I

          The 13th of September marked the 26th anniversary when in front of the White House the “Oslo Accords” were signed. Following two years of difficult negotiations hindered by judicial bureaucracy, mutual mistrust and century old inertial mindsets, the Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Shimon Peres – on behalf of Tel Aviv and Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of the State of Palestine – on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization – signed the so called “Declaration of Principles on a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Arrangements”. The declaration is commonly known as “The Oslo Accords” named after the Norwegian capital that had hosted most of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Following a century of conflict it was the first reconciliation agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Its fundamental framework was based on the continuation of the negotiations over a period of five years which would end with the establishment of a Palestinian state and the resolution of other issues. Some of them included: the status of Jerusalem, the future of Palestinian refugees, borders, and Israeli settlements as well as economic and security issues. Under the watchful eye of the former US president, Bill Clinton, the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, sworn enemies, shook hands thinking of a future that they would never have the chance to see.

                                                Signing the „ Oslo Accords”, Washington DC, 13.09.1993. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

II

           On the 7th of July 2019, during a press conference in Ramallah, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas warned about the possibility of suspending all the agreements of the Oslo Accords that were signed in Washington, in 1993. He announced the end of all security cooperation with Israel. The Palestine Liberation Organization would eventually stop recognising Israel as an independent state, and renounce the Resolutions (242 and 338) of the UN Security Council, should Israel refrain from taking action and unless it followed the engagements set by the Accords negotiated in Oslo and signed in Washington. The argument of the Palestinian leader was: ”ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords, Israel has never stopped sabotaging and destroying what has been commonly convened and agreed on.” Mahmoud Abbas would echo a series of former statements, where the Palestinians announced they no longer recognised the USA as the mediator and neutral party in the peace process and, as a consequence they would no longer agree to Washington’s involvement in the peace negotiations and in the identification of a viable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

          After almost thirty years since the negotiation and signing of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians were the first to see the document as moot; a document that was seen as historical at the time.

         As it has failed to reach its original objectives – peace and co-existence between the two sides at odds and the establishment of a sovereign and long-lasting Palestinian state, the “Oslo process” is an utter failure. There are many causes to why this has come to be, and they involve both parties, but also the regional and international geopolitical occurrences. Assigning failure exclusively to one of the parties would be a shallow approach to a strong and complex process that is highly vulnerable to the impact of all mindsets and to the meaning the peace process has on both sides of the barricades.

         However, besides the document’s shortcomings, there is a series of tangible, visible and quantifiable elements that have eroded and sabotaged the continuity of the political and diplomatic endeavours. Some of the most dynamic ones are worth mentioning.

         1. The Israeli political context that has enabled and even favoured the policies regarding the building of Israeli settlements in the “autonomous” Palestinian territories. If in 1993 when the “Declaration of Principles” was signed in the West Bank there lived 120,000 Israeli colonists, in 2014 their number increased to over 200,000 and later reached 382,000. A similar number (including Israeli Arabs) has been registered in East Jerusalem as well. There are currently 121 Israeli official settlements plus more scarce “islands” that have been illegally built.

         2. The Palestinian Movement has been seriously damaged in 2006, when in Gaza Hamas – the Islamist fundamentalist movement and promoter of the old Muslim Brotherhood – won the elections. The movement doesn’t recognise Israel, wants to create a Muslim Arab state on the territory of historical Palestine and claims that war and violence are the only ways to fight against Israel. A “Fatahland” and a “Hamasland” are arguments enough for Israel to avoid all peace negotiations, arguing the fact that the Palestinians aren’t a constant, unified and believable partner for negotiation. The time between June 2006 and July 2014 the Israeli army has fought against Palestinian attacks (missile attacks and other violent actions) and against Hamas’ so called “return marches” with no more and no less than five repressive operations that have registered great human and material losses – “Summer Rain” in June 2006, “Hot Winter” in February 2008, “Cast Lead” in December 2008, “Pillar of Defence” in November 2012 and “Protective Edge” in July 2014. An environment full of hatred determined the former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces (Tzahal), General Moshe Ya’lon to publicly state that “the Palestinian conscience should be marked with a red hot poker so that the Palestinians understand that they have been defeated”. At the same time, Palestinian officials in Gaza publicly instigated citizens to “kill as many Israelis as they can”.

        3. Donald Trump coming to the White House meant changing the USA’s oriental foreign policy from managing Middle Eastern conflicts and the two-state Palestinian- Israeli disputes to interfering directly and subjectively in actions that entail the use of faulty projects. These projects put Palestinians at a disadvantage and openly support Israel’s right wing policy, starting with the Likud party and its leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Recognising Jerusalem as the unified and permanent capital of Israel, relocating the US embassy in the “holy city”, closing the Palestinian embassy in the USA and ceasing financial support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees are some of the examples representing the pragmatism of the new US policy towards finding a solution to the Palestinian issue. These endeavours have been recently accompanied by the famous “deal of the century”, which, although was initiated almost a year ago, hasn’t been finalised or completely made known yet, but has been a topic of live controversy.

 III

         Entrusted for elaboration and the coordination process to a couple of his closest advisors – Jared Kushner (son-in-law), senior advisor and Jason Greenblatt, advisor on Israel and special envoy for Middle East peace (he resigned from those posts mid September, for family reasons) – the US project that Donald Trump himself has labelled as “the deal of the century” would be made of two parts. Each deals distinctively with the economic and financial matters and with the politics of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. If on the first matter (economic and financial) the US Administration has revealed a series of information and public actions, the second, the political peace process, is a mystery. It would be brought to light maybe after the Israeli second round of elections – mid September 2019.

                               Jason Greenblatt (on the left) and Jared Kushner, Warsaw, Poland, 14.02.2019. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

         Awaiting for the American “D Day”, the economic forum in Bahrain (25th-26th June 2019) called “ From Peace to Prosperity” was meant to reveal before-hand some of the benefits of development that the next “American peace” would so generously and abundantly bestow upon the Palestinians – an abstract notion that has nothing to do with the concepts of statehood and national identity. A financial aid of 43 billion Euros out of which 24 billion would go to the West Bank and Gaza, plus 7.9, 6.5 and 5.5 billion would go to the Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan and Libya, for a much desired economic integration of the areas. According to Jared Kushner, this means that in ten years’ time the GDP would double, the unemployment rate would decrease considerably and the Palestinian economy that had been suffering for decades would be revived.

         “There is no question that we need financial assistance however, before that we need a political solution” said the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

          The conference in Bahrain promised a prosperous “future” for the Palestinians because, as is the belief of one of the makers if the “deal”, the former presidential advisor, Jason Greenblatt, “peace would unlock the incredible potential of the Palestinian economy”. On the other hand, to the Palestinians, the real purpose of the economic forum in Manama was to “go around the political issue” and “bribe the Palestinians into giving up their state and national identity”.

          In an interview for the Arabic newspaper “Al-Sharq Al-Awsat” (the London issue) Jason Greenblatt “revealed”, concisely for that matter, some insights regarding the political aspects of the US initiative. Explicitly stating that the phrase “two state” isn’t part of the text of the future “deal of the century”, the interviewee mentioned that the top priority for the accomplishment of peace and prosperity is finding a “solution” to the two “Gordian knots”. These are: 1) the presence in Gaza of the two movements – Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, that are the “main cause” of the suffering of the Palestinian people and 2) creating a perfect environment for the continuation of direct negotiations between Mahmoud Abbas and the Israeli Prime Minister. They are the only ones who are able to establish the agenda of the negotiations as long as everything they agree on is acceptable to the USA. Reading Jason Grenblatt’s entire expose rather leads to the impression that he is talking about two vehicles that come from different directions, who pass by each other and whose drivers will most likely say hello by a wave of their hands. Unfortunately this isn’t enough for a deal of a century.

           The Israeli Elections and the “Deal of the Century”

          A week before the Israeli early elections on the 17th of September, the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plans to annex the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and claim Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the territory north of the Dead Sea, should he remain the leader of the government. This announcement stirred strong critical reactions from the Arab governments, the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Was it a pre-election move, or the real deal, we can only find out after the formation of the new Israeli government. However, taking such actions in the context of an already damaged regional environment will probably have a negative impact over the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli peace processes.

          After counting 95% of the votes the results of the elections on the 18th September pointed out the strong head-start of the right winged parties. The leading parties of the elections were Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud, Benny Ganz’s White and Blue (same ideology) and Avigdor Libermann’s (former foreign affairs and defence minister) Yisrael Beiteinu (national secularist formation). None of these parties won all 61 seats necessary to ensure a rough majority that would enable the forming of the government. So, the Israeli political chessboard will witness intensive actions, talks and debates in order to form an alliance that would be the basis of a government of national union. However, even in this case it is difficult to foresee whether Israel’s regional policy, even that regarding the Palestinian issue or the “burning” Iranian brief, would face major changes and head towards compromise. Benjamin Netanyahu promised that he would give his citizens a “strong Zionist government”, while Benny Ganz and Avigdor Libermann talked about the necessity of a government that should have Israel voice over the global chessboard and stand its ground against the policies regarding the Middle East.

         To the Palestinian leaders, the result of the Israeli elections is, according to Mahmoud Abbas’ statements, a “simple internal matter” that won’t bring anything good to the peace negotiations, while Hamas officials in Gaza publicized the idea that the Israeli elections won’t represent a change for the better in the peace process, but the continuation, on a higher level, of the “fight against our Zionist enemy”.

         The Israelis have had their say in these elections. It is Donald Trump’s turn to make public the famous “deal of the century”.