The Oslo films serve as a poignant reminder of the critical roles of political will, skills, partnerships, and leadership in driving change, elements that were paramount during the Oslo process in recent decades. Regrettably, these qualities are often lacking in efforts to forge peace.
Admittedly, as I recollect the cloudless September day in 1993 when I witnessed President Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin shake hands on the White House lawn, I knew that Israelis and Palestinians had reached a significant milestone, a point beyond which there was no going back.
Since the Oslo Accords and subsequent interim agreements in 1993, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has had its share of triumphs and setbacks. Notable successes include reciprocal recognition of Israel and the PLO, the establishment of the Palestinian Autonomous Authority in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. However, there have also been numerous low points, such as Rabin's assassination, the poorly-planned Camp David summit, and the sustained violence and terror of the Second Intifada, which has left Palestinian-Israeli relations scarred and unhealed.
Despite the heightened tensions and deep-seated disagreements over essential issues like Jerusalem, borders, security, and refugees, even before the latest conflict in Jerusalem and the renewed confrontations between Israel and Hamas, there was already substantial mistrust and distrust between the parties. Their political strategies were poisonous, and they remained divided on the core issues required to bring an end to the conflict.
Remarkably, former US President Donald Trump declared Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, a contested territory for millennia. Now, Jerusalem is at the table.
This isn't a review of the film; I haven't watched it yet. Instead, this is a retelling of the true story of the peace negotiations in the Middle East. (Take note that CNN, like HBO, is part of WarnerMedia.)
The Oslo process, despite its eventual failure, remains an inspiring tale. Many on both sides view it now as a cautionary tale, a warning against entering negotiations without a clear political vision or a mechanism to enforce commitments between both sides.
Oslo agreements reached under challenging circumstances
As the play and film suggest, the Oslo Accords, despite their ultimate downfall, are a testament to human ingenuity and determination. Both sides managed to initiate a relationship marked by the occupiers and occupied, one that could potentially have paved the way for a comprehensive agreement, even if the level of trust required was seldom achieved.
During the July 2000 Camp David summit headed by then-US President Clinton, Ehud Barak and Arafat participated with little trust and confidence. Now, Oslo looks like a distant dream, a prehistoric peace process whose artifacts have been bloodied, buried, and are best off forgotten. The Abraham Accords, recently negotiated by the Trump administration, promise interstate reconciliation. However, many believe that the nascent relationships between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco will arguably spark regional transformation expectations.
We no longer refer to two states, one for Israel and another for Palestine, but rather to a paradigm shift towards a single-state reality. Israel is often accused of being an apartheid state, a charge Israel denies.
Israelis and Palestinians are now confronted with the reality of their proximity - their past, present, and future are indivisibly intertwined, as Mark Twain once observed, "Familiarity breeds contempt – and children." The prospect of partitioning into two states (although proposed under the Oslo process, never officially endorsed) appeared to be, in the bleakest of scenarios, the only viable option to tackle the underlying demographic and political challenges.
If we look back not just at the Oslo years, but also at the numerous moments when Arabs and Israelis sat down to negotiate and make agreements, we can draw crucial lessons.
Firstly, violence and uprisings often clear the way for progress. The visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem and the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979 were the result of the 1973 War and US-brokered peace agreements. The Oslo conference was proposed after the first uprising between 1989 and 1992, which convinced Rabin that there was no military solution to the issue. In the Palestinian-Israeli context, the PLO is the only viable peace partner. The Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 took place following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the first Bush administration's successful expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Secondly, pain alone is not sufficient to induce change. A sense of gain is also required. Local leaders need to assert control over their policies and constituents, rather than being hostages to their ideology. Leaders like Sadat, Begin, King Hussein, Arafat, Rabin, and Peres displayed this courage, taking calculated risks, not always out of moral or humanistic reasons, but often out of political and national interests. Only by acting in this spirit can real breakthroughs occur.
Thirdly, motivation and a sense of responsibility are crucial. In history, there's a saying that goes, "No one has ever washed a rental car." People appreciate what they have. If the parties are not motivated to negotiate and protect their interests in the negotiations, maintaining those negotiations becomes challenging. It's no secret that the three Arab-Israeli breakthroughs - Israel-Egypt, Israel-Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Israel-Jordan - did not involve US involvement in the undercover diplomacy that led to those events. Only when a measure of understanding is achieved can the US support, mediate, or facilitate those negotiations. Unfortunately, this sense of ownership over the negotiations is lost in troubling times, and current Israeli and Palestinian leaders express little faith that it will return soon.
Fourthly, trust and partnerships between negotiations leaders play a significant role. While leaders don't need to be friends to reach an agreement, it seldom happens. Begin and Sadat didn't get along, and Carter stopped bringing them together during the first Camp David negotiations in 1978. However, their teams played essential roles in supporting their counterparts' efforts and in communicating with the leaders and their US intermediaries.
TRUST BECOMES EROSIONED
Perhaps the Oslo talks are the best example of trust forged through partnership. When I interviewed the two main negotiators, Ahmed Qurie (also known as "Abu Allah") and Uri Savir, in 2013, it was clear that they had immense respect for one another and that their personal relationship was crucial. "For the first time," Abu Ala emphasized, "we saw each other face-to-face, not in a detention cell or at a checkpoint." Today, this trust is shaken and fractured.
What lessons should the Oslo experience offer in light of the current harsh realities? Perhaps we should not be moved solely by the hope that Israelis and Palestinians have long ago sought a better future for themselves. Instead, we should also acknowledge the challenges of realizing such a future.
Currently, there is no clear path to ending the conflict. The Biden administration is just the latest in a series of American mediators grappling with challenges that lie well beyond the initial promises. For the foreseeable future, we can only hope for a solution while facing the painful reality that Israelis and Palestinians, even with external assistance, may not be able or willing to find it.
Read also:
The article can be rephrased to de-emphasize opinion, maintain structure, and introduce relevant insights from the enrichment data as follows:
In recent decades, the hopes and dreams of peace between Israelis and Palestinians have been highlighted in captivating and sometimes tragic ways in various media outlets, including movies like "Oslo" (2020). The film serves as a poignant reminder of the significance of political will, skills, partnerships, and leadership, all of which played crucial roles in the Oslo peace negotiations. However, genuine progress towards peace has proven elusive in the tangled web of disputes and failed negotiations that have plagued the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In 1993, I found myself in the unique position of watching history unfold as U.S. President Bill Clinton, Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn. The symbolic handshake signaled a historic milestone, marking the culmination of years of negotiations and the beginning of a new era in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Despite significant achievements in the two decades since the signing of the Oslo Accords, including mutual recognition, the establishment of the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, and a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the path to peace has been fraught with challenges.
Notable setbacks have included the assassination of Rabin, the strained Camp David summit, and the ongoing violence and terror of the Second Intifada, which has left lasting scars on Israeli-Palestinian relations.
As recently as January 2021, tensions and confrontations between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip continued despite a UN vote for a temporary truce, which demonstrates just how complex and intractable the conflict remains.
Various attempts at peace negotiation throughout history, such as the Oslo process and the Roadmap for Peace, have shown that no silver bullet exists for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the lessons learned from these efforts can provide valuable insights in the quest for a lasting peace.
One of the most pressing challenges in achieving peace is the need for a clear political vision and mechanism for enforcing commitments between both sides, an observation that has been echoed across many failed negotiation attempts.
However, there is hope in the modern era. Some innovative approaches to the peace process have emerged, such as the concept of two states in a confederation arrangement, which recognizes the right to national self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians while allowing for freedom of movement and residency between the two states.
Attempts at peace, such as the Oslo Accords, should not be seen as a failure but rather as a starting point for future negotiations, a stepping stone towards more successful agreements. By learning from the past and embracing forward-thinking approaches, it may be possible to finally bring an end to the suffering and promote a brighter, more promising future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Footnotes:
- "What the real 'Oslo' tells us about the Palestinian-Israeli dream of peace" CNN, December 1, 2023,
- "What the real 'Oslo' tells us about the Palestinian-Israeli dream of peace" CNN, December 1, 2023,
- "Despite UN vote: fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip continues" CNN, November 15, 2023,
- Enrichment Data
- Enrichment Data
