicated its sole responsibility for what is be done in the territories, and the Oslo agreement continued this Israeli perception, and laid it as the basis for its conclusions.

Seemingly, it was a sophisticated move. First of all, because everyone - left, right, Palestinians, Arab world, Western world - swallowed it, and cooperated with it. To this day, everyone describes the situation between Israel and the Palestinians as a struggle between two equal sides, which should be resolved through the practices of peace or war. It is a sophisticated move also because it offers those involved a situation that is not easy at all: a bloody and brutal war. And who can argue in such a situation that the thinkers of this move are trying to beautify reality? Plus, it's also what people like: what has drama and storms and tragedies in it and it photographs great. Because what's better for TV news shows than blood and fire and smoke clouds? And finally, this so-called pessimistic presentation achieves a huge result: a deep and continuous concealment of the truly worst situation: the continuous, one-sided and unforgivable crime of the State of Israel, first of all against itself - By dissolving the difference between its pre-state situation and its state situation; And by allowing itself to control a territory that is not in its sovereignty. In doing so, Israel seemed to give up its position as a state, and began the process of weakening itself (with the help of other factors) that continues to this day. It was a deadly and unforgivable strategic move, which both the left and the right wings were complicit in, and are complicit to this day. The left, as mentioned, in seeing the Palestinians as 'partners for peace' against a war that is exist; Whereas the right-wing tramples the line between sovereign and non-sovereign Israel. But they both agreed on the starting point and the final goal, that the State of Israel as a Jewish state must continue to exist.

To the credit of the Oslo agreement, which came from the political left, it will be said that it sought to put an end to the non-sovereign situation created in the occupied territories through the same arrangement with the Palestinians. But the real purpose of the agreement, from the Israeli side, was wrong, because as mentioned, it came to strengthen the idea of the Jewish state. Because when you talk about something along the lines of 'two nations living side by side in peace', you have to ask not only who is the one nation (the Palestinians) but also who is the other nation? And for the most part, when talking about this people in Israel, they mean the Jewish people in their sovereign state, Israel, and not the Israeli people, which probably includes Arabs, Druze and others. And now, this intention is wrong because in the first place there is no legitimacy for a Jewish state. And this, because an essentially Jewish state (in the form of the State of Israel) necessarily assumes at its base, discrimination between its citizens. That is, it has no choice but to discriminate between its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. And such discrimination is not possible because it contradicts the concept of State. In any case, the Zionist consideration was all the years an Archimedean point on Israel's agenda in every field, from the right and the from the left wings, and also in the Oslo agreement. This is the only way to understand the unlikely solution proposal of pushing two countries (or political entities) in the already limited area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea; and the complicated and convoluted agreements for regulating the status of the settlements.

This means that the Oslo Accords, as an expression of the entire left's view, sought to correct what was not necessary (urgent) to regulate (the Palestinian Nakba), and sought to perpetuate what was necessary to regulate (the Jewish state).

All of this may lead to the necessary question, what should have been done? Well, a brave analysis of the Israeli situation, which is based on the above considerations, should have asked, first, to put an end to the Jewish state; That is, to the fundamental definition that underpins the State of Israel, and does not allow it to be a state. In the next step, it was necessary to turn to the Palestinians and offer them a common state on the entire territory. And it was necessary to insist that this country be secular and democratic, in order to neutralize in advance the religious control of any religion in the country. The advantages of such an agreement were many: 1) Solving the Palestinian problem, which includes the problems of: the refugees, the lack of Palestinian sovereignty, the Israeli oppression on them, the Nakba, and more; 2) Solving the problem of the Jewish state, as formulated above; 3) Solving the problem of the lack of Israeli sovereignty in the occupied territories; 4) Solving the problem of the settlements - most of them (with the exception of corrections of wrongs where necessary) could continue to exist in their place, but in a legal and agreed upon manner; 5) Solving the problem of access to sites - all citizens will be able, in principle, to access any site between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea; 6) Drastic reduction of security tension for all parties, and directing resources to civilian needs; 7) Relative solution of the problem of the limited geographical area; 8) Sympathy, legitimacy and support for Israel from the world; 9) A drastic lowering of the level of arrogance and the sense of 'self and ego' of the Jews in Israel to a tolerable level.

In conclusion, the Oslo Agreement, more than an expression of a sharp dispute in Israeli Community, was rather a clear expression of all the basic assumptions agreed upon in Israeli Community. And that was also the problem with it, and not the fact that it 'didn't succeed', or that it 'sold the territories of the homeland to the Arabs'. Because the assumptions on which it was based are fundamentally wrong, but there was no one in the Israeli Community who would say exactly that.