Israel's Contribution to the Failure of the Oslo Accords

Key Findings:

Israel's current strategy regarding the Oslo Accords and its financial relationship with the PA appears to have failed to ensure Palestinian compliance or to advance peace prospects. A re-evaluation of this approach, possibly incorporating stricter enforcement of financial leverage and compliance measures, could be necessary to address the persistent issues and to realign the process with the original goals of the Oslo Accords.

The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, were intended as interim agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), with the aim of laying the groundwork for future negotiations on permanent status issues. Contrary to some interpretations, these Accords did not obligate Israel to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state. Instead, they were designed to last five years and address interim governance issues, deferring critical topics like Jerusalem, borders, and settlements for later discussions.

This article critiques in detail the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) concerning their compliance with the Oslo Accords. It highlights the repeated failures of the PLO/PA to fulfill their commitments, particularly in renouncing terrorism and amending the PLO Covenant. Yasser Arafat viewed the Oslo Accords as a strategic foothold rather than a genuine peace effort, aiming to further the goal of destroying Israel. Israel failed to identify these underlying motivations and did not ensure strict compliance from the PLO/PA. The PLO repeatedly committed to amending its Covenant to remove clauses calling for Israel’s destruction but never fully implemented these changes. The original Covenant, which includes calls for armed struggle and antisemitic rhetoric, is still presented in PLO/PA media and official documents.

The PLO/PA did not dismantle terror organizations within their ranks, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The PA instead adopted a "revolving door" policy, where terrorists were briefly detained and then released, and continued to incite violence and hatred against Israel through education and media. The PA established a "Pay-for-Slay" policy, providing financial rewards to terrorists and their families.

The PA has not held regular elections as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, with Mahmoud Abbas serving far beyond his elected term. Terrorist organizations like Hamas and the PFLP participated in elections, violating the Oslo Accords' provisions against candidates advocating violence or racism.

Despite the breaches, Israel, the United States, the UN, and European countries did not enforce the Accords' restrictions or hold the PA accountable. The systemic failure to address these violations has significantly hindered the peace process, making peace seem more distant now than when the Accords were first signed.

Israeli Perspective on the Oslo Accords:

-Interim Nature: The Oslo Accords were not meant to create a Palestinian state but were temporary agreements to set the stage for future negotiations. Issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, and borders were explicitly left for later resolution.

-Rabin’s Vision: Then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin clarified in 1995 that he envisioned a Palestinian entity "less than a state," which would be surrounded by Israeli territory, including settlement blocs.

-International Recognition Efforts: Despite the interim nature of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has worked extensively to gain international recognition for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This effort culminated in the UN General Assembly granting the PA non-member observer state status in 2012.

-Financial Dynamics: Israel collects taxes on behalf of the PA, which constitutes 65-70% of the PA’s budget. Despite having the leverage to withhold these funds to enforce compliance with the Oslo Accords, Israel has largely refrained from doing so, with few exceptions.

Compliance and Financial Leverage:

-Tax Revenue Withholding: Israel has the power to withhold tax revenues from the PA, a measure it has rarely employed. The only notable instance was in response to the PA joining the International Criminal Court, but this was temporary.

-Freeze Law: In 2018, Israel passed a law to freeze funds equivalent to the amount the PA spends on payments to convicted terrorists and their families. Despite this, significant financial support continues, including a notable 500-million-shekel lifeline provided in 2021.

-PA Non-Compliance: The PA has been accused of systematically breaching the Oslo Accords by inciting violence, recognizing terror groups, and pursuing international recognition as a state. This non-compliance has been met with limited repercussions from Israel. The long-standing policy of providing substantial financial support to the PA without strict enforcement of compliance with the Oslo Accords has led to a situation where the PA benefits significantly from the agreements without adhering to its obligations. This approach has not compelled the PA to modify its actions and has arguably emboldened non-compliance and incitement.