Palestinian Compliance with the Oslo Accords A Legal Overview

Key Findings:

The Oslo Accords emerged from a series of diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving peace in the Middle East, rooted in earlier international instruments such as UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). These resolutions laid the groundwork for subsequent negotiations and treaties, including the Camp David Accords (1978), peace treaties between Israel and Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), and attempts at peace with Lebanon.

A pivotal moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations was the exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on September 9, 1993. This exchange, which has no expiration date, involved mutual recognition, commitments to negotiate peace, and a renunciation of terrorism by the PLO. The Oslo Accords, which followed, signaled a significant level of trust and good faith between the parties, with the hope that this spirit would guide future relations and the implementation of the Accords.

Validity of the Oslo Accords

The Oslo Accords are the foundational legal framework governing the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, establishing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and delineating its powers. While not a classical international treaty, the Accords are recognized as significant international documents, witnessed and endorsed by major international actors including the United States, Russia, the European Union, Egypt, and Norway.

The international witnesses to the Accords are politically committed to encouraging compliance and refraining from undermining the agreements. This includes promoting a return to negotiations to achieve a permanent status agreement.

Legal Status of the Territories

Pending a permanent status agreement, the Oslo Accords remain the authoritative framework for the division of control over the territories. The PA administers Areas A and B, while Israel retains control over Area C. Attempts to classify Israel as an "occupying power" or the territories as "Palestinian territory" contradict the agreements in the Oslo Accords. Such claims undermine the commitments made by both parties to resolve the status of the territories through negotiation.

Permanent Status Negotiations and Palestinian-claimed Statehood

The Oslo Accords do not prescribe a specific outcome for the permanent status negotiations, leaving open the possibility of various solutions, including a one-state, two-state, or other arrangements. The Palestinians' unilateral actions in seeking recognition as a sovereign state or pursuing international judicial decisions are inconsistent with the Accords and undermine the agreed-upon negotiation process.

Permanent Status Issues

-Settlements: The issue of settlements is to be resolved through negotiations, with no predetermined outcome in the Oslo Accords. Each party has authority over planning and construction in areas under their jurisdiction, making the Palestinian campaign to declare settlements illegal contrary to the spirit and terms of the Accords.

-Jerusalem: The Oslo Accords do not specify the outcome of negotiations regarding the status of Jerusalem. Attempts to predetermine the status quo, particularly concerning the Holy Sites, are incompatible with the Accords.

-Borders: The borders between Israel and a potential Palestinian state are to be determined through negotiations. The pre-1967 lines were armistice demarcation lines, not international borders. UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for secure and recognized boundaries to be established through negotiation.

-Violations of the Oslo Accords: Palestinian actions such as the establishment of a separate Hamas regime in Gaza, initiating legal proceedings in international courts, and continued incitement and support for terrorism undermine the Accords. The Palestinian leadership's support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign also violates the economic cooperation principles outlined in the Accords.

Recommendations

Resuming negotiations and achieving a permanent status agreement is challenging due to ongoing violations by the Palestinian leadership. To address these issues, it is essential for Israel and the United States to urge international witnesses to encourage Palestinian compliance and refrain from actions undermining the Accords. The international community should promote dispute resolution within the framework of the Accords and discourage Palestinian unilateral actions in international bodies. Israel retains discretionary rights to enforce compliance and should use these strategically to foster cooperation. The path to peace requires a unified Palestinian leadership committed to upholding the Oslo Accords and a balanced international approach that supports accountability and compliance.