As someone who negotiates for a living, I find the run up to the Oslo Accords and their aftermath to be fascinating. It really puts the entire conflict as least as it exists today in better perspective. And although the terms "two state solution" and "settlements" are part of our vernacular and thrown around by anyone with a smart phone, we tend not to use these terms as the legal terms of art they were intended to be and also assume that items were part of the deal when they were in fact not.
It is important to note what these accords did and did not do. Importantly, the accords called for a framework for peace, but did not set out specific details of this framework. The specifics were supposed to be negotiated among the parties. Although the accords called for withdrawals of Israeli presence "from palestinian territories" it specifically did not require Israel to leave all of it ever. In fact, the withdrawals were supposed to be in line with the land for peace proposals in which there would be population exchanges among the parties.
The issues that were to be be negotiated, according to Article XVII.1, were: "Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and ... powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council." Area C would be completely controlled by Israel. By excluding Jerusalem and the settlements from the areas to be transferred to the Palestinians, Israeli presence, including the military to protect them, would not change without a negotiated agreement. The Accords also preserve Israel's exclusive control of the borders, the airspace and the territorial Gaza waters.
the Oslo Accords did not even mention a two state solution. What it did was create self-governing institutions in the WB and gaza. Notions of "two-state" solutions were terms that were massaged over many years of UN interference.
Since the accords, Israel has made numerous settlement proposals. In fact, Israel has offered the Palestinians approximately 99% of what they were asking for. These offers were all rejected by the Palestinians. I think they want the "river to the sea" and this is not a winning argument in the context of Oslo (nor a vastly superior military - hey, practicalities are important).
Regarding the "refugee issue", UNWRA has invented something that applies to no peoples except palestinians - generational refugees. The hope of the palestinians is for millions of so-called refugees from lebanon and syria to flood Israel under a "right of return". And while the world feigns compassion for palestinians when Israel is involved, there is absolutely no care for the fact that palestinians are kept in refugee camps under apartheid conditions in lebanon and syria where they are not allowed to hold certain jobs and have curfews. 4 (maybe 5) generations later, they are still there and being held there in the hopes of flooding Israel with people who have no connection to Israel. (With UNWRA's active participation in hamas now evident, UNWRA will be dismantled).
Combined with standing UN rule 7 in which Israel must be discussed at every meeting, international pressure has been brought to bear against Israel to make concessions that were never actually agreed to. We have been conditioned by the media to believe that the Oslo Accords did things they in fact did not. And so items that were supposed to be negotiated are believed incorrectly to have been already addressed (and, of course, Israel is blamed). Rather than negotiate or follow through with their Oslo obligations, the palestinians have turned to the UN and their lackeys to cram things down Israel's throat. With an automatic anti-Israel majority at the UN, there is no incentive for the palestinians to negotiate anything (also makes it hard to negotiate when one side doesn't care about their own civilians and the other makes horrible concessions to get just one hostage back).
Well, if the issues aren't resolved and folks are going to try to force a unilateral settlement on Israel, Israel will seek its own leverage - enter the settlements. If the palestinians are going to proceed down a non-negotiated path, Israel intends to do the same. After all, it was always anticipated that Israel would remain in large parts of Area C.
No palestinian state was ever formed. The concept has no identified borders, other than being in gaza, Area A and parts of Area C. Something that doesn't exist, never existed and doesn't have contours simply can't have anything taken from them. They don't have anything yet to take. They were supposed to negotiate in order to actually get something. They refused. Perhaps one day they will change their minds and sit down with Israel to make a deal. Perhaps one day they will have a land of their own. But today they do not.
I would submit that pressure be brought to bear on the palestinians (as well as Israel) to negotiate and that they be prevented from seeking to end-run Oslo through UN and other international bodies. In addition, the end result of this process is supposed to be two nations living in peace side by side, not for a so-called solution to bring an end to Israel.
It is important to note what these accords did and did not do. Importantly, the accords called for a framework for peace, but did not set out specific details of this framework. The specifics were supposed to be negotiated among the parties. Although the accords called for withdrawals of Israeli presence "from palestinian territories" it specifically did not require Israel to leave all of it ever. In fact, the withdrawals were supposed to be in line with the land for peace proposals in which there would be population exchanges among the parties.
The issues that were to be be negotiated, according to Article XVII.1, were: "Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and ... powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council." Area C would be completely controlled by Israel. By excluding Jerusalem and the settlements from the areas to be transferred to the Palestinians, Israeli presence, including the military to protect them, would not change without a negotiated agreement. The Accords also preserve Israel's exclusive control of the borders, the airspace and the territorial Gaza waters.
the Oslo Accords did not even mention a two state solution. What it did was create self-governing institutions in the WB and gaza. Notions of "two-state" solutions were terms that were massaged over many years of UN interference.
Since the accords, Israel has made numerous settlement proposals. In fact, Israel has offered the Palestinians approximately 99% of what they were asking for. These offers were all rejected by the Palestinians. I think they want the "river to the sea" and this is not a winning argument in the context of Oslo (nor a vastly superior military - hey, practicalities are important).
Regarding the "refugee issue", UNWRA has invented something that applies to no peoples except palestinians - generational refugees. The hope of the palestinians is for millions of so-called refugees from lebanon and syria to flood Israel under a "right of return". And while the world feigns compassion for palestinians when Israel is involved, there is absolutely no care for the fact that palestinians are kept in refugee camps under apartheid conditions in lebanon and syria where they are not allowed to hold certain jobs and have curfews. 4 (maybe 5) generations later, they are still there and being held there in the hopes of flooding Israel with people who have no connection to Israel. (With UNWRA's active participation in hamas now evident, UNWRA will be dismantled).
Combined with standing UN rule 7 in which Israel must be discussed at every meeting, international pressure has been brought to bear against Israel to make concessions that were never actually agreed to. We have been conditioned by the media to believe that the Oslo Accords did things they in fact did not. And so items that were supposed to be negotiated are believed incorrectly to have been already addressed (and, of course, Israel is blamed). Rather than negotiate or follow through with their Oslo obligations, the palestinians have turned to the UN and their lackeys to cram things down Israel's throat. With an automatic anti-Israel majority at the UN, there is no incentive for the palestinians to negotiate anything (also makes it hard to negotiate when one side doesn't care about their own civilians and the other makes horrible concessions to get just one hostage back).
Well, if the issues aren't resolved and folks are going to try to force a unilateral settlement on Israel, Israel will seek its own leverage - enter the settlements. If the palestinians are going to proceed down a non-negotiated path, Israel intends to do the same. After all, it was always anticipated that Israel would remain in large parts of Area C.
No palestinian state was ever formed. The concept has no identified borders, other than being in gaza, Area A and parts of Area C. Something that doesn't exist, never existed and doesn't have contours simply can't have anything taken from them. They don't have anything yet to take. They were supposed to negotiate in order to actually get something. They refused. Perhaps one day they will change their minds and sit down with Israel to make a deal. Perhaps one day they will have a land of their own. But today they do not.
I would submit that pressure be brought to bear on the palestinians (as well as Israel) to negotiate and that they be prevented from seeking to end-run Oslo through UN and other international bodies. In addition, the end result of this process is supposed to be two nations living in peace side by side, not for a so-called solution to bring an end to Israel.