Revisiting Oslo: Between Challenges and Strategies in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

At a time when hardly a day passes without hearing Palestinian, Arab, and even international voices criticizing the Oslo Accords, there remains another aspect that we must shed light on, an aspect often not brought up in daily discussions about the failure or success of these agreements. While some believe that Oslo was a disaster for the Palestinians, the truth reveals that these agreements were more than just a step towards peace; they were, in fact, a strategic step in favor of the Palestinians, which is indirectly reflected in the strong opposition of the Israeli right-wing to them. If we look closely at the reason for this Israeli attack, we will discover that Israel was well aware that Oslo was a threat to its existence more than ever before.

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israeli reactions, especially from the right-wing, have been angry and sharp. There was a recurring statement from right-wing leaders saying that Oslo was a "betrayal" or a "strategic mistake." Although some critics in the Arab and Palestinian world believed that the Palestinians did not get what they deserved in those agreements, the Israeli hostility to Oslo should draw our attention to something deeper. The Israeli right-wing's opposition to Oslo was not due to the weakness of the agreement or Israel losing its interests, but rather due to a strong conviction that this agreement could pose a direct threat to Israel's future, and meant a gradual erosion of Israeli hegemony over the land. The Israeli right-wing feared that Palestinian recognition of Israel and the move towards a two-state solution might pave the way for the reduction of settlements and the return of Palestinian rights, and this constituted a real political nightmare for them.

But Oslo was not only a message from the Palestinians to Israel, but also a strong message to the whole world. A message of the Palestinians' understanding of the dimensions of global and regional power balances at that time, and a message that they are aware of the concepts of strength and weakness in the international arena, and that they seek peace and good neighborliness peacefully. In a reality where the Israeli occupation imposed a harsh reality on the Palestinians, Oslo was a step towards reaching a just settlement that recognizes Palestinian rights, but at the same time, it was a call to the world to pay attention to the Palestinian issue as a legitimate issue that needs a political solution that recognizes the demands and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Although Oslo was an important strategic step, both Palestinians and Israelis did not manage these agreements as they should have. Some elements of Oslo, whether in their drafting or implementation, were missed or obstructed by internal parties on both sides, leading to a series of failures that significantly affected the outcomes of these agreements. While Oslo opened the doors for dialogue and understanding, effective implementation mechanisms were absent, and the concerned parties did not manage the agreement's outcomes in a way that ensured its progress in the hoped-for direction. There was a clear problem in the non-implementation of the commitments of both parties, especially regarding the cessation of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories, as well as the failure to address key issues such as Jerusalem and refugees. On the Palestinian side, internal divisions among factions represented a major obstacle, while the Israeli side suffered from the absence of political will among some of its leaders to fully implement what had been agreed upon.

Over time, Oslo turned into an incomplete agreement, and the result was that the conflict continued to rage, and its complexities even increased. The foundations upon which the agreement was built were not fully respected by both parties, leading to an accumulation of frustrations on both sides. Palestinians felt that what they got from Oslo was not enough, while Israelis felt that the concessions they made did not translate into positive political results. Oslo was supposed to open the way towards a two-state solution, but over time, many obstacles emerged that made this goal seem distant.

But most importantly, it was the extremist forces on both sides, whether in Israel or Palestine, that emptied Oslo of its political content and threatened to destroy any chance for peace. On the Palestinian side, there were radical resistance movements that refused to recognize Israel in any way, and even considered any agreement with Israel a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. In contrast, on the Israeli side, there was a strong current of the extreme right that believed that any concession to the Palestinians was an existential threat to Israel. These extremists were fighting an ideological battle in an "either us or them" struggle, a vision that transformed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from a mere political dispute into a state of mutual nihilism. Over time, extremists on both sides used their utmost tools to undermine Oslo, trying to destroy any chance for peace. These used political and military violence in an attempt to undermine the peace process and impose reality by force.

This escalatory trend culminated in many wars and military operations, most notably the Gaza War, which crowned these efforts. Military escalation, whether by Palestinian groups or by the Israeli army, reflected a determination to maintain the stalemate or continue the escalation, instead of seeking a lasting settlement. Thus, the extremist forces on both sides had succeeded in transforming Oslo from an opportunity for peace into a series of failures that not only hindered peace but led to further destruction and suffering.

Over time, Palestinians, despite all challenges, began to build demographic and political power within the occupied territories, which today has become one of the main factors in the balance of power between the two sides. After the signing of Oslo, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more capable of influencing political equations in the region. Although this power did not fully achieve the dream of a Palestinian state, this is the beginning of the path towards Palestinian self-assertion in the international arena. But at the same time, extremist forces on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are increasing their influence on daily politics. Those who reject any kind of settlement continue to fight for the continuation of the conflict, while the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis seek compromises that can put an end to this ongoing conflict. In light of this, it is important to understand that Oslo, despite the concessions it entailed, was a step towards creating the conditions that could lead to fundamental transformations in a conflict that has lasted for decades, especially since it meant imposing Palestinians at the negotiating table as a political party, which was one of the greater goals of the Palestinian revolution.

In the end, Oslo remains a strategic turning point in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where some forces failed to recognize its historical benefits in securing a place for Palestinians on the international stage. And when we understand the motives of extremists in fighting Oslo, we can clearly see that these agreements were not just a weak endeavor, but a mature step towards achieving political balance and Palestinian existence in the face of Israeli hegemonic forces.