The Oslo Process and Its Failure

Once the terms of the Oslo process are understood, it's not surprising that the negotiations failed to deliver a lasting peace. As the following articles show, Oslo neglected the core issues of the conflict -- the refugee problem, Palestinian sovereignty, the status of Jerusalem -- while consolidating Israeli control over the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• Jerome Slater, "What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 116, No. 2, Summer 2001, pp. 171-199.
  "The perception of the Camp David summit of July 2000 is that Barak made a generous offer which Arafat perversely rejected. But Barak's proposals fell far short of a fair compromise. A strong case can be made that at both Oslo and Camp David, Arafat went too far in accepting Israeli-created facts on the ground."
• Joel Beinin, "The Demise of the Oslo Process," Middle East Report Online, March 26, 1999
  "The Oslo negotiations did not occur because the PLO suddenly decided to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Israel. The PLO had signaled its willingness to negotiate with Israel as early as the mid-1970s, but no Israeli government was interested in testing its intentions."
• Mouin Rabbani, "Palestinian Authority, Israeli Rule: From Transitional to Permanent Arrangement," Middle East Report, No. 201, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Fall 1996), pp. 2-6
  "Despite the redeployment of the Israeli military from large sections of the Gaza Strip and most West Bank cities and the assumption of power within these areas by the Palestinian Authority, Israeli control over Palestinians is exercised now with greater vigor than at any time since the occupation began in June 1967."
• Norman Finkelstein, "Securing Occupation: The Real Meaning of the Wye River Memorandum," New Left Review, Vol. 1, No. 232 (Nov.-Dec., 1998), pp. 128-139
  "Wye emphasizes Palestinian responsibility for the vigorous prosecution of 'terrorist suspects.' Palestinian terrorism is viewed as the cause but never the effect of evil: it is by definition unrelated to Israel's brutal rule. Given that terrorism is an implacable negative force, the only means to combat it is repression."
• Coalition for Justice in Israel/Palestine, "Should Arafat Have Accepted Barak's Offer at Camp David?" Stanford Daily, October 16, 2002
  "Barak's 'generous offer' at Camp David was anything but generous. Palestinian sovereignty? No. Palestinian security? No. Solution to the refugee problem? No. Sharing of Jerusalem? No. Dismantling of Israeli settlements? No. The Palestinians were right to turn it down -- accepting it would have been glorified surrender."
• Jeff Halper, "The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control," Middle East Report, No. 216, Fall 2000
  "Since 1967, Israel has laid a matrix of control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Because the matrix operates by control and not by conquest, it enables Israel to offer a generous 94 percent of the West Bank, creating the illusion of a just and viable settlement. In fact, we are witnessing the emergence of an apartheid-style regime."