September 2023 marks 30 years since the signing of the Oslo Peace Agreement between Israel and the PLO. Dozens of pundits are authoring scholarly articles on “Why the Oslo Peace Process failed to bring peace.” To these I would like to add my own opinion: It failed because it never started. The Palestinians never intended to follow the agreement and certainly not to pursue a process toward peace.
Evidence for “intention” is hard to come by, but a 2001 interview with a top Palestinian negotiator made it quite clear. Faisal Husseini, the Palestinian Authority minister for Jerusalem affairs explicitly stated in an interview to Al-Arabi [2001] that “The Oslo Accords were a Trojan Horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea”.
However, on this anniversary of the Oslo Agreement, I would like to draw attention to another, almost forgotten but perhaps more significant interview which describes the actual steps Palestinians took to sabotage the idea of peace. I am referring to an interview with Haim Shur [Maariv, June 6 2001] a prominent leader of Israel’s peace camp. Excerpts of which are given below:
Shur: The Palestinians deceived me personally and the entire Israeli Left as well. They lied to us, they scammed us, maneuvered and manipulated us. Personally, I will never forgive them for this.
A genuine man of the Left is a man who should accept the reality for what it is, and not see it the way he wishes to. They are not yet ripe for peace, and my duty as a man of the Left is to realize this truth. The Left is not a synonym for deceit.
Interviewer: In what way did the Palestinians deceive you personally?
Shur: I had countless meetings with Palestinians. If someone conducted a study on the top 10 Israelis who visited Palestinians most frequently, I am sure I would be among them. [I met with Palestinians] more frequently than Shimon Peres, Chief Oslo negotiator Yossi Beilin and Oslo Agreement architect Ron Pundak did. During all of my meetings with them, the Palestinians said that we will find a mutually accepted formula regarding the right of return, but the truth is that this never happened.
Interviewer: What do you mean by that?
Shur: They never tried to reach a mutually accepted formula. Everything they said was just a part of the phased plan. I was one of those who opened the American doors for the PLO. When we organized an Israeli-Palestinian conference in Washington in 1987, the State Department refused to give them entry visas. We took it upon ourselves [to take care of all the necessary details] so that they could get the visas. And then they entered the U.S. and took it by storm with our assistance. This is what they wanted, that was the target, to capture the good will of the American Jewish Left. I personally invited them to social gatherings at the homes of Jewish Americans. Their success was owed to our help. Without our assistance they would never succeed.
Interviewer: Was that a mistake?
Shur: Not only that this was a mistake, but merely two or three years following [our meetings with the Palestinians in the U.S.] Nabil Sha’ath appeared in front of an audience in Gaza and told them that [their meetings with us] were just a tactical move. [Sha’ath explained to his audience in Gaza that] the Palestinian plan is to make piecemeal gains for the ultimate goal of conquering the entire State of Israel. It became clear to me that the speeches made by Nabil Sha’ath — the same person who was my best friend in America and who came to hug me and kiss me following my pro-peace speeches — were worthless. He did not mean anything he said.
Interviewer: Does this lack of trust represent a shift for a man of the Left such as yourself?
Shur: There is one thing that no one will ever be able to take away from me, and that is my [commitment to the] truth.
Interviewer: When you said “they deceived me,” did you refer to all of them?
Shur: I referred to an entire group of people, who do not care about anyone or anything, who deceived me. The fact that Nabil Sha’ath is an opportunist is clear to me. The fact that Ziad AbuZayyad is an opportunist is also clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether Hanna Seniora is also one? It is not clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether these professors I met in the U.S. are the same? That I don’t know. I don’t know if they disagree with Yasser Arafat; I do know I have never heard them [say it].
Interviewer: The Israeli Right is blaming the Left for misleading the nation, for orchestrating some kind of a messianic peace movement. Do you accept the charges?
Shur: To a certain degree, yes. We wished for peace so much that we ended up turning our wishes into factual reality.
Shur’s interview was quite traumatic to us Israelis, in 2001, a year after the outbreak of the Second Intifada. But it has since disappeared from public conversation. On this 30th anniversary of the “Oslo Agreement” I feel compelled to bring it back to the limelight.
Shur’s confession gave Israelis a rare glimpse at the core issue fueling the conflict with their neighbors — a profound and inherent Palestinian rejection of the very idea of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.
It was a very short glimpse because it immediately got overshadowed by debates over pressing, albeit peripheral, matters. The Israeli Right blamed the Left for ignoring Palestinian terrorism, internal corruption and overt antisemitism, while the Left blamed the Right for Rabin’s assassination, settlement expansion and harsh conditions under occupation. Westerners, with hardly any exception, have taken Palestinian rejectionism to be a negotiation tactic, a form of rhetoric, perhaps a rallying point, but not a foundational principle. Shur’s haunting words, “They never tried to reach a mutually accepted formula,” remind us today of the depth of Palestinian rejectionism and why Oslo never had a chance.
Oslo Failed Because It Never Started
Judea Pearl
September 2023 marks 30 years since the signing of the Oslo Peace Agreement between Israel and the PLO. Dozens of pundits are authoring scholarly articles on “Why the Oslo Peace Process failed to bring peace.” To these I would like to add my own opinion: It failed because it never started. The Palestinians never intended to follow the agreement and certainly not to pursue a process toward peace.
Evidence for “intention” is hard to come by, but a 2001 interview with a top Palestinian negotiator made it quite clear. Faisal Husseini, the Palestinian Authority minister for Jerusalem affairs explicitly stated in an interview to Al-Arabi [2001] that “The Oslo Accords were a Trojan Horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea”.
However, on this anniversary of the Oslo Agreement, I would like to draw attention to another, almost forgotten but perhaps more significant interview which describes the actual steps Palestinians took to sabotage the idea of peace. I am referring to an interview with Haim Shur [Maariv, June 6 2001] a prominent leader of Israel’s peace camp. Excerpts of which are given below:
Shur: The Palestinians deceived me personally and the entire Israeli Left as well. They lied to us, they scammed us, maneuvered and manipulated us. Personally, I will never forgive them for this.
A genuine man of the Left is a man who should accept the reality for what it is, and not see it the way he wishes to. They are not yet ripe for peace, and my duty as a man of the Left is to realize this truth. The Left is not a synonym for deceit.
Interviewer: In what way did the Palestinians deceive you personally?
Shur: I had countless meetings with Palestinians. If someone conducted a study on the top 10 Israelis who visited Palestinians most frequently, I am sure I would be among them. [I met with Palestinians] more frequently than Shimon Peres, Chief Oslo negotiator Yossi Beilin and Oslo Agreement architect Ron Pundak did. During all of my meetings with them, the Palestinians said that we will find a mutually accepted formula regarding the right of return, but the truth is that this never happened.
Interviewer: What do you mean by that?
Shur: They never tried to reach a mutually accepted formula. Everything they said was just a part of the phased plan. I was one of those who opened the American doors for the PLO. When we organized an Israeli-Palestinian conference in Washington in 1987, the State Department refused to give them entry visas. We took it upon ourselves [to take care of all the necessary details] so that they could get the visas. And then they entered the U.S. and took it by storm with our assistance. This is what they wanted, that was the target, to capture the good will of the American Jewish Left. I personally invited them to social gatherings at the homes of Jewish Americans. Their success was owed to our help. Without our assistance they would never succeed.
Interviewer: Was that a mistake?
Shur: Not only that this was a mistake, but merely two or three years following [our meetings with the Palestinians in the U.S.] Nabil Sha’ath appeared in front of an audience in Gaza and told them that [their meetings with us] were just a tactical move. [Sha’ath explained to his audience in Gaza that] the Palestinian plan is to make piecemeal gains for the ultimate goal of conquering the entire State of Israel. It became clear to me that the speeches made by Nabil Sha’ath — the same person who was my best friend in America and who came to hug me and kiss me following my pro-peace speeches — were worthless. He did not mean anything he said.
Interviewer: Does this lack of trust represent a shift for a man of the Left such as yourself?
Shur: There is one thing that no one will ever be able to take away from me, and that is my [commitment to the] truth.
Interviewer: When you said “they deceived me,” did you refer to all of them?
Shur: I referred to an entire group of people, who do not care about anyone or anything, who deceived me. The fact that Nabil Sha’ath is an opportunist is clear to me. The fact that Ziad AbuZayyad is an opportunist is also clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether Hanna Seniora is also one? It is not clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether these professors I met in the U.S. are the same? That I don’t know. I don’t know if they disagree with Yasser Arafat; I do know I have never heard them [say it].
Interviewer: The Israeli Right is blaming the Left for misleading the nation, for orchestrating some kind of a messianic peace movement. Do you accept the charges?
Shur: To a certain degree, yes. We wished for peace so much that we ended up turning our wishes into factual reality.
Shur’s interview was quite traumatic to us Israelis, in 2001, a year after the outbreak of the Second Intifada. But it has since disappeared from public conversation. On this 30th anniversary of the “Oslo Agreement” I feel compelled to bring it back to the limelight.
Shur’s confession gave Israelis a rare glimpse at the core issue fueling the conflict with their neighbors — a profound and inherent Palestinian rejection of the very idea of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.
It was a very short glimpse because it immediately got overshadowed by debates over pressing, albeit peripheral, matters. The Israeli Right blamed the Left for ignoring Palestinian terrorism, internal corruption and overt antisemitism, while the Left blamed the Right for Rabin’s assassination, settlement expansion and harsh conditions under occupation. Westerners, with hardly any exception, have taken Palestinian rejectionism to be a negotiation tactic, a form of rhetoric, perhaps a rallying point, but not a foundational principle. Shur’s haunting words, “They never tried to reach a mutually accepted formula,” remind us today of the depth of Palestinian rejectionism and why Oslo never had a chance.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Israel in Three Words
TEBH Gala, Jews of Color Initiative
Boring, Very Boring
Does This Count? – A poem for Parsha Nasso
A Bisl Torah — Keep Searching
Ruth, Naomi, Mara, Maror, Meir and Elisha ben Abuyah
A Moment in Time: “Hmm, That Isn’t Right”
Print Issue: The Rise of Magen Am | May 22, 2026
How a Chabad rabbi built a community security movement in Los Angeles.
When Everything Becomes a Product—Including Girlhood
In her debut book, “Girls®: Generation Z and the Commodification of Everything” Freya India presents a stinging indictment against those she blames for having turned normal girls into GIRLS®, an ideal target market for the social media, pharmaceutical, beauty and online therapy industries.
Rebels, Superheroes and Family Ghosts: Three Skirball Exhibitions on Jewish Reinvention
Three fascinating exhibitions now showing at the Skirball Cultural Center stand on their own, yet together they trace unexpected threads of Jewish identity, memory and cultural reinvention.
Gabba Gabba Oy!
For Cate Thurston, the chief curator at the Skirball, the exhibit gives the museum a chance to “explore this sort of underserved story” about the Jewish relationship and participation and crafting the look of punk
Antisemitism Isn’t Hiding— It’s Evolving on UC Campuses
Universities are supposed to protect political free speech, but antisemitism stops being protected political expression when Jewish students are targeted, threatened, harassed, and blamed for the actions of the state of Israel.
Recognizing Jewish Heritage Month
On this beautiful Sacramento morning, in the face, perhaps in defiance of, so much in the world that is painful, tenuous and deeply troubling, we convened and we lifted up what connects us – the promise of growth and healing, and the potent ability for people to endure, to create change, and to scaffold our communities in justice and truth.
From Antisemitism to Antizionism: Toronto Symposium Marks a New Era in Jewish Advocacy
The inaugural World Symposium Against Antizionism reflected a meaningful shift in how some Jewish thinkers and advocates believe the community should engage with the forces arrayed against it.
AJU Honors Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson at Gala Marking 25-Year Legacy
A leading voice in Conservative Judaism, Artson has long shaped Jewish thought and leadership far beyond the walls of AJU.
Ancient Glory: Mediterranean Sea Bass
I especially love the way Kalamata olives play against fish, adding a perfectly intense and satisfying umami profile.
Shalom Everybody ft. Lauren Kagan
Fakesgiving Desserts and Drinks
It’s a reminder that gathering with friends and family over a big meal can be done any time of year.
Table for Five: Nasso
Repentance And Restitution
Israel Is Not America’s Client. It Is America’s Forward Defense Partner
Security cooperation with Israel protects the United States and American citizens, saves American taxpayers money and helps anchor American military superiority around the world.
The Rise of Magen Am
How a Chabad rabbi built a community security movement in Los Angeles.
Rosner’s Domain | Bibi and the Meatheads
Netanyahu and his base have held power for most of three decades, yet in spirit, they are still raging against the condescending elites.
What Daisy Taught Me
Students Seem Determined to Illustrate That ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’ Is Still Relevant
Matching the national average, seven out of 10 Dartmouth students refuse to endorse the idea that it is never acceptable to shout down a speaker, and five in 10 say there are instances when it is acceptable to block other students from attending a speech.
Heroines of Oct. 7 on Stage and Livestream
A new women-to-women production, called “HEROINES! Songs & Soliloquies for the Soul.”
J Street: All Tough, No Love
Slinging criticism without responsibility and spewing all complaints all the time, is barn-burning, not bridge-building.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.