This month marks significant anniversaries for Israel, reflecting deep introspection about its past and future. It is the 33rd anniversary of the Oslo Accords and the 10th anniversary of the death of a pivotal figure in this process, Shimon Peres. Today, opinions vary widely regarding the Oslo Accords; while some criticize them, it’s crucial to recognize that no viable alternative to Oslo’s framework has emerged over the past three decades.
The Collapse of the Oslo Framework
The decline of the Oslo Accords can be traced to several interrelated issues: escalating Hamas violence, an ineffective Palestinian leadership, the rapid expansion of settlements, and right-wing Israeli governments that chose to empower Hamas over the Palestinian Authority. Despite this failure, the fundamental rationale underpinning Oslo has not lost its relevance. The premise of the accords aimed to address an important reality for Israel: to maintain its identity as a Jewish and democratic state, it must avoid the long-term governance of a large Palestinian population.
Understanding the Logic Behind Oslo
The essence of the Oslo Accords was rooted in pragmatism rather than moral obligation or idealistic dreams. Shimon Peres approached a pressing challenge: Israel’s future viability necessitates a division of land to uphold demographic integrity, security, and national identity. Interestingly, Peres did not envision an independent Palestinian state as the initial solution. He often leaned toward options involving Jordan or a confederation. It’s noteworthy that the term “Palestinian state” is conspicuously absent from the original Oslo documents.
Current Challenges and the Path Forward
Recent violent events, such as the heinous October 7 attacks, have understandably shaken public confidence in a Palestinian partner. However, this tragedy highlights the urgency for Israel to define its own future. The pressing questions now are: What should Israel’s permanent borders look like, and what will the nature of the neighboring entity be? Establishing secure borders is paramount, while discussions about the nature of a future relationship can be deferred to a later date.
To achieve long-term stability, Israel must delineate its recognized eastern border. The absence of such a border not only jeopardizes national strategy but also undermines Israel’s status within the region and internationally. Consequently, it’s critical to differentiate between the sovereignty border, which should primarily ensure a Jewish majority and democratic governance, and the security border, which may extend to the Jordan River as necessary.
Establishing a firm sovereignty border would not entail a security withdrawal, nor would it dictate whether the territories beyond would evolve into a confederation with Jordan, a demilitarized Palestinian state, or another political arrangement. The complex issue regarding Jerusalem’s Holy Basin could potentially be saved for future deliberations.
The Implications of Moving Forward
The imperative to act now is underscored by changing geopolitics. The current U.S. administration may not guarantee the unwavering support Israel has historically enjoyed. The unique opportunity presented by recent political circumstances could facilitate a lasting international understanding of Israel’s permanent borders. Such an agreement could solidify Israel’s security needs while including recognition for major settlement blocs.
A defined sovereignty border would effectively quell the impulse to expand settlements or alter infrastructure in areas designated outside Israel’s jurisdiction, as the territories’ futures would already be established. This shift could lead to many settlers voluntarily returning to recognized Israeli territory, fostering an environment conducive to peace and compromise.
On the 10th anniversary of Shimon Peres’s passing, Israel doesn’t necessarily need to resurrect the Oslo Accords but instead should embrace the underlying logic: securing its future necessitates land division. This journey must stem from a position of strength and a realistic outlook on regional dynamics. Rather than debating “A Palestinian state: yes or no?” the focus should shift to “Permanent borders for Israel: yes or no?”