Robert Inlakesh
DESPITE his rhetoric about further settlement construction and West Bank annexation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has backed down on a bill that would formally scrap the Oslo Accords. The reason why exposes the inner workings of Israeli occupation politics.
A member of Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s ‘Jewish Power Party’ recently proposed a bill to the Knesset that would repeal the Oslo Accords – the agreements signed in the 1990s between Tel Aviv and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that created the occupied West Bank and Gaza models of today. The purpose behind the bill would be to formally abandon any recognition of the Palestinian Authority and begin to construct illegal settlements inside of what is known as Area A and Area B on the West Bank.
“The Government of Israel decided on Sunday not to move forward with the bill proposed by Knesset Member Limor Son Har-Melech,” a source cited by The Times of Israel reported, noting that Netanyahu himself personally ordered that the Ministerial Committee for Legislation refuse to back it.
This move has come as a shock to some, who have witnessed the Israelis’ progress towards a de jure annexation of the occupied West Bank. In fact, just last month, Tel Aviv approved a record of 34 new settlements inside the occupied territory.
Why Did Netanyahu Back Down?
The reason cited in the Hebrew-language media, explaining why the Israeli prime minister decided to rule out the idea of repealing the Oslo Accords for now, is that such a step required coordination with the United States.
Yet, there is another explanation that the Israeli media is not talking about: the repercussions of such an action. There is scarcely any reflection on what major violations of international law will have, because Tel Aviv’s philosophy is to simply scream anti-semitism at retaliatory measures.
While a move of this nature would require an American greenlight, it isn’t exactly difficult to attain it from a Trump administration that has been dragged into a war of aggression against Iran, one that has run contrary to the strategic goals of the United States. Israel’s richest billionaire, Miriam Adelson, along with a who’s who of Zionist billionaires, bankrolled Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Adelson, who is close to the Israeli premier and owns Israel’s most distributed tabloid newspaper, threw her weight behind President Trump with the quid pro quo that he would enable West Bank annexation. Trump’s first term in office was also bankrolled by Miriam and her since deceased husband Sheldon Adelson, with the quid pro quo being the recognition of occupied Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital City.
Trump simply doesn’t know how to say no to Israel, which is why the refusal of Netanyahu to go through with the move at this time has to be due to certain limitations.
To begin with, the bill was proposed out of the blue, in a sense, and from a Jewish supremacist fanatic settler. Although MK Limor Son Har-Melech may be part of the coalition, she isn’t exactly someone who is pushing well-thought-through legislation. If a move of this nature is going to be taken, it will be more likely led by the prime minister or someone more significant in the Israeli government, with a carefully calibrated plan behind it.
The lowest stake response to a move of this nature would be a likely European move to punish the Israelis, as European Union member States agree upon the Two State solution consensus, adopted by the vast majority of the international community. Some speculate that sanctions could be triggered. Considering the lacklustre responses to Israeli crimes to date, lesser retaliatory measures would be more likely.
Then there comes the main reason why repealing the Oslo Accords comes with significant potential backlash, it has to be put down to the Palestinian popular response. Unlike many would expect, the chances for an immediate mass civil uprising in the West Bank are relatively low. Something that makes the move much more volatile.
Instead, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords would mean that the Israeli government would no longer recognise the configuration of the existing power-managing agreement inside the territory. The Palestinian Authority (PA) works as a subcontractor for the occupation forces, having limited security control in Area A of the territory and only administrative powers in Area B, while 60% of the territory – known as Area C – is under full Israeli occupation.
For the Israelis, this system has enabled the first-ever cost-free belligerent occupation, where the EU and other nations foot the bill that pays for the PA, as they continue to hold onto the majority of the West Bank and constantly inject more settlements. Meanwhile, the majority of the Palestinian population lives in Area A and B, meaning that the PA’s security and intelligence apparatus is responsible for policing them, coordinating with the Israelis when they seek to go after any Palestinian who seeks to resist.
If the Oslo Accords were scrapped, this means that the PA will become obsolete and will face imminent collapse. Israel currently controls the PA’s tax revenue and chooses when to release these funds to their Palestinian subcontractor, but if Oslo is nullified, they will no longer hand over the currency needed for the PA to function.
The Oslo Accords set up the Palestinian Authority as what was supposed to be a precursor to a government for a future State of Palestine, laying the groundwork for a five-year Israeli withdrawal from the territory. What happened instead is that the Israelis refused to withdraw, accelerated illegal settlement expansion; securing de-facto annexation of Area C. The PA was then forced into a gradual “reform” process, transforming it into a collaborator regime that is led by corrupted officials who are only allowed to remain in power for the purpose of serving Israel’s occupation.
Any collapse of the PA will mean that the Israeli occupation forces will be forced to occupy the major Palestinian cities, which will eventually trigger fierce resistance and require an enormous amount of manpower to handle. The Oslo Accords favoured the Israelis and ended the First Intifada, creating a buffer between the majority of the Palestinian population and the Israeli occupying army. If that is done away with, a dangerous reality will set in.
The Palestinian Authority has a security force that numbers up to 70,000 men. Due to family and tribal alliances, there is also an abundance of weapons inside the territory. If the PA collapses, there will be no restraint when it comes to retaliatory measures when certain families are subjected to Tel Aviv’s criminality.
Another enormous threat to the Israelis is the fact that their settlements are placed in and around the Palestinian population, enabling resistance factions to easily reach them and breach the security fences/walls. In the case of Gaza, the surrounding settlements were not quite as easy to reach. In addition to this, there are large contingents of religious extremist settlers who are armed and trained, who already take matters into their own hands, making for a deadly reality.
Although many Israelis despise the PA because they outwardly advocate for a Palestinian State and because they are seen as an entity that has been placed as a roadblock to further Jewish colonisation of the occupied West Bank, the Ramallah-based authority is actually protecting them. Without the PA and Oslo, the West Bank front will ignite in an unprecedented way.
____________
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
