On this day, September 13, 1993, the world witnessed what many hoped would be a transformative moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—the signing of the Oslo Accords. It was a day that promised the possibility of peace, as Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat stood on the White House lawn, shaking hands in front of an elated President Bill Clinton. But the optimism of that moment belied the complex road ahead, filled with obstacles, betrayals, and, ultimately, unresolved conflict.
The Oslo Accords did not emerge out of thin air. They were the result of months of secret negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian representatives, held in Oslo, Norway, under Norwegian mediation. The negotiations aimed to break the decades-long impasse that had seen Israel and the PLO locked in violent conflict since the founding of Israel in 1948.
The agreement laid out a framework for achieving peace in stages. The PLO officially recognized Israel’s right to exist, and Israel, in turn, acknowledged the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian Authority (PA), which would have limited self-governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A five-year period of negotiation was envisioned to resolve key issues: the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and final borders.
However, Oslo was not a peace agreement in itself; it was more of a roadmap toward peace, one filled with uncertain milestones and political landmines. It was a cautious and incremental approach to a conflict that had defied resolution for generations.
In the immediate aftermath of the signing, there were moments of optimism. Israel and the PLO began to implement parts of the agreement, with Israel withdrawing from some Palestinian territories and the PA taking control over administrative matters. Economic ties improved, and there was a general sense that peace might be within reach.
But the goodwill did not last. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a right-wing Israeli extremist dealt a severe blow to the peace process. His successor, Shimon Peres, failed to maintain the momentum, and the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu, a vocal opponent of the Accords, further eroded trust.
On the Palestinian side, Arafat struggled to consolidate control. Many Palestinians, particularly those aligned with Hamas, opposed the Oslo Accords, seeing them as a capitulation to Israeli demands without adequate guarantees for Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, Hamas, which had been gaining popularity, explicitly rejected the peace process, using violence as a tool to derail it. The group’s suicide bombings in Israeli cities undermined confidence in the process, even among Israeli moderates who had initially supported Oslo.
The Second Intifada, a violent Palestinian uprising that began in 2000, marked the symbolic and practical collapse of the Oslo process. Trust between the parties evaporated, and violence once again took center stage in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
More than thirty years after Oslo, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, and the legacies of the Accords are mixed at best. The Palestinian Authority, created by Oslo, still governs parts of the West Bank, but it is seen as weak and increasingly ineffective. The Gaza Strip, meanwhile, is governed by Hamas, which continues to refuse recognition of Israel and rejects any form of negotiation that would fall short of total Palestinian sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.
In Israel, the Oslo Accords have become a political fault line. The right, represented most prominently by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, views Oslo as a dangerous experiment that emboldened terrorists and weakened Israel’s security. The Israeli left, now much diminished politically, continues to believe that the principles of Oslo—negotiation and mutual recognition—are the only viable path to a two-state solution.
The broader Arab world’s position has also shifted. While countries like Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel long ago, newer players like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have begun to normalize relations with Israel without any significant progress on the Palestinian question. The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020, marked a new chapter in Israeli-Arab relations, but one that largely sidesteps the core issues between Israelis and Palestinians.
While the Oslo Accords were not destined to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they represent one of the most serious attempts to do so. In retrospect, the agreement may have overestimated the willingness of both sides to make the compromises necessary for peace. The issues left unresolved by Oslo—refugees, borders, Jerusalem—are the very issues that continue to prevent a lasting resolution.
Moreover, the rise of Hamas and other militant groups in the wake of Oslo has created a political and geographical split among Palestinians. The West Bank and Gaza are now governed by two opposing factions, each with different visions for the future. Hamas’s control of Gaza ensures that any potential peace agreement will face internal Palestinian resistance, in addition to Israeli concerns.
The Oslo Accords, for all their faults, provided a glimpse into what a negotiated peace might look like. The key lesson from Oslo is that peace cannot be achieved through incrementalism alone. The issues at the heart of the conflict are too deeply embedded to be resolved through half-measures and temporary arrangements. Both sides must be willing to confront the difficult, existential questions that have defined this conflict for over a century.
As we reflect on this day in history, it is clear that the road to peace remains as elusive as ever. The Oslo Accords were a bold gamble, one that, in the end, failed to achieve its lofty ambitions. But the spirit of Oslo—the belief that negotiation, not violence, is the way forward—remains a beacon for those who still hope for peace in the Middle East.
Today, as we remember that hopeful moment on the White House lawn, we must also reckon with the hard truth that peace is not inevitable. It requires courage, compromise, and a recognition that the status quo cannot endure forever. The Oslo Accords may have faltered, but they remind us that the pursuit of peace, no matter how difficult, must always be at the forefront of our efforts.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments