4 | SEPTEMBER 21 • 2023 

opinion
Oslo’s Contribution to 
Israeli-Arab Normalization
T

his past week we 
observed two signif-
icant anniversaries 
of agreements that Israel has 
reached with its Arab neigh-
bors. The two have a very 
different history, one being in 
the center of partisan political 
controversy in 
Israel, the other 
widely acclaimed 
as an important 
step forward.
I am referring 
to the 30th anni-
versary of the 
Oslo Accords 
on Sept. 13 and 
the third anniversary of the 
Abraham Accords on Sept. 15.
Heralded as a historic 
breakthrough in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, the Oslo 
Accords were controversial 
from the start, particularly 
after a wave of suicide bomb-
ings hit Israel for several years 
after the signing. 
The right accused the 
weakness and concessions by 
the Israeli leadership to the 
Palestinians in the Accords as 
opening the way to terrorism. 
All these years later, following 
the Second Intifada and then 
the breakdown of negotiations 
with the Palestinians, critics 
of Oslo see it as a destructive 
exercise.
On the other hand, its sup-
porters talk about the break-
through that occurred, getting 
the Palestinians to acknowl-
edge Israel and at least to talk 
about a possible solution for 
both sides. Indeed, they make 
the case that if there ever is to 
be a two-state solution, it will 

be premised on the agreement 
reached between Israelis and 
Palestinians at Oslo. From 
their point of view, the assas-
sination of Prime Minister 
Rabin by a right-wing extrem-
ist played a key role in under-
mining Oslo’s potential to 
have true impact.
Whatever one’s views on 
Oslo, what is clear is that 
it generated new openness 
toward Israel in the Arab 
world and elsewhere interna-
tionally.
On the other hand, three 
years after the signing of the 
normalization agreements 
with the UAE, Bahrain and 
Morocco, there is widespread 
acknowledgement of the 
importance of the break-
through. This is true even 
among individuals on the left 
who, particularly now, are 
unwilling to give Netanyahu 
credit for just about any-
thing — and also despite 
the fact that the Accords did 
not in any way address the 

Palestinian issue, the core of 
the conflict.
It is worth noting that the 
Abraham Accords are present-
ed as a victory for those who 
argued against a widespread 
assumption that the Arab 
states would never normal-
ize relations with Israel until 
the Jewish state significantly 
addressed the Palestinian 
issue. That is a fair conclusion. 
But one must also remember 
that the Gulf states were not 
willing to sign the agreement 
until the then-Netanyahu 
government was ready to 
commit not to annex any part 
of the West Bank, an idea that 
was then floating vigorously 
around Israeli government 
circles. 
And for those who think 
the Abraham Accords prove 
that normalization negates the 
Palestinian issue, the current 
conversations about a Saudi 
deal seem to be undermining 
that idea. Indeed, reports of 
strong Saudi insistence on 

progress on the Palestinian 
front seems to be a major 
obstacle for the anti-Palestin-
ian wing of the current Israeli 
government.
So two different stories of 
different eras and different 
agreements. Having said that, 
a case can be made that Oslo, 
with all its shortcomings, 
enabled the Abraham Accords 
to happen years later. Oslo, as 
noted, undercut the idea that 
had circulated for decades 
in the Arab world that Israel 
simply was out to destroy 
and negate the Palestinians, 
that they were simply another 
example of Western invaders 
to the Middle East trying to 
dominate the locals. 
Now there was evidence 
that Israel truly wanted to 
live with their Palestinian 
neighbors, and one could 
imagine a future of Jews and 
Palestinians living in peace. 
Of course, Oslo did not sud-
denly transform Arab hostility 
toward the Jewish State, just as 
Sadat’s courageous peace with 
Egypt in 1979 did not lead to 
immediate change. But a path 
forward was created. The first 
to come down that path was 
King Hussein of Jordan who 
signed a peace agreement in 
1995.

VISION OF PEACE
After that, there was lit-
tle progress as the Second 
Intifada, terrorism and the 
breakdown of negotiations 
ensued. But the vision of 
peace that made Oslo so 
inspiring and promising 
remained pertinent and may 

PURELY COMMENTARY

continued on page 7

Kenneth 
Jacobson
Times of 
Israel

The Oslo Accords: Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat at the 
White House in 1993

GPO.GOV

