Another subtler reason for Oslo’s collapse was the absence of mutuality. The accords called on both sides to recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights but while Rabin specifically recognized the rights of the Palestinian people Arafat never acknowledged the rights or even the existence of a Jewish people. Had he done so he would have accepted the Jews’ claim to a permanent state in their homeland and signaled his willingness to divide that land with them. Instead he arrogated all of the land for the Palestinians and sought to transform Israel into a de facto Palestinian state through the mass repatriation of refugees. While Palestinian people and Palestinian state entered Israel’s political lexicon the words Jewish people and Jewish state never passed his lips. Privately with President Clinton he even denied that the Jews had historical ties to Jerusalem.
The next factor undermining peace might best be called thuggery. Rabin believed that democratic Israel was incapable of taking the draconian steps necessary to defeat Hamas and other terrorist groups and so sought a Palestinian partner free he said of civil rights monitors and the supreme court. That partner was Arafat a strongman whom the U.S. and Israel essentially hired to suppress other Palestinian thugs. The assumption that a corrupt Arab dictator would suit the Palestinians was racist but also politically unsound. Arafat pocketed the millions of dollars in payoffs but made no serious effort to combat Hamas. Rather than reigning in terror he increasingly engaged in it himself.
The lessons of Oslo could not be clearer but have they been learned? The answer judging from the U.S.-backed road map – a direct outgrowth of Oslo – must be no.
Oren wrote his column in September 2003. Has the death of Arafat changed the equation? Is Mahmoud Abbas a legitimate partner for peace? Does Sharon know something about him that we don’t? It’s certainly possible but recent news headlines suggest on the contrary that he is the true heir of Arafat: Guerilla chief gives Abbas his backing.
Sharon’s reliance on Peres to retain power and implement his plan provides powerful evidence that something is sorely amiss here.