Daily Times

The Oslo Accord was developed following protracted negotiations. Consultations between the contact groups began in the Norwegian capital of Oslo in December 1992 then upgraded to a stage where the official representatives participated. The framework, once agreed, was vetted at the foreign ministerial level in Israel and the top leaderships of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The process culminated into agreement and was signed by Israel and the PLO on the lawn of the White House in September 1993. Israel was represented by a delegation led by its Prime Minister (PM), Yitzhak Rabin, and PLO by a delegation led by its chairman, Yasir Arafat.
The Oslo Accord called for phased withdrawal of the military from the occupied territories, establishment of the Palestinian Governing Authority and a five-year interim period during which issues including the “right of return of refugees” and the status of Jerusalem were to be negotiated. In 1998, at the sustained efforts of President Clinton, the Wye River Memorandum was prepared, which addressed the redeployment of Israeli security forces, release of Palestinian prisoners and resumption of dialogue to determine the permanent status of Jerusalem but, within a few weeks, the Israeli government scrapped the memorandum. In the following years, successive Israeli governments resisted implementing the Oslo Accord and UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that called for, among others, the withdrawal of troops to the pre-1967 border and resumption of dialogue aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
During the last year of his presidency, Bill Clinton made a proposal: 80 percent of settlers would remain in the West Bank and Israel would maintain its control over the Jordan River valley and deploy emergency troops to meet security needs. The new state of Palestine would be de-militarised. In Jerusalem, Arab neighbourhoods would be administered by the Palestinians and the Jewish part by Israel. Palestinian refugees would return only to the West Bank and Gaza. Israel never responded to the proposal.
In June 2002, President George W Bush declared a two-state formula implying, for the first time, that the future Palestinian state would be sovereign. In April 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced, “Such a settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its neighbours. The settlement will end the occupation based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397.” The PLO accepted the declaration in its entirety but the Israeli government accepted with several caveats. The Hamas PM, Ismail Haniyeh, confirmed, “We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the 1967 borders, living in calm.”
Notwithstanding several agreements, successive Israeli governments continued building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It unilaterally withdrew settlers from Gaza and began constructing a huge wall mostly over the land used by the Palestinians for housing and cultivation. In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared the construction of the wall in the occupied territory illegal. The court also determined that “the Palestinians were under occupation and had the right to self-determination, that Israel was obligated to adhere to international humanitarian law and that there were serious questions on whether routing an impenetrable barrier to protect the West Bank settlement would qualify as legitimate self-defense.” The court called upon Israel to cease the construction of the wall, dismantle what has been built within the occupied territory and compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the construction. The Israeli government rejected the court’s verdict.
The expansion of settlements has been the most egregious action that has embittered relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Notwithstanding unconditional support, successive US governments considered the settlements illegal and asked Israel to halt further construction. Now, over 500,000 people have been settled in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. President Carter, in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, wrote: “It is obvious that the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state, completely enclosed within the barrier and the occupied Jordan River valley.” In another book, Beyond the White House, Carter wrote: “It was obvious that the Israelis had almost complete control over every aspect of political, military and economic existence of Palestinians within the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli settlements penetrated the occupied territories and highways connecting the settlements with one another and with Jerusalem were being rapidly built, with Palestinians prohibited from using or crossing some of the key roads. In addition, almost 500 Israeli checkpoints obstruct the routes still open to Palestinian pedestrian and vehicular traffic.”
The peace initiative being stalled and continued expansion of settlements imposing restrictions on the movement of the Palestinians have all extinguished all hopes of peaceful resolution to the conflict. Recent polls indicate that most Palestinians think the two-state solution is now impossible and a growing number of them favour “return to armed resistance” against occupation. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, declared his people would no longer be bound by the Oslo Accord because no progress has been made with regard to their self-determination during the past 22 years. Israeli PM Netanyahu dismissed the creation of a Palestinian state and vowed to keep the Palestinians under permanent subjugation.
Liberal think tanks and intellectuals in Israel and abroad are against the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They believe the denial of basic rights to the Palestinians posed an ethical dilemma for the Jews and threatens the very existence of Israel. Six former directors of the Israeli army declared: “The occupation forces Israel into asymmetric warfare that erodes its international standing, limits its ability to forge regional alliances and crucially remains the principal target of Palestinian violence.” Two distinguished American professors have recently called for termination of all US assistance and boycott of Israel as a step towards forcing an end of occupation.
There has been a shift of public opinion in the west. The European Union has issued new guidelines requiring Israeli products produced in the occupied territory to be labelled as “settlement” in order to get into European markets. Recent polls in the US suggest support for Israel, which was once solid, is on the decline. People are beginning to realise that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “the root of most problems in the world”.
Now with limited land available and Israel’s refusal to have a Palestinian state along its border, the two-state solution is dead. So, what is next? Given US support, Israel cannot be forced to retreat to pre-1967 borders and a sovereign Palestinian state established. Conversely, five million Palestinians living in the occupied territories cannot be drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. Henry Kissinger once mentioned that Israel is militarily too strong to be defeated and the Palestinians are politically too powerful to be eliminated. This leaves only one option: creation of a secular and democratic Jewish-Palestinian state where Palestinians and the Jews will have equal rights.
The creation of a Jewish-Palestinian state will end the occupation, enable the Palestinians to get rid of an unelected oligarchy and live in a democratic state. Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. The people of Israel will not have to worry about security. Israel will not have to beg for billions of dollars to reinforce its security; it will be free to invest its resources for the wellbeing of its people, Jews and Palestinians alike.
Jews and Arabs have lived peacefully prior to the establishment of Israel and they can revert to a similar arrangement again.

The writer is a former official of the United Nations