Oslo – A Lesson that was Never Learnt Part I

1^st of 2 parts

By Moshe Sharon

We are Arab people; when we report, we predate, and postdate, we add and we omit, but we do not mean to lie.

(Ibn Qutaybah, Arab writer, 9^th century)

Arab signature is not Arab commitment

The Oslo agreements signed in Washington on 13 September 1993 were aimed at ending all acts of hostility, both physical and verbal, between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli leaders at home presented the agreements in almost Messianic terms, pointing to the "historic reconciliation between the Palestinians and the Israelis." It was clearly understood that the Palestinians would not only stop all acts of violence against Israel but would change the tone of their propaganda, and endeavor to disseminate messages of peace and good neighborliness. The Israeli public was led to believe that, as in Israel, the Palestinian Authority would develop special educational programs for the schools to educate the young generation in the spirit of peace, and prepare it to live in a new era of no war, just as Israel had been doing for years on all levels of education, and in the media. It was also hoped that the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic line of propaganda, common in the Palestinian media would at least be tempered if not completely shunned.

The least that even those who were most skeptical about the agreements had hoped was that on the official level the notorious symbols of the hatred for Israel, in the official documentation of the PLO would be modified, notwithstanding the Palestinian Covenant and the FATAH Charter. For once, it was hoped, the name of Israel would appear on the Arab maps.

In reality none of these anticipations was realized.

After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, terrorist actions against Israeli citizens were intensified. Israel became more accessible, and the terrorists had the necessary havens under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, in which they prepared their acts of murder, and to the safety of which they withdrew after perpetrating them. Israeli property also became easily accessible, and the theft of Israeli vehicles and cattle, field products and machinery became a Palestinian national sport, causing Israel tremendous economic damage.

Over and above all this, the Palestinian Authority, from the minute of its establishment, did nothing to change the atmosphere of hatred among the Palestinians. On the contrary, the language of hatred, the incitement for war against the Jews, the belligerent speeches - the books in schools, the ideology negating Israel's existence, and the Jewish right to a homeland remained the same as they had been before. Nothing changed in the ideology but much has changed in the intensification of its dissemination, and the availability of the facilities to bring it to almost every individual: through the press, the electronic media, and the internet.

Palestinian achievements in Oslo

1. Territories

The acquisition of real estate property, namely land ceded to the Palestinians by Israel, in return for a general, non-binding "condemnation of terror."

According to the Arab lexicon, terror does not exist at all on the Palestinian side. When the Arabs condemn "terror" they mean, Israeli terror, represented by the sheer existence of the State of Israel. The Arab definition of the killing of Israeli citizens by Palestinian terrorists is: "Palestinian freedom fighting." For this reason, all Arab declarations "against terror," are absolutely meaningless, but the Arabs quickly learnt that even for these empty words the Israelis pay handsomely, with land, with money, and services, and with support in the international arena.

2. Army

The formation of an army, under the disguise of "a strong police force."

The Palestinian Authority, brought the entire PLO fighting force which had been stationed in Tunisia and other Arab countries, into the territories which it received from Israel. This is a well-trained army, indoctrinated for war against Israel. Its slogan is: "With our souls and blood we shall redeem thee O Palestine," which the soldiers, inflamed by 'Arafat's speeches, chant. Most of the members of this army are not even disguised as policemen. They wear combat uniforms, are organized in military units, get military training, and none of them have any idea about police duties or police work. The agreements limit the number of "policemen" to 30,000, yet the actual size of the standing Palestinian army is double this number, and its arsenals constantly swell with arms strictly forbidden by the agreements, including artillery and rockets, smuggled by the agents of Palestinian Authority itself.

3. Legitimacy

The legitimization of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was, and still should be, defined as a terrorist organization.

This legitimization is a particularly important achievement, because it was conceded by the very victims of this organization's acts of terror. In this way Israel, the major victim of the PLO, accepted it as a legitimate freedom-fighter body, exactly as this organization had been claiming, and abandoned its demand that the PLO should be accountable for the atrocities it had perpetrated for more than a quarter of a century. Moreover, Yasser 'Arafat who had not disgarded his original goal to destroy Israel "in stages" for one moment, and declared the Oslo agreements void a few days after they were signed, received the Nobel Prize for Peace.

4. Legal precedent

The establishment of a precedent, according to which a sovereign state negotiates, officially, with a terrorist body of no legal or political standing whose declared aim is to obliterate it.

Israel did this without demanding the abolishment of all the official PLO documents calling for the destruction of Israel, as a precondition for even meeting for negotiations.

5. Avoidance of cardinal issues

The creation of a situation by which the Palestinian side acquired meaningful, and real achievements without having to enter into any commitment regarding the major issues which are the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Delineation of accepted Borders, solution to the problem of the refugees, and the determination of the final status of Jerusalem.

The Israelis, so eager to have the Palestinians as partners, regarded the sheer act of the negotiations as a great achievement, and interpreted them as amounting to Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel.

For propaganda purposes, especially in the West, official Palestinian bodies, adopted this Israeli interpretation, but they left out the geographical definition of "Israel", namely, they refrained from speaking about Israel within any borders, not even the armistice lines of 1949. Similarly, Israel remained completely absent from the Palestinian maps: there is no such a state in the Palestinian atlas (as well as in any other Arab atlas).

The voice of Palestinian rejection

The Palestinians who rejected Oslo, whether these were independent Islamic bodies such as the HAMAS, or elements inside the PLO, claimed that by recognizing Israel, even in an indirect manner, and within any borders, no matter how diminished they may be, the Palestinian negotiators had negated fundamental principals of the Palestinian Covenant. These principals forbid the division of Palestine, do not recognize the Jews as a people, reject Jewish history altogether, reject any form of recognition of the Jews' right to have a state of their own, and regard Zionism as a terrorist, racial and colonialist movement, which should be rooted out together with Israel and its Jewish population.

The Muslim elements, endorsing each one of these ideas, also emphasized the fact that Jihad, the Holy War against the Jews, the historical enemies of Islam, could not, and should not, be stopped. The Qur'an decreed that the Jews must be forever demeaned and degraded, and it follows that they may never rule, especially over an Islamic land. It goes without saying that the Muslims should not accept a situation, even post factum, in which Jews rule over Muslims, or abolish the principle which prescribes that only Muslims should govern not only over their own holy places but also over the holy places of others. In other words, it is impossible that the Muslims would willingly relinquish the cardinal principle that Jews, and Christians, can only be dhimmis: they may live under Islamic rule only as an inferior class of "protected people." As far as the Muslim organizations led by the HAMAS are concerned: "Islam is the solution, and jihad is the way."

The Palestinians who signed the Oslo agreements ( including Mahmud Abbas alias Abu Mazen, his nom-de-guerre) though not defined as "Muslim fundamentalists," do not oppose this Islamic ideology. Moreover, in essence they even support it, spreading it in every possible manner. Their argument, however, is that this Islamic ideology may be implemented at anytime. Meanwhile, all efforts should concentrate on the achievement of real gains (acquiring territory, building a fighting force, receiving international support), which at the right time, will enable the successful implementation of the Islamic ideology.

The Palestinian policy of free gains

The father of this line of thought is Yasser 'Arafat, who bequeathed it to his right-hand man Mahmud Abbas, the current blue eyed Palestinian"peace-lover" of the Israeli government and the American "Arabists" of the State Department. Here are the major components of the Palestinian "free gains" policy:

1. The Palestinian covenant, calling for the annihilation of Israel, is not, and will not be, abolished. However, it is important to present the world, from time to time with a formula which sounds like its abolishment, taking advantage of the ignorance and of the sympathy of the Israeli and international media. For example, 'Arafat once declared in Paris that the Covenant is "caduc" (null and void), or the Palestinian National Council takes a decision to nominate a committee to decide which of the articles of the Covenant should be amended, or 'Arafat announces that Israel herself should adopt a constitution prior to the amendment of the Covenant and so on. The basic idea behind these arguments is that the world, and the media in general would accept, adopt, and give currency even to the most outrageous absurdity, if it is repeated long enough.

2. The presentation of the agreements with Israel as temporary ones, avoiding the term "peace." It follows that it is permissible, even desirable to sign them, especially since they come cheap, even free, and are useful. Their usefulness is clear: territory, military force, bases to resume the war at will, and, not least, respectability. In this context the PLO leaders used the language of the Islamic HAMAS, relying on a historical precedent established by no less a person than the Prophet Muhammad himself.

· Muhammad made a treaty with the tribe of Quraysh, his enemies; because he thought that the agreement was beneficial for the Muslims.

· The agreement did not abolish the state of war, only postponed it.

· The agreement brought great benefits to the Muslims, enabling them to build their military power, weakened their enemy, and anaesthetized it to such a degree that it lost its defensive instincts.

· The agreement was breached by Muhammad at the first opportunity, once he was ready with his army.

· Those who opposed the agreement at the time of Muhammad, said that it was a shameful agreement, but Muhammad proved that in the long run it was a great strategic move, which led to the ultimate victory of Islam.

This treaty is defined as hudnah – ceasefire – the only agreement permitted between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is known as the "Treaty of Hudaybiyyah." 'Arafat at the time likened Oslo agreements to this treaty.

Moshe Sharon

Professor (Emeritus) of Islamic History and Civilization

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.