Israel should terminate the Oslo Accords

T. Belman. Israel’s rights to all the land west of the Jordan River have been compromised by the Oslo Accords. Israel has agreed, that notwithstanding  such rights, she will negotiate a settlement with the PA whereby they get an autonomous region with the boundaries to be negotiated. This is yet another reason to terminate the Accords.

Another reason for the neglect of our rights from San Remo is that it would make it harder for the left to achieve their vaunted TSS. What’s Bibi’s excuse?

Hopefully this government will reclaim our legal right to all the land.

If the Accords are terminated so is the obligation to negotiate.

By Ted Belman

Dozens of Knesset Members wrote a scathing letter to EU’s top officials accusing them of animus against Jews and Israel in light of leaked program on Area C,

Lazar Berman wrote a detailed article on the letter which was published by Times of Israel on Dec 21/22. It contained this gem;

Area C, which is the only contiguous section of the West Bank and contains the most fertile land and valuable natural resources, was supposed to be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction, according to the accords, but that has not happened. 

This statement is misleading to say the least. Yes it was supposed to be “gradually transferred” but such requirement had many limitations.

The Oslo Interim Accords provide:

”Area C means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.”

The issues that will be negotiated, according to Article XVII.1, are:

“Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and … powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.”

The preamble to the Interim Agreement provides;

“Recognizing that the aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations [..], leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;

Reaffirming [..] that the negotiations on the permanent status, [..] will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338,[,,]”

Berman says  “Area C….was supposed to be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction”. The Accords say “Area C, … except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.”

Nowhere in the Accords does it say that all of Area C  was to be gradually transferred. In fact the obligation to withdraw from C is limited by the terms of Oslo.

Remember that “negotiations for final status ”  were to be based on Res 224 and Res 338. The key things to be negotiated were “secure and recognized boundaries” and the nature of the Palestinian autonomy. These resolutions did not require Israel to withdraw from “all” the territories. Thus Israel is entitled to insist on retaining all of Area C.

I have often wondered why Res 242 stipulated “secure and recognized boundaries” rather than “secure and recognized borders”. Do boundaries mean something different than borders?

Nowhere did the Accords say what the boundaries would be nor what was to be the disposition of Area C. That’s to be negotiated.

Having said all that, I must admit that the Accords are not explicit enough. In fact they are confusing except for the bottom line which I have stressed.

As for the actions of the EU and the PA including but not limited to their violation of Area C, it is time for Israel to terminate the Oslo Accords.. Contract law permits a party to an agreement or contract to terminate the same unilaterally if the other side has fundamentally breached it..

On May 19/20, President Mahmoud Abbas declared  (Ramallah Declaration) an end to the agreements and understandings.

“The Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones,” 

He did so because the Israeli government coalition agreement at the time, stated that “the Prime Minister will be able to bring the agreement that was reached with the United States on applying sovereignty starting on 1 July 2020 to the Cabinet and the Knesset,‘”. This was during the Trump administration. The fact that Israel didn’t follow up with applying sovereignty is neither here nor there,  It only announced an intention to do so.. That was breach enough. Once terminated, it can not unilaterally be restored by the PA.

The soon to be installed Israeli government is sure to extend sovereignty over some of Area C.  An uproar is sure to follow.

Israel, on the other hand, could terminate the Accords if they still exist, for any of the following fundamental breaches:

  1. The Ramallah Declaration,
  2. The PA has continually defaulted in its obligation to prevent hostile acts: “Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other’s authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders”. (Article XV)
  3. A condition precedent to Israel’s signing of the Oslo Accords was the commitment set out in a 1993 letter from Chairman Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin: “The signing of the Declaration of Principlesmarks a new era…I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself…to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.”  Virtually everything in this letter has  been violated.
  4. The US and the USSR both signed the agreement signifying their support but the US has done its utmost to force the Two State Solution on Israel which flies in the face of the fundamental principle of the Accords, namely, that the parties themselves are to freely negotiate a final settlement in accordance with Res 242 and Res 338.

The Brookings Institute once contemplated the costs of termination:

“Cancelling the Oslo Accords would effectively remove the legal justification for the PA. Quite simply, it would mean dismantling the PA, laying off its employees, ending international funding, and nullifying the economic agreements between the PA and Israel as well as between the PA and many other countries around the world. It would also mean an end to security coordination between Israel and the PA, which would facilitate the return of the Israeli military to parts of the West Bank designated as Area “A.” This would certainly lead to another intifada. Such an uprising would, in all likelihood, turn violent, given the enormous amount of weapons currently held by PA police and security personnel; and there would be no guarantee that these weapons would be kept out of the hands of the militant groups in the West Bank.”

Yes it could but wouldn’t necessarily result in all the things enumerated. The Palestinians and Israel could re-negotiate an arrangement that suited them both.  This is what the Jordan Option envisages.

In my article, Since when did the Palestinians become entitled to a state? I quoted from the Reagan Plan which was American policy pre- Oslo and set out in a speech by Reagan:

I want to make the American position clearly understood: the purpose of this transition period is the peaceful and orderly transfer of domestic authority from Israel to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. At the same time, such a transfer must not interfere with Israel’s security requirements.

Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories. Nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza.

So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.

We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America’s Middle East peace effort.

It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza.

When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.

Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.

In the course of the negotiations to come, the United States will support positions that seem to us fair and reasonable compromises and likely to promote a sound agreement. We will also put forward our own detailed proposals when we believe they can be helpful. And, make no mistake, the United States will oppose any proposal -from any party and at any point in the negotiating process – that threatens the security of Israel. America’s commitment to the security of Israel is ironclad. And I might add, so is mine.

Forty years latter, The Reagan Plan will be followed in the Jordan Option.

December 31, 2022 | 39 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

39 Comments / 39 Comments

  1. @Sebastien
    The issue you just raised about sovereignty was raised by me in a discussion with Mudar. I said, don’t call it a confederation. Nevertheless, the word confederation has been used many times since Reagan used it. I suggested that Israel be sovereign over all of it but lease it to Jordan. What ever we call it , it will very much under the control by Israel and Jordan.
    I am not party to the finer discussions. We will have to wait to see what comes out of the negotiations.

  2. @Ted Confederation precludes sovereignty, does it not? “Possession is nine tenths of the law.”

    Zahran is just one man whose popularity stems from the kinglet’s unpopularity and Jordan, which by rights belongs to Israel as well, has invaded Israel twice already. And lost. These people hate Jews even if they hate the royals more right now. You want to return their ill-gotten spoils and hope for the best? You really want to put all Israel’s eggs in one basket. In the Middle East? Assassination City?

  3. @Sabastien
    Obviously the US wanted to protect the Palestinian cause. Probably to win favour with the Muslim world. I can’t imagine why else. They still do but they won’t object to this confederation.

  4. …Jewish self-determination and sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, not to mention safety.

    “Begin’s reaction was: It is the saddest day of my life. He was determined to reject the plan as not being even a basis for negotiations.”

    ibid, introduction.

    And much as I hope Zahran can pull it off, this is the Middle East, you know. Assassination city? Aren’t you gambling an awful lot on one man?

  5. @Ted You wrote,

    “Reagan just saved Arafat and his fellow terrorists”

    And who did he save them from?

    “First, the military losses of the P.L.O. have not diminished the yearning of the Palestinian people for a just solution of their claims; and second, while Israel’s military success in Lebanon have demonstrated that its armed forces are second to none in the region, they alone cannot bring just and lasting peace to Israel and her neighbours.”

    He made certain of that.

    You wrote, “But after Oslo is terminated, there is nothing to stop Jordan under Mudar from making a new deal on these principles.”

    What principles? Name a single thing in that plan that’s not a flat out denial of

  6. @Sebastien
    Yes it is Oslo. but remember that Reagan just saved Arafat and his fellow terrorists and took them to Tunisia.
    His plan came shortly thereafter indicating what he was thinking about.
    But after Oslo is terminated, there is nothing to stop Jordan under Mudar from making a new deal on these principles. We don’t go back to a another Oslo. There is no need for it.
    We go forward to the final negotiated deal. As long as Jordan under Mudar and Israel agree, that’s the bottom line.
    Reagan conceded that Israel is entitled to all of Jerusalem. Whatever Mudar and Israel agree upon will meet Reagan’s criteria.
    Once Mudar say6s Jordan is Palestine, he will speak for all Jordanian citizens including the Palestinians.

  7. @Ted The Reagan Plan is Oslo.

    “The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs and a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”


  8. @Ted

    “…Israel alone was not involved in the new American thinking, and learned of the plan when U.S. Ambassador Samuel Lewis showed it to Prime Minister Begin who was vacationing in Nahariya. Begin’s reaction was: It is the saddest day of my life. He was determined to reject the plan as not being even a basis for negotiations.”

    ibid introduction

    “The purpose of the five-year period of transition which would begin after free elections for a self-governing Palestinian authority is to prove to the Palestinians that they can run their own affairs, and that such Palestinian autonomy poses no threat to Israel’s security.”


    No comment.

  9. @Ted

    “The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that

    self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan

    offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.”


  10. I just added the Reagan Plan at the end of this article. The Jordan Option is totally in line with it. Read it and see.

    And it will be achieved through negotiations as Reagan stipulated.

  11. @Frank Adam Actually, The U.S. gave no aid whatsoever until the 1970s with Nixon’s emergency arms shipment in 1973, though RFK wad asssinated by a Pal terrorist for voting for aid in 1968. , always helping with one hand, hindering with the other, like now.. Israel did it all alone, from scratch, often despite American interference. Some might say, miraculously.

  12. @Frank Adam “As Israel’s Dependence on U.S. Shrinks, So Does U.S. Leverage”

    ‘Israel has quietly sought, and perhaps achieved, a large measure of autonomy from its half-century of reliance on the United States.

    ‘We’re seeing much more Israeli independence,” said Vipin Narang, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology political scientist who has studied Israeli strategy.

    ‘Israel no longer needs American security guarantees to protect it from neighboring states, with which it has mostly made peace. Nor does it see itself as needing American mediation in the Palestinian conflict, which Israelis largely find bearable and support maintaining as it is.

    ‘Once reliant on American arms transfers, Israel now produces many of its most essential weapons domestically. It has become more self-sufficient diplomatically as well, cultivating allies independent of Washington. Even culturally, Israelis are less sensitive to American approval — and put less pressure on their leaders to maintain good standing in Washington.
    And while American aid to Israel remains high in absolute terms, Israel’s decades-long economic boom has left the country less and less reliant. In 1981, American aid was equivalent to almost 10 percent of Israel’s economy. In 2020, at nearly $4 billion, it was closer to 1 percent.

    ‘Washington underscored its own declining relevance to the conflict last week, calling for a cease-fire only after an Egyptian-brokered agreement was nearing completion, and which Israeli leaders said they agreed to because they had completed their military objectives in a 10-day conflict with Gaza. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will visit the region this week, though he said he did not intend to restart formal Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
    The change comes just as a faction of Democrats and left-wing activists, outraged over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and bombing of Gaza, are challenging Washington’s long-held consensus on Israel.

    ‘Yet significant, if shrinking, numbers of Americans express support for Israel, and Democratic politicians have resisted their voters’ growing support for the Palestinians.

    ‘The United States still has leverage, as it does with every country where it provides arms and diplomatic support. Indeed, former President Donald J. Trump’s unalloyed embrace of the Israeli government demonstrated that Israel still benefits from the relationship. But American leverage may be declining past the point at which Israel is able and willing to do as it wishes, bipartisan consensus or not.

    ‘Steps Toward Self-Sufficiency
    When Americans think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many still picture the period known as the Second Intifada, when Israeli tanks crashed through Palestinian towns and Palestinian bombs detonated in Israeli cafes and buses.

    ‘But that was 15 years ago. Since then, Israel has re-engineered the conflict in ways that Israeli voters and leaders largely find bearable.

    ‘Violence against Israelis in the occupied West Bank is rarer and lower-level, rarer still in Israel proper. Though fighting has erupted several times between Israel and Gaza-based groups, Israeli forces have succeeded in pushing the burden overwhelmingly on Gazans. Conflict deaths, once three-to-one Palestinian-to-Israeli, are now closer to 20-to-one.

    ‘At the same time, Israeli disaffection with the peace process has left many feeling that periodic fighting is the least bad option. The occupation, though a crushing and ever-present force for Palestinians, is, on most days and for most Jewish Israelis, ignorable.

    ‘Israelis have become increasingly comfortable with this approach,” said Yaël Mizrahi-Arnaud, a research fellow at the Forum for Regional Thinking, an Israeli think tank. “That’s a cost that they are willing to accept.”

    ‘It’s a status quo that Israel can maintain with little outside help. In past years, its most important military tools were American-made warplanes and other high-end gear, which required signoff from Congress and the White House.

    ‘Now, it relies on missile defense technology that is made and maintained largely at home — a feat that hints at the tenacity of Israel’s drive for self-sufficiency.

    ‘If you had told me five years ago,” said Mr. Narang, the M.I.T. scholar, “that the Israelis would have a layered missile defense system against short-range rockets and short-range ballistic missiles, and it was going to be 90 percent effective, I would have said, ‘I would love what you’re smoking.’”

    ‘Though heavy American funding under President Barack Obama helped stand up the system, it now operates at a relatively affordable $50,000 per interceptor.

    ‘Israel began working toward military autonomy in the 1990s. Cool relations with the George H.W. Bush administration and perceived American failure to stop Iraqi missiles from striking Israel convinced its leaders that they could not count on American backing forever.
    This belief deepened under subsequent presidents, whose pressure to strike peace with the Palestinians has run increasingly counter to Israeli preferences for maintaining control of the West Bank and tightly blockading Gaza.

    ‘“The political calculus led to seeking independent capabilities that are no longer vulnerable to U.S. leverage and pressure,” Mr. Narang said, adding that Israel has also sought independent intelligence gathering. “It certainly appears they’ve been able to get to that point.”

    ‘The ‘Other Friends Policy’
    There is another existential threat from which Israel no longer relies so heavily on American protection: international isolation.

    ‘Israel once sought acceptance from Western democracies, which demanded that it meet democratic standards, but bestowed legitimacy on a country that otherwise had few friends.

    ‘Today, Israel faces a much warmer international climate. “Anti-imperialist” powers that once challenged Israel have moved on. While international attitudes toward it are mixed, and tend starkly negative in Muslim-majority societies, Israel has cultivated ties in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

    ‘Even nearby Arab states, such as Jordan and Egypt, once among its greatest enemies, now seek peace, while others have eased hostilities. Last year, the so-called Abraham Accords, brokered under President Trump, saw Israel normalize ties with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Israel subsequently normalized ties with Morocco and reached a diplomatic agreement with Sudan.

    ‘“We used to talk about a diplomatic tsunami that was on its way. But it never materialized,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst and pollster.
    Ms. Scheindlin runs an annual tracking poll asking Israelis to rank national challenges. Security and the economy reliably come first. Foreign relations are now near the very bottom.

    ‘Even as European diplomats warn of consequences that never come and Democrats debate the future of the alliance, she said, Israelis view their international standing as excellent.

    ‘On diplomacy, too, Israel has sought independence from the Americans.

    ‘In the mid-2010s, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, all but directly campaigned against President Obama’s re-election because of his Middle East policies, sending relations plunging.

    ‘Since then, Mr. Netanyahu has cultivated a network of illiberal democracies that, far from condemning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, treat it as admirable: Brazil, Hungary, India and others.

    ‘Ms. Scheindlin calls it the “other friends policy.” As a result, Israelis no longer see American acceptance as crucial to survival.

    ‘At the same time, rising nationalism has instilled a greater willingness to shrug off international criticism.
    Washington’s support for Israel’s democratic credentials, a soft kind of leverage long wielded by American diplomats, means less every year.

    ‘Risking the Consensus
    One of the top jobs of any prime minister, it has long been said in Israel, is safeguarding Washington’s bipartisan consensus in support of the country.

    ‘So when Mr. Netanyahu aligned Israel with Republicans in the mid-2010s, even haranguing Mr. Obama from the floor of Congress, he was expected to pay a political cost at home.

    ‘Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats did little to modulate their support. Americans then elected Donald J. Trump, who catered to Mr. Netanyahu more than any previous president.

    ‘The episode instilled a “sense of impunity,” Ms. Scheindlin said. “Israelis have learned that they can handle the heat, they can handle a little bit of rocky relations.”

    ‘In a series of focus groups conducted since President Biden’s election, Ms. Scheindlin said she had found that Israelis no longer fear reprisal from American politicians.

    ‘“People are just not that moved,” she said. “They’re like, ‘It’s America. Biden will be fine.’”

    ‘At the same time, many Israelis have lost interest in the peace process. Most see it as doomed, polls show, and growing numbers consider it a low priority, given a status quo that much of the Israeli public sees as tolerable.

    ‘That changes the nature of the relationship to the U.S.,” Ms. Mizrahi-Arnaud said.

    ‘Because Israeli leaders no longer feel domestic pressure to engage in the peace process, which runs through Washington, they do not need to persuade the Americans that they are seeking peace in good faith.

    ‘If anything, leaders face declining pressure to please the Americans and rising demands to defy them with policies like expanding settlements in the West Bank, even annexing it outright.

    ‘Israel is hardly the first small state to seek independence from a great-power patron. But this case is unusual in one way: It was the Americans who built up Israel’s military and diplomatic independence, eroding their own influence.

    ‘Now, after nearly 50 years of not quite wielding that leverage to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it may soon be gone for good, if it isn’t already.

    “Israel feels that they can get away with more,” said Ms. Mizrahi-Arnaud, adding, to underscore her point, “When exactly is the last time that the United States pressured Israel?”’

    Max Fischer, NYT May 24, 2021

  13. Frank Adam you seem to be in a principle free zone.

    Pay the Arabs nothing. It goes the other way. The Arabs have made life for Jews hell on earth.

    It is the Jews who are owed. But truths like this call for real power – the struggle to tell their story truthfully.

    Mr Adams you seek to continue to tie Jews in 2022 to Fascist decrepit warmongers.

    So blind.

  14. @Frank Adams

    it is not leadership that Israel lacks BUT sheer power.

    I disagree. Israel has the power to secure her own interests, but fails to actually do so. Recall that Israel has no need to go to war with the US, but only needs to assert her own sovereignty. Doing so with respect and resolve will still cause tensions to rise between the US and Israel, but it must be done nonetheless due to the existential threat which the US is imposing on Israel, both with its continued support for the very real nuclear threat from Iran and its continued support for the very real threat of creating a Pal state in place of Israel’s heartlands. Israel can not survive either of these policies which are being forced upon her by her US ‘ally’.

    It should be recalled that Israel is a technological, intelligence and economic super power in her own right. She does not need to out match the US in any of these areas as if she were faced with having to survive a war with her much stronger and broader based American ally, she only needs to focus her own efforts on resolving her own existential threats which are rising in the region and even within her own borders. The leadership in the US will not be so keen to completely abandon their associations with Israel. Also, the US ‘aid’ is part of the US govt’s financing of its own military industrial complex – never underestimate the importance which this plays in maintaining Israel’s close association with Washington elites. The ‘aid’ is all spent in the US, and also allows the US to prevent Israel enhancing its own military industrial complex.

  15. Felix Quigley and others should note that it is not leadership that Israel lacks BUT sheer power. The US is still the premier economy, military and population (excepting India and China) on the planet and so can bend near enough anybody else especially as in Israel’s case they rely on the US for weaponry, export markets and diplomatic support. The last times Israel openly and directly took a challenge with the premier power was in the wars against Rome andt did not end well for Israel. The US has 40 times the population and 400 times the territory besides as hostages most of the Diaspora Jewish population,
    As for peace under duress – nothing new. All peace treaties to some degree are made under the duress of defeat for at least one party – and the victors also have to not overdo it if they do not want the conflict to to re-ignite.
    On the other hand do NOT be aso keen to get rid of the Hashemites as of all the Arab non monarchies only Tunis seems to have settled as a stable republic.
    One of the easier ways of “calming the nerves” of the LO /PA would be to put all aid going that way into escrow and only release it to pay for infrastructure: sewage works, reservoirs, terraces repair and tree planting, rail links from Gaza to Tequmia, desalination…

  16. Norway was the stooge of America in creating OSLO and Israel does not have the leadership to be independent of America. All the bellicose pronouncements of Zorn here are hot air until that fact is changed.

  17. @ Sebastien Zorn

    I was convinced, and I am convinced now, that the Abraham Accords were needed from the very beginning by the Arabs in order to blackmail Israel and put pressure on Israel.

  18. This government was elected to kick ass instead of kissing it for a change so kick some or lose your mandate and return to continuous elections. Your enemies will never give you the benefit of the doubt for showing weakness.

  19. UNGA resolution calls for court’s 1st Israel probe since 2004; all Arab peace partners vote yes; investigation to cover settlements, Jerusalem, ‘discriminatory legislation’

    “All Arab “peace partners” vote yes.”

    They need the Abraham Accords more than Israel does. Tell them to put up or shut up or deal with Iran and their cyner-vulnerability, crumbling economies and environments on their own.

    Israel needs Area C, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount more than it does another formalized Hudna with its Islamist neighbors. And they know it. See the article about the meek line they and even Balad have taken towards the new government.

    I take note that Ukraine abstained this time after Israel read them the riot act last time.

  20. I agree with the headline…… Oslo must be null and void. It was never implemented on the terrorist side, and Iseael always making sure to scrupulously keep to legal agreements, even one-sided, becuase of the over critical goyisher eyes, is being foolish. Like fighting a champion with one hand tied behind your back.

    Israel should operate as if there is NO Oslo and in response to Goyisher complaints, can say, “an agreement has to be kept by the TWO sides. If one ignores and renounces , even by behaviour, then we are free to act as we feel is neccessary.”

    Arab terrorists hide behind it when over pressed, and Israel has been VERY dilatory in stamping out those pools of bandits. It’s a VERY small country so it should be much easier, but the self assumed “Rules of Engagement” and the “Tikkun Olam” pieces of dog dirt shackle them AS ALWAYS…..; ..self inflicted almost fatal blows.

    Like bringing back the monsters who were withering away thousands of kilometres from Israel, Israel’s BIGGEST Mistake EVER.
    There are many othe regregious acts that Israel committed but none so heinous and self inflicted. We suffer daily in young innocent lives slaughtered and enormous cost in blood and treasure, as well as the animosity of the Goyim.

    This latter we should ignore as it had always been and always will be with us. It waxes and wanes but never goes away.

    The Goldina Medina brought Jews material wealth and fame but at the cost of their Jewishness and religiosity. Then… introductions to crookery and knavery, all Democratic Party normal activities. From being met at Ellis Island, to being brought to lodgings , told about voting and how to do it, controlled by the ward heelers and so on, and on until we see what we’ve become, today.


  21. @Frank Adam

    UN General Assembly to vote on advisory opinion against Israeli ‘occupation’ from ICJ
    Ambassador Erdan: No international body can decide that the Jewish people are “occupiers” in their own homeland. Any decision from a judicial body which receives its mandate from the morally bankrupt and politicized UN is completely illegitimate.
    Elad Benari, Canada
    Dec 30, 2022, 8:04 PM (GMT+2)

    Much harder for them to pretend Area C is a colony once it’s fully incorporated into the rest of Israel. You don’t hear much about the Golan Heights anymore do you?

    As for the rest, the PA is at war with Israel from within Israel as is Hamas*. This can’t continue though I can see how directly patrolling it would be a drain on manpower..

    Question for anybody: Why have i heard Israelis refer to it as The Hamas in English. What’s the the about?

  22. @Frank Adam

    Till something better than Oslo turns up, keep it in the same way…

    That was the argument given for the JCPOA, Obama’s Iran Deal. What was your position on it?

  23. For Israel to abrogate Oslo would be a diplomatic 7th grade – 1st form – mistake. Look at what happened to the PLO by declaring Balfour, UN 181 and the partition of Palestine “nul and void.” They got sweet FA till they talked to Israel [Oslo].
    Diplomacy is as important as skill at arms especially for foreign sympathy and supplies. Till something better than Oslo turns up, keep it in the same way that Bismarck said he was… “keeping open the wires to St Petersburg.” That way he could not be blamed for trouble as Wm II – Kaiser Bill – was.

  24. Been down health wise and could not comment earlier. Excellent work Ted.
    We must remove ourselves from the Oslo betrayal plans. Come what may. There never was any possible way to create what was never there.
    Eretz Israel on its totality is Jewish land. The Arab Muslim world will never accept it nor we may wave that. The advent, tomorrow, of a well rounded Jewish government is an augur not to be missed.

  25. Oslo Accords are a nullity because they are conceived under duress and because the Israeli government has no authority in Torah law to scede any land of Yisrael. Even the future King of Ysrael only has authority to increase land of Yisrael, not to reduce the area.
    The entire article is therefore a waste of bandwidth.

  26. @dreuveni

    The only downside here is the expected violence

    It’s violent now. The courts have to be reined in and IDF rules of engagement relaxed. Jewish armed civilian self-defence permitted. Palestinian terrorists need to be executed or assassinated and inciters expropriated and deported.

  27. Comment from Arutz Sheva.

    This is the first I have heard that the Oslo accords specifically called for the transfer of some lands from Israels area C to the muslims, eventually. The fact that not all lands were included, or that the accords were abandoned, or that rules were not implemented by the arab muslims, or that they are called boundaries, not borders, will not matter, because the leftist media of the west will only report what is good for not confronting muslims, and they will censor every piece of evidence that implies that the Jews of Israel and the people of the world are better off confronting the muslims of Israel.

    My major objections, are that first, G-d commanded us not to surrender land to the gentiles. Their land claims against us will be eternal, the fact that we cannot live in peaceful coexistence with them, will overwhelmingly be their fault, not ours, and the other gentile nations will not care about justice for the Jews. We cant make the argument that G-d forbids us from surrendering land, as we have been asked to do, so very many times in the past. The regime in charge censors the debate, and act of fraud, that negates the agreement, to religious Jews, and really any Jews who believe in the democratic will of the Jewish people to make such important decisions. Cant really make peace with A nation, if it is universally agreed to be an act of fraud to do so.

  28. I remember an old joke about poor Rabinovich marrying his daughter to Rothschild. His daughter was persuaded, and there was very little left to do, that Rothschild should be persuaded. In our case, most Israeli Jews agree, there is very little left to do:you just have to find someone who has the spiritual strength and the courage to do it.

  29. The only downside here is the expected violence. However, if prepared for in a timely manner, it may be limited. The Pal population would probably be happy to see an end to their current situation too. We should take the time to consider how this will work out, especially if the PA ceases to exist.

  30. @Ted
    A very well considered and detailed overview of the Oslo Accord related to Area A, and an even more important explanation of how the Accords have been thoroughly violated, but also of why they should finally be abandoned. The PA is not a ruling govt caring for the Pal Arabs, as it is not even just ineffective or corrupt. It is a terrorist regime whose only interest is to kill Jews. Like a cancer, these Accords which have been vitiated from every angle has placed an undue burden on the Israeli people as well as the Pal Arabs. Maintaining the Accords has provided political cover for the ongoing terror campaigns against the Israeli public, even while it allowed the illegitimate PA govt to persist without elections, and it also allowed the PA to redirect the massive funding for the Pal Arabs to finance its terror campaign against their Jewish neighbors, leaving the Pals to live in absolute squalor. Very well done, Ted. A very important analysis.