The Israeli strategy is clear, even if we do not want to acknowledge it. In the past, the Palestinian national movement believed that our agreement to coexist in a two-state solution—merely our acceptance of a small Palestinian state within the 1967 borders—would guarantee the implementation of this solution, as Israel was supposedly eager for Palestinian and Arab approval. We were divided on this issue, with one camp, which included the majority, supporting this acceptance and the other, the Rejectionist Front, opposing it. Both camps operated under the same assumption.
Unfortunately, no one pointed out that the assumption itself was flawed. This assumption persisted, and I dare say it still holds sway today. It can explain many positions, including the national leadership’s decision to enter the Oslo Accords and the subsequent events.
In truth, Israel has never agreed to the idea of partition or coexistence between two states. It has consistently insisted—whether openly or covertly—that all the land is “the Land of Israel” and that the Jewish people have the right to settle in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip (the Palestinian land occupied since 1967). From their perspective, the Palestinian presence is merely that of a minority population within Israel, and thus, any solutions proposed are focused on addressing this minority.
Israel has never agreed to halt the colonial settlement of our land, although it has occasionally, and reluctantly, agreed to freeze settlement expansion for a period of time. It has also never recognised the legal status of the West Bank, including Jerusalem and Gaza, as occupied land. Israel has never accepted the idea of partition into two states—two states for two peoples.
Read more: 31 years later, Oslo takes its last dying breaths
When Israel reached the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian leadership, it remained committed to these positions. As a result, the agreement contained no reference to stopping settlement colonialism nor any mention of the existence of an occupation or the establishment of a Palestinian state in accordance with the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Despite Israel's commitment to its stance and the flawed terms of the agreement, the Israeli far-right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, as punishment for reaching agreements that, merely by their existence, could open the door to unforeseen developments that might ultimately lead to a Palestinian state. Since this far-right ultimately seeks to seize all the land and expel the Palestinians, or most of them, rather than relinquish Palestinian territory, it does not mean that the national leadership, represented at the time by Yasser Arafat, agreed to this outcome.
In fact, this leadership fought for the establishment of a state, and when it realised that the Israeli side had no intention of agreeing to this, it effectively abandoned the Oslo Accords and opened the door to confrontation. The Israeli response, however, was extremely violent, resulting in the destruction of the Palestinian Authority and its security apparatuses and the assassination of Yasser Arafat.
What remained unclear is that the leadership that followed—which had accused Arafat in various ways of being responsible for the failure of the peace process—had, in fact, accepted the alternative reality created by Israel. This leadership agreed not even to return to the Oslo Accords or the concept of self-rule, an acceptance that continues to plague us to this day.
