Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postponed on Sunday the discussion of a bill to repeal the Oslo Accords signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993, according to the Israeli newspaper Yisrael Hayom.
The newspaper reported that the bill, submitted by Knesset Member Limor Son-Har Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party, was scheduled for discussion on Sunday in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, but Netanyahu requested a postponement.
Despite the postponement of the bill, which aims to nullify the Oslo Accords, the Hebron Agreement, and the Wye River Memorandum, the risks of introducing the law and its potential repercussions raise many questions.
According to Hebrew media outlets, the decision to postpone came at Netanyahu's request, after the bill was submitted by Knesset Member Limor Son-Har Melech and all members of the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party.
During the discussion session, a wide debate took place within the committee regarding the feasibility of the move and its political and security repercussions, as the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, called for proceeding with the legislation of the law immediately, saying that “the opportunity is available now,” and accusing the Palestinian Authority of supporting “terrorism and incitement to it,” according to his claim, and he also described the Oslo Accords as a “strategic mistake.”
Political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh told “This is a clear publicity stunt aimed at scoring points and gaining more popularity.”
According to the draft law, it stipulates the cancellation of all agreements previously signed between Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the Palestinian Authority (PA), rendering them no longer binding on the state or any of its affiliated entities. The draft also includes the repeal of legislation related to the implementation of those agreements, with the aim of restoring the legal and security situation to what it was before the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington in 1993.
sought the opinions of Palestinian experts and political analysts regarding the Israeli move, which indicates that the realities on the ground in Palestine, due to daily occupation practices, have rendered the agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority years ago obsolete.
Opens the door to a single option
Political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh believes the bill is being prepared by the most extreme party in Israel, which boasts of passing racist and extremist laws, such as the law to execute prisoners.
Speaking to Abu Ghosh added, "What's striking is the timing of its introduction during the final Knesset session, on the eve of the upcoming elections. This is clearly a publicity stunt aimed at scoring political points and gaining popularity in the competitive arena of the extreme right-wing parties."
He emphasized, however, that this does not diminish the law's danger, as it will find supporters within the ranks of religious Zionist parties, even within the ruling Likud party and the ultra-Orthodox parties, and indeed within some extremist opposition parties, such as Yisrael Beiteinu, headed by Avigdor Lieberman.
He added that the Israeli political establishment sees no need for such a law before formulating an alternative, because successive Israeli governments, from Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, through Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, up to the current government and Netanyahu's governments, have not adhered to the terms or spirit of the Oslo Accords. Instead, they have consistently sought to reduce it to a mere security agreement that transforms the Palestinian Authority into a guardian of Israel's security.
He argued that the occupying power practically benefits from the Oslo Accords and its selective implementation in several areas. Furthermore, the threat of canceling the agreement serves as a sword hanging over the Palestinian Authority, used to blackmail it into making concession after concession and coexisting with the occupation's policies, or else face collapse and disintegration.
The political analyst enumerated the benefits the occupying power derives from the agreement, including the Authority's security role in limiting and suppressing resistance operations. The agreement also creates a barrier between the occupying power and the Palestinians, relieving it of the burden of dealing with Palestinian service and livelihood issues.
He argued that the international agreement imposes legal and political obligations on Israel, legitimizes the occupation, and gives the world the illusion of a political process albeit a faltering and intermittent one—that could be completed if the Palestinian Authority were reformed and "terrorism" eradicated. Furthermore, he contends that the agreement shifts the blame for Palestinian problems and their humanitarian and economic suffering onto the Palestinian Authority and its performance, rather than onto the occupation.
Conversely, Abu Ghosh believes that the occupation continues its settlement activities, plundering Palestinian resources and suppressing their national aspirations without the need to abrogate Oslo. He asserts that Israel is attempting to transform the Oslo Accords, according to its own interpretation, from a temporary agreement into a permanent and perpetual one. He argues that abrogateing the agreement would bring political and legal challenges upon Israel and anger international and regional circles that Israel, at present, is not interested in antagonizing. Moreover, he contends that abrogateing the agreement would open the door to the only remaining option, the foundations of which are already being laid: blatant apartheid.
Israeli affairs expert Mohammed Allan Daraghmeh told Al-Quds Al-Arabi: “If Oslo is canceled, it will mean the official end of the Palestinian Authority.”
The reality of power
According to Israeli affairs expert Muhammad Allan Daraghmeh, the proposed law to cancel agreements with the Palestinian Authority, such as the Oslo Accords, the Hebron Agreement, and the Wye River Memorandum (signed in 1998, which stipulated Israeli withdrawal from certain areas of the West Bank), is not new. Rather, it is part of the policy of Netanyahu's government, or what is known as the extreme right wing within it. From the very first moment the government was formed, they declared that the Palestinian Authority must be undermined and the Oslo Accords canceled because they constituted a disgrace to the Israeli people.
Daraghmeh continued in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi: "What is happening reflects a general policy since the formation of Netanyahu's government, and this has been the case over the past four years, during which there have been numerous demands to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, dismantle its security apparatus, and cancel the Oslo Accords. The justification given is that the Authority, according to some, is planning a new October 7th in the West Bank, that the number of its security forces is far greater than agreed upon, and that the quantity of weapons it possesses is inconsistent with its role as a police force, as these weapons could potentially be turned against the Israeli occupation."
The bill's proponents link the agreements to the current security situation, claiming they formed the basis for the developments leading up to the events of October 7th, and asserting that "the Oslo Accords caused thousands of deaths and harmed Israel's security."
On Saturday, the Director General of the Yesha Council (the umbrella organization of settlements in Israel), Omer Rahamim Livni Teitelbaum, stated in a press interview that "the Palestinian Authority no longer has any legitimacy, and it is time to return to Areas A and B."
Livni continued, inciting against the Palestinian Authority's security forces: "No police force in the world possesses RPGs. The PA police ceased to be a police force a long time ago; they have massive military formations, and they are preparing for the day when the guns turn against us."
He added that Jenin is only minutes away from Afula, and Hebron is close to Beersheba, therefore, "we are talking about a threat to the entire State of Israel. There is no longer any legitimacy for a terrorist entity living alongside us, and therefore it has no legitimacy to hold onto the land."
The political analyst believes the renewed focus on this issue is part of an attempt to garner votes, a campaign tactic employed by far-right Israeli parties ahead of the Israeli elections in October.Draghmeh argues that this issue and the discussions surrounding it hold significant practical value. He explains that if the Oslo Accords were to be revoked, it would effectively mean the end of the Palestinian Authority.
He continues, "While it's true that the Israeli occupation has effectively stripped the Palestinian Authority of any real power or sovereignty, the world still recognizes its existence. This would have repercussions for the classification of Areas A, B, and C in the West Bank, effectively abolishing these divisions. These divisions exist under the very agreement that is now being targeted for cancellation, a move that would have profound consequences across various sectors."
The Oslo Accords and new draft laws
The Oslo Accords, officially known as the "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements," were signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1993. The agreement was signed in the presence of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, under the auspices of former U.S. President Bill Clinton.
It is worth noting that the Israeli Knesset, which reconvenes on Monday for its final session before the Israeli elections, has several bills on the table aimed at influencing the elections. These include a bill to disqualify Arab parties, a bill to harm the funding of rival parties, a bill to separate the duties of the Attorney General, and a bill to make incitement a matter under police jurisdiction.
