Read on Twitter
Was the Oslo agreement designed to achieve permanent Israeli occupation over the West Bank and Gaza, to prevent meaningful Palestinian sovereignty, and foil a meaningful two state solution?
(A thread)
(A thread)
Critics of Oslo have long argued that the agreement was a charade, which was never going to end Israeli occupation. These arguments were made forcefully during the recent debate on Rabin's legacy, amid the controversy over AOC's cancelled talk. 2/
This piece by @aj_iraqi, concludes that "Oslo was never derailed by Rabin’s death — it achieved exactly what Rabin had set out to do." ... "a cloak of “peace” to disguise the next stage of colonial rule". 3/ https://www.972mag.com/yitzhak-rabin-oslo-accords-aoc/
Reading history backwards, this is a compelling narrative. Given Oslo's ambiguous language, the absence of any commitment to Palestinian statehood, the lack of safeguarding mechanisms - it is no surprise they ended up with a limited Palestinian autonomy. 4/
So, the argument goes, this was always the plan: to create fragmented Palestinian Bantustans, continue Israeli colonisation and land-grab, and achieve international legitimacy under an illusion of a peace process. 5/
This is certainly what happened. But was this the intention behind Oslo? Could we say that for Israel, Oslo "worked out according to plan"?
This argument becomes less convincing when we look at Israel's domestic politics since 1995.
6/
This argument becomes less convincing when we look at Israel's domestic politics since 1995.
6/
Because for the Israeli political camp that initiated and championed Oslo, it has been a disaster.
Not only Rabin was murdered in 1995 by opponents of Oslo, after months of incitement. Rabin's party, Labour, lost the 1996 elections.
7/
Not only Rabin was murdered in 1995 by opponents of Oslo, after months of incitement. Rabin's party, Labour, lost the 1996 elections.
7/
In the following 25 years, Labour held power for 2 years only (1999-2001). From winning more a third of Knesset seats in 1992, in 2020 Labour has 2.5%, and has effectively disappeared from Israel's political map.
8/
8/
The anti-Oslo right has held power for 20 years out of last 25 years (the exceptions were Barak, and Olmert - who was elected from the centre-right but went through a change of heart). This is because the Israeli public overwhelmingly sees Oslo as a failure, not a success.
9/
9/
Since 1996, the social base of Oslo's support - Israel's mostly Ashkenazi upper-middle class, has been effectively locked out of political power or delegated to the margins of power as minor partners of right wing governments.
/10
/10
Israel's ruling party throughout most of the last 25 years, the Likud, remained anchored in the anti-Oslo coalition which brought it to power - articulated around continued settlement in the West Bank + marginalising Palestinian citizens of Israel inside the Green Line.
/11
/11
If Oslo was planned to create the reality we now see, why did the Israeli political camp behind Oslo suffer so badly? Why was its Prime Minister murdered? Why has it been locked out power for nearly 25 years?
/12
/12
As a historian, I don't believe it makes much sense to talk about "intentions" and "plans", because history rarely works this way. I don't know what Rabin had in mind, but I can be pretty sure that it didn't include the decimation of his party because of Oslo's failure.
/13
/13
I'm writing this not in order to redeem Oslo or the people behind it, because I think the agreement was deeply flawed. It is no accident that we got to where we are today, and this has much to do with how the agreement was framed and its social-political underpinning.
/14
/14
But rather than speaking about leaders' plans and intentions, I suggest thinking about the logic embedded in societies and states. Rather than thinking through unchanging continuities, I prefer talking about dialectics, tensions and contradictions.
/15
/15
This means paying serious attention to tensions and contradictions within Israeli society. That does not mean a simple (and false) narrative of peace camp/right wing, but it does mean taking on board the changes of the last 25 years under Israel's neo-Zionist hegemony.
/16
/16
Looking at the contradictions of Israeli society is crucial to understand what opportunities there are for change, and perhaps more importantly, what are the risks and dangers.
/End
For more, see my review of @SethAnziska Preventing Palestine https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/israel-palestine-age-trump/
/End
For more, see my review of @SethAnziska Preventing Palestine https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/israel-palestine-age-trump/
