fbpx

Accord Was to Ensure Jewish Majority

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever signed between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), intended to put an end to the national struggle that is the heart of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict. The Olso agreement was the natural continuation of the framework agreements signed at the 1978 Camp David summit between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, which also provided the basis for the 1991 Madrid Conference.
[additional-authors]
September 11, 2003

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever signed between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), intended to put an end to the national struggle that is the heart of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Olso agreement was the natural continuation of the framework agreements signed at the 1978 Camp David summit between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, which also provided the basis for the 1991 Madrid Conference.

But, the talks that I initiated in Oslo contained two unique elements: For the first time, the Palestinian partner was clearly identified as the PLO, and the idea was proposed to transfer to Palestinian control most of the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area, even before elections were held for the Palestinian Authority’s legislative council and leadership.

The Oslo process was intended to save the Zionist enterprise before Israel would control an area where the majority of residents would be Palestinian. Anyone who believes that Israel must be a Jewish and democratic state must support the establishment of a border between Israel and the Palestinian side — preferably by consent rather than by unilateral measures.

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin understood this and gave his support to the Oslo process. He faced opposition from a right-wing camp that presented itself as nationalist but did not propose any solution that would guarantee a Jewish and democratic future for Israel.

The interim measures did not accomplish their goal — that is, a final peace agreement — because of efforts by elements on both sides.

On the Palestinian side, the extremist religious organizations understood that Israeli-Palestinian peace would be the end of the road for them, and they acted to undermine the process through violence. The more difficult the conditions became in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the more public support these organizations gained.

On the Israeli side, it was the right wing — in particular, extremist settlers — who did whatever they could to foil a final status settlement that would divide the Land of Israel.

Attempts to attribute the past three years of violence to the Oslo agreement are characteristic of people who did not believe in the agreement in the first place and who believe that any agreement with the enemy is a surrender that ultimately will engender more violence.

I am not saying that the Oslo agreement was free of flaws. But those flaws were not the result of an innocent belief that the five-year interim period would build such confidence and esteem between Israelis and Palestinians that it would be easy to reach a final status settlement.

In my opinion, there were two flaws in the Oslo Agreement and its implementation:

First, the fact that no reference was made to the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — the Palestinians accepted Rabin’s personal commitment to halt the construction of new settlements — created an opening that a subsequent right-wing government used to build new settlements, though it clearly was not the original intent of the agreement.

Second, Israel did not give sufficient importance to incitement in the Palestinian media, thinking it was a trend that would pass when the final status agreement was signed. This incitement played a significant role in the Palestinians’ return to violence in 2000.

Both sides blame the other for the process’ failure, though the Palestinians’ choice of violence means they have the greater share of blame.

But our future does not lie in reciprocal blaming. If we want to secure the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, we must do it before there is a Palestinian majority under Israeli control.

If the Palestinians want a state with a secular and pragmatic leadership, they must do it before Hamas and Islamic Jihad conquer the hearts of the people.

We have no time. The only effective way to do this is to complete the Oslo process and reach the final status agreement as quickly as possible.


Yossi Bellin was minister of justice in Ehud Barak’s government and one of the architects of the Oslo agreement.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

A Night of Gratitude Honoring Dennis Prager

Latest Articles

Print Issue: What Happened? | November 13, 2026

A story of bipartisan support that gradually became a story of one-party support, until it flips entirely and becomes once again a story of consensus – this time, of bipartisan opposition.

Why Are We Even Here?

When we’re tempted to ask, Lamah zeh anochi? — Why am I here? What’s the point? — we can remind ourselves of the extraordinary goodness that exists in the world. And, even more importantly, we can become part of it.

Leo David Honored as FIDF Gala Raises

Throughout the years, David has donated millions of dollars to numerous causes, but FIDF has always held a particularly special place in his heart.

What If Jewish Americans Just Showed Up?

We mourn on Oct. 7, but Nov. 8 gave us something to celebrate: a community that showed up, on its feet, public and proud. Now we need to make that response a habit.

Genocide and International Relations

The book casts its net far and wide, from debates within the field of research itself to the analysis of genocidal events across the past century.

A Concrete Case for Hope

Over the last few weeks, Americans and Israelis voted in elections that are consequential to the characters of both countries. For many, these elections represent inflection points, where the outcome signals the directions their respective societies will take moving forward.

AIPAC Isn’t the Problem. It’s Part of the Solution.

The future of the U.S.-Israel relationship will not be secured by winning one more primary. It will depend on whether Americans understand why Israel matters, why Jewish self-determination is legitimate, and why the alliance benefits both nations.

The Last Signer

Carroll, having helped swing Maryland toward independence, was elected to Congress on July 4, and signed the Declaration in August, the only Catholic among the signers and the only one to add his estate to his name.

Torah Portion: Toldot

The parsha begins with a direct statement: “This is the story of Isaac, son of Abraham.”  

Faith and the Power of Pretend

Rabbi Kushner provides a path for elevating our humanity, appreciating the wisdom of Jewish tradition and practice, and experiencing the divinity residing within all humans, even those who do not yet acknowledge God’s presence.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.