30 years after Oslo, Palestinian state elusive as ever

Poor leadership squandered what looked like a move toward statehood into a lost opportunity.

Hassan Moharam

30 years after the Oslo Accords, what looked like a landmark opportunity has left hope adrift. But there is a way toward a homeland Palestinians deserve via better leaders. Al Majalla explains.

30 years after Oslo, Palestinian state elusive as ever

Asaad Ghanem

last update on 12 Sep 2023

The Oslo Accords – struck in 1993 after discreet negotiations between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Israelis – still affect the daily lives of Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Accords transformed relations between the PLO and Israel. But instead of a move toward statehood, day-to-day cooperation in Ramallah has left freedom further away three decades on, not least due to the leaders there.

The Accords are not the sole factor defining everyday life in a complex situation. There are also internal, local, global, Arab, and Islamic currents at play.

While these contemporary forces are strong, the Oslo Accords also continue to influence prominent Palestinian figures. By recognising this, we can change things to forge a brighter future. But it will depend on better leadership.

Unflattering exposé

In its July issue, the US-based international magazine Foreign Affairs profiled Hussein Al-Sheikh — the PLO’s executive committee secretary. It was an in-depth piece on the man likely to succeed Mahmoud Abbas, leading the PLO and Palestinian Authority — the institutions formally representing the Palestinian people.

AFP — Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas (L) and Hussein al-Sheikh, secretary general of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), attend the funeral of late Palestinian prime minister Ahmad Qorei (Qurei).

The report portrays Al-Sheikh as an opportunistic figure, who eagerly anticipated his rise to power. It implies that he used his current position to engage in corrupt activities with Israel, which he sees as a partner, not an adversary.

It is well-known that Al-Sheikh’s rise began in the PLO’s Preventive Security wing — an internal intelligence agency set up to counter opposition to its peace agreements with Israel. He worked there under Jibril Rajoub, before leading it and moving on to other positions, up to his appointment as the minister of Civil Affairs in the Palestinian Authority.

This ministry coordinates with the Israelis on transfers and employment. It also covers the trade relations officially carried out by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, despite that being beyond the jurisdiction of the Ramallah Authority.

Al-Sheikh and his associates have exploited the Civil Affairs ministry to bolster their influence, often at the expense of ordinary Palestinians, who are forced to seek employment opportunities in Israel or travel to Jordan and beyond for better prospects.

Al-Sheikh is an ambiguous figure who lacks a clear ideological stance on any defined project. In this way, he is much like Mahmoud Abbas.

But Abbas was a founding member of the Fatah movement and a leader within the PLO. And he had a vision – for a Palestinian state – seemingly at any cost. It gave him a clear goal. And all his efforts work toward that, even as it seems evident that a Palestinian state will not materialise.

While the Palestinian Authority wields certain powers in “Area A” regions, it is unlikely ever to make progress. Essentially, it controls Palestinians in the West Bank on behalf of the Israelis.

Al-Sheikh exploited the Civil Affairs ministry to bolster his influence, often at the expense of ordinary Palestinians, who are forced to seek employment opportunities in Israel or travel to Jordan and beyond for better prospects.

Controversial career

Mahmoud Abbas's tenure has been full of controversy.

AFP — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Ramallah 31 of January.

It includes accusations of usurping authority, obstruction of electoral processes, the proliferation of corruption and attacks on the judicial system.

It covers the paralysis of the legislative council, justification of Israeli military assaults on Gaza, a waiver of the right of return and fostering of division among Palestinians, not least by undermining reconciliation efforts between Gaza and the West Bank.

In his meetings with the Israelis, Americans, Europeans, and even the Chinese, he has focused on economic and financial projects that appear to benefit his associates primarily. They come at the expense of the broader national interest of the Palestinian people.

The possibility that Al-Sheikh could be Abbas's successor and continue his policies, looks increasingly likely. It points to the potential collapse and perhaps even the ultimate defeat of the Palestinian national movement, leaving it nothing more than an Israeli tool.

In fact, Al-Sheikh's history of unrestricted cooperation with Israel is likely why Abbas appointed him to high office in the first place.

The likelihood that Al-Sheikh takes over points to the potential collapse and perhaps even the ultimate defeat of the Palestinian national movement, leaving it nothing more than an Israeli tool.

The unfolding of Oslo's agenda

Given his close relationship with Israel, Al-Sheikh will likely facilitate the Jewish state's control of Palestine's historical lands and the complete subjugation of its people. Here, it becomes apparent how much the Oslo Accords have shaped history.

The original concept of the Palestinian entity envisaged in the Accords has now evolved into an Israeli tool. It has potentially set the stage for a surrogate system reminiscent of the South Lebanon Army during the 1980s.

What was once the basis of an independent state is now unrecognisable.

How did the promise of Oslo arrive at this pitiful setting?

There is a range of complex explanations, and a lot has been written about them. But as we mark the 30th anniversary of the Accords, it is worth looking again at how they came about and how they were put into practice.

Doing so helps explain the incremental collapse of the Palestinian national movement and how it changed from the leadership of Yasser Arafat to that of Hussein Al-Sheikh, passing through Mahmoud Abbas and the stewardship of the Ramallah Authority.

The Oslo negotiations were conducted covertly between a delegation representing the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat, and representatives from Israel.

Before the talks were held in Norway's capital, there had been negotiations in Washington, paving the way for them.

The Palestinian leadership laid the groundwork buoyed by political unity instilled by the uprising between 1987 and 1992. The leaders were centred at Beit al-Sharq in Jerusalem and included notable figures such as Haidar Abdel-Shafi, Faisal al-Husseini, and Hanan Ashrawi.

Given his close relationship with Israel, Al-Sheikh will likely facilitate the Jewish state's control of Palestine's historical lands and the complete subjugation of its people. Here, it becomes apparent how much the Oslo Accords have shaped history.

One of the worst agreements ever reached

The negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords were shrouded in secrecy due to worries within the PLO — then headquartered in Tunisia — that internal division could undermine the organisation and what looked like a chance for peace.

It also appeared to be a route back to the movement's former prominence and influence at a time of flux for the Middle East and the Arab world.

But what looked like an opportunity, ended up, over time, inflicting a huge cost. One of the initial agreements of the Accords was for mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, seen as part of a broader framework towards ending the occupation and setting up an independent Palestinian state.

AFP — US President Bill Clinton (C) stands between PLO leader Yasser Arafat (R) and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (L) on September 13, 1993, after signing the Oslo Accords.

But recognition of Israel led to the Palestinian Authority's subjugated role, making it — in hindsight — one of the worst agreements reached.

How weak the Palestinians were in the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords is widely known.

The pledges toward Palestinians in the Accord — liberation, statehood and independence — remain not only unfulfilled but more distant in 2023 than in 1993.

Israel — a shrewd and proactive political actor — managed to revisit and ultimately terminate the Oslo experiment more than two decades ago, having gotten what it wanted from the Accords.

This recalibration came through domestic politics that sidelined internal supporters of what the Accords offered Palestinians. Israel's ambition became complete control over the Palestinian Authority, turning it into a means to dominate all of historical Palestine — an advancing aim.

And yet, despite all this, Palestinians live under the leaders who were responsible for the Accords — notably Mahmoud Abbas, one of the architects of the Accords, who now seems opposed to any attempt by Palestinians to get out of this predicament.

The emergence of Hussein Al-Sheikh as his potential successor worsens an already bad situation.

The PLO's recognition of Israel led to the Palestinian Authority's subjugated role, making it — in hindsight — one of the worst agreements reached.

Deteriorating situation for refugees

Furthermore, Palestinian refugees look to have been abandoned and left with a reduced role in their national movement. Their situation has also deteriorated over time.

The Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon has dropped significantly, from approximately 500,000 to around 150,000.

AFP — In this picture taken on April 19, 2023 a young Palestinian refugee in Lebanon, walks beneath flags of Fatah and posters along an alley at the Shatila camp for Palestinian refugees in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Palestinians living inside Israel have also lost their sense of identity. Some of their political factions are working with the Israeli Bennett-Lapid government, which is inherently antagonistic toward the Palestinian people. Others receive financial support from the Zionist left.

This contributes to a decline in Palestinian solidarity, reducing internal cohesion and raising the prospect of social discord.

Hope for a unified national entity is diminished. There are no new and promising initiatives to resuscitate the Palestinian cause and revitalise the national movement.

This lacklustre state of affairs has impacted the Palestinian intellectual elite. Some have contributed to the worsening situation while others have refrained from speaking out against it.

This silence makes it easier for Palestinian political leaders who depend on support from the primary adversary of the Palestinian people – Israel – to thrive.

Hope for a unified national entity is diminished. There are no new and promising initiatives to resuscitate the Palestinian cause and revitalise the national movement.

A squandered opportunity

The Ramallah authority and other leadership groups are ill-equipped to confront what increasingly looks like a fascist regime in Israel. Instead, they seem to be active collaborators in what is becoming an entrenched apartheid system and colonial occupation in Palestine.

As the Israeli government takes a dark turn toward extremist policies, there is no organised Palestinian response to it – internationally, regionally, domestically, and even within Israel.

Instead, leaders like Mahmoud Abbas and his potential successor, Hussein al-Sheikh, are hurting the Palestinian cause even more.

There is an urgent need for a new approach.

Palestinian liberation must draw inspiration from the experiences of the end of colonialism around the world – in places like Algeria and Ireland – and the demise of apartheid rule in South Africa.

Palestine needs a new paradigm, moving away from a vision of a Palestinian state and toward one that advocates for a unified, free, independent, and democratic homeland for all citizens.

+ / -