|
Trending Topics
|
Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-898377
Can the Oslo Accords Model Deliver Peace after Oct. 7?
(Jerusalem Post) Amb. Alan Baker - The Oslo Accords were built upon a clear and exclusive principle: all outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinians were to be resolved through direct negotiation. In a September 1993 exchange of letters between PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the PLO formally committed itself to a peaceful resolution of the conflict through negotiations. The parties agreed to end decades of confrontation, recognize one another's legitimate political rights, and pursue a just and lasting peace through an agreed political process. The parties further agreed not to take unilateral measures that would alter the status of the territories pending the outcome of those negotiations. Direct negotiation was the foundation of the entire peace process. The Oslo Accords made no provision for international conferences, judicial intervention, imposed solutions, or unilateral recognition campaigns. Nor did they authorize third parties to determine the outcome of negotiations. Three decades later, the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, fundamentally altered Israel's security assumptions. The belief that territorial compromises, international guarantees, and external monitoring arrangements could provide sufficient security has been severely weakened. For many Israelis, Oct. 7 demonstrated that ultimate responsibility for national security cannot be delegated to international actors. At the same time, increasing international pressure for immediate Palestinian statehood bypasses the very negotiating framework established by Oslo. Efforts by foreign governments and international organizations to recognize Palestinian statehood in advance of negotiations effectively prejudge issues that were expressly reserved for negotiation. Such initiatives undermine the contractual foundations of the peace process and further erode confidence in international guarantees. While the concept of the "two-state solution" has become a diplomatic slogan, it was never included in the Oslo Accords. The accords intentionally left all final-status arrangements open for negotiation. The transformation of the two-state formula from a possible negotiated outcome into a predetermined international prescription departs from the original logic of the peace process. International forums, judicial bodies, and unilateral recognition initiatives were never intended to replace direct negotiation. Efforts to impose solutions from outside may satisfy short-term political interests, but they cannot create the trust, legitimacy, and mutual acceptance necessary for durable peace. A viable and lasting peace can emerge only from direct engagement between the parties themselves. Until conditions exist for such negotiations, Israel will continue to rely primarily on its own capabilities to safeguard its security and national interests. The writer, a former legal adviser to the Israel Foreign Ministry who participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords, heads the international law program at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs.