FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Death of the Oslo Accords

Oslo is dead. Generals Barak and Sharon deliberately killed off Oslo on 28 September 2000 when they knowingly instigated the Al Aqsa Intifada by desecrating the Haram-Al-Sharif. When Barak could not compel President Arafat into permanently accepting the Oslo Agreement as the “final solution” for the Palestinian People at the Camp David II negotiations in July, he and Sharon decided to revert to inflicting raw, naked, brutal force that would culminate in the planned reimposition of Israel’s outright military occupation upon the West Bank. All of the subsequent violence between Israelis and Palestinians is directly attributable to this malicious decision undertaken jointly by Barak (“Labor”) and Sharon (“Likhud”) with the full acquiescence of the United States government (under both Clinton and Bush Jr.) every step of the way.

The Israeli/American destruction of Oslo was only a matter of time. There was never any good faith on the part of the Israeli government and the United States government when it came to negotiating a just Middle East peace settlement with the Palestinians going all the way back to the preparatory work for the convocation of the 1991 Madrid Conference by the Bush Sr. administration. American bi-partisanship at work directed against Palestine and the Palestinians.

When the Israeli government finally tendered a proposal for an interim peace agreement to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations in Washington D.C. in 1992, the Palestinian Delegation rejected it because it constituted nothing more than an apartheid Bantustan for the Palestinian People. Akin to the legal chicanery that the Afrikaners had unsuccessfully attempted to impose upon the Black People in the Republic of South Africa. Or the “Indian reservations” that the United States has so far successfully imposed upon its Indigenous Peoples. Not surprisingly, the United States government fully supported Israel in its attempt to impose this apartheid Bantustan upon Palestine and the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, the Palestinian Liberation Organization applied enormous political pressure upon the Palestinian Delegation and in particular its Head, Dr. Haider Abdul Shaffi, to accept the Israeli Bantustan proposal right then and there in Washington, D.C. This he adamantly refused to do. But it then became incumbent upon Dr. Abdul Shaffi to produce an anti-Bantustan model that would (1) protect and promote the Palestinian right to their own independent and viable nation state; (2) be negotiable in good faith with Israel; and (3) convince the PLO leadership in Tunis that these twin objectives could be accomplished. It was my great honor and pleasure that Dr. Abdul Shaffi and the Palestinian Delegation turned to me at this critical time in their Nation’s history in order to devise this Palestinian alternative to the Israeli Bantustan proposal.

This I did by means of oral briefings and later a formal Memorandum of Law dated 1 December 1992 that was addressed to the Palestinian Delegates to the Middle East Peace Negotiations as well as to the top political leadership of the PLO then headquartered in Tunis. This lengthy Memorandum was translated into Arabic for review, consideration, and approval by the PLO Executive Committee, which serves as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine, whose President was at the time and still is Yasser Arafat. My Palestinian anti-Bantustan model was approved by the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations as well as by the PLO leadership in Tunis. In other words, there was an officially approved Palestinian alternative to Oslo. So there did indeed exist a “choice.”

Because of its historical significance, the Board of Editors of the distinguished Arab Studies Quarterly decided to publish this Memorandum in full in their Volume 22, No. 3, Summer 2000 Issue, together with a brief editorial Note. While going through this Memorandum, the reader should understand that the Israeli proposal severely criticized therein would later become the Oslo Agreement. In other words, this 1 December 1992 Memorandum provided the PLO leadership with a detailed roadmap of precisely what was wrong with Oslo, what would be the negative consequences of Oslo, and why Oslo would inevitably fail. Indeed, this 1 December 1992 Memorandum repeatedly predicted the failure of the Israeli proposal that would later become the Oslo Agreement, which was signed by President Arafat at the White House on 13 September 1993.

All of this analysis was well-known to President Arafat, Dr. Abdul Shaffi, the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations, and the PLO Executive Committee well before 13 September 1993. It was for this reason that Dr. Abdul Shaffi and several of the Palestinian Delegates refused as a matter of principle to attend the 13 September 1993 White House signing ceremony. They knew Oslo was a Bantustan and thus wanted nothing at all to do with it. Hence, contrary to some news media accounts and academic speculation, President Arafat knew exactly what he was signing on 13 September 1993. He had been fully informed and properly advised. But he signed on to the Oslo Bantustan anyway.

In our conversations before Oslo was signed and afterwards, the greatest fear and concern shared by Dr. Abdul-Shaffi and me was that Oslo would set off a Palestinian civil war. This would not have bothered the Israelis and the Americans one bit. But to his great credit, so far President Arafat has refused to ignite a Palestinian civil war in the name of enforcing the Oslo Bantustan.

Precisely because President Arafat would not do their dirty work for them, the Israelis and the Americans then turned upon him. Both the Israelis and the Americans have decided to jettison President Arafat in preference to installing some Palestinian quisling willing to become the “chief” of a Palestinian Bantustan where he would employ its “reservation police force” in order to suppress the Al Aqsa Intifada. I doubt very seriously that the Israelis and the Americans will succeed at imposing their nefarious objectives upon Palestine and the Palestinians without violent resistance. What the ultimate consequences might be I cannot predict at this time. But the longer the United States government enables Israel to torment Palestine and the Palestinians, the progressively less likely a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement becomes.

In this regard, having served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, and in a similar capacity to the Syrian Delegation to the Middle East Negotiations during their First Round held in Washington, D.C. during 1991, I can state unequivocally that if there had been good faith on the part of the governments of Israel and the United States back in 1991, there could have been negotiated a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement between Israel, on the one hand, and Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, respectively, on the other, no later than by the end of 1993. The conclusion is inexorable that the governments of Israel and the United States were never seriously interested in obtaining a comprehensive and just Middle East peace settlement in the first place. Rather, Israel’s perpetration and prolongation of its “low intensity conflict” against Palestine and the Palestinians as well as against Lebanon, the Lebanese, and Palestinian refugees involuntarily living in Lebanon suit the interests of the interpenetrated security-military-industrial-complexes that really control the governments of the United States and Israel.

Of course, from the Palestinian perspective, there is nothing “low intensity” about their just struggle for national survival against the Israeli-American juggernaut. And there are signs that Sharon would like to unleash a major new war against Lebanon and Syria just as he did in 1982 when as Israel’s “Minister of Defense” – truly Orwellian! – he got the proverbial “green light” from the Reagan administration to do so. Right now the “governments” of the United States and Israel are plotting to launch catastrophic aggression against Iraq, giving Sharon cover to initiate yet another round of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians by driving their West Bank inhabitants into Jordan. This incredibly volatile situation could readily degenerate into another regional war for the entire Middle East along the lines of 1948/1967/1973.

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, and The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Clarity Press. He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU

Today’s Feature

Robert Jensen
Lynne Cheney’s Primer

Behzad Yaghmaian
An Alternative to the G-8s Africa Initiative
Toward a Global AIDS Fund and a Living Wage

John Borowski
Public Schools Under Seige

Norman Madarasz
Brazil, the Workers’ Party and the Financial Times

home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links /

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
Mel Gurtov
Weaponizing Humanitarian Aid
Thomas Knapp
Lame Duck Shutdown Theater Time: Pride Goeth Before a Wall?
George Wuerthner
The Thrill Bike Threat to the Elkhorn Mountains
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Selfhood and Her Ability to Act in the Public Domain: Resilience of Nadia Murad
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
On the Killing of an Ash Tree
Graham Peebles
Britain’s Homeless Crisis
Louis Proyect
America: a Breeding Ground for Maladjustment
Steve Carlson
A Hell of a Time
Dan Corjescu
America and The Last Ship
Jeffrey St. Clair
Booked Up: the 25 Best Books of 2018
David Yearsley
Bikini by Rita, Voice by Anita
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail