On the anniversary of the Oslo Accords... 30 years of insistence on an approach to failure

Although the conclusions have become completely clear, attempts to justify the signing 30 years ago are still present, either through the saying (it was not possible to be better than it was) or the saying (self-preservation after the changes of the early nineties). As for the sentence that gained a large presence in the defense propaganda Regarding the signature, it is (there is no alternative), knowing that the alternative was present strongly (the popular uprising in 1987) and was aborted by carrying the bags and heading to Madrid and then for the secret negotiations in Oslo. They aborted the alternative and then said: Where is the alternative? The aim of the article is not to discuss and refute these statements/sentences, but it can quickly be said: Self-preservation does not mean rejecting resistance, giving up 78% of our homeland, recognizing the legitimacy of the Zionist entity, and creating a rift in the unity of the people, because what will be left of (the self) after all of this? ? Unless what is meant by “themselves” is “themselves” of the dominant leadership elites who have come to fear for their existence, privileges, and political influence, especially with the rise of the power of the Islamic movement in the early 1990s.

However, those who follow the justification approach will have nothing to say about the results of the past thirty years because they are disastrous by all standards, and it is not possible to turn away from them and deny them as if they do not exist. In terms of the decline in the status of the national cause globally, which we achieved through the sacrifices of the resistance and our people, the massive increase in the number of settlers in Jerusalem and the West Bank until it exceeded 750 thousand settlers, the dull and unaccounted weight of the Palestinian leadership in the political movement, the (economy) subordinate and attached to the entity’s economy, the economic and political structures. The security created by Oslo, which has a functional role in serving the Zionist occupier, is the fragmentation of the Palestinian people, the official approval of the division of its unified political geography, the destruction of its unity, and many other things that cannot be denied.

Despite all this, the organisation’s institutions, which are supposed to represent it historically, such as the National and Central Councils and the Executive Committee, did not stop just to review this approach that brought our people to this position, even with minimal discussion. On the contrary, over the course of 30 years, despite the disastrous results, the same structures and the same approach were reproduced. That is, everything that led us to these results.

At the structural level
The negotiation was secret, carried out by five leaders behind the back of the organization’s institutions, and even behind the back of the Central Committee of the Fatah movement. Then, after preparing everything, including the signature, the National Council was called after (shuffling) its membership by adding hundreds of new members to ensure the result, and they were asked to Vote. After that, it can be said that the organization’s institutions have entered the stage of disintegration, to the point of non-existence. They are not actually present in the political decision, which continues to be the decision of a team that does not exceed the fingers of one hand, and even if any of the organization’s institutions takes a decision, it will throw ashes in the eyes to absorb popular anger. Of the type (withdrawal of recognition of Israel) or (cessation of security coordination), it has become known that it was ink on paper and was not implemented, as if it never existed in the first place. It is the same approach: say what you want and do what I want.

It can be said that in exchange for the Zionists' recognition of the organization as a legitimate representative, the organization in return effectively erased itself as a representative when it erased the National Charter, recognized the legitimacy of the Zionist entity, and renounced violence, so there is no problem then for the Zionists to officially recognize it and act with it as if it does not actually exist, which it is.

The most miserable result on this level is that the institution of authority has replaced the institution of the organization, and the institution of authority is formally and effectively, and in reality as expressed by the Oslo Accords: the authority of limited administrative self-rule, and it does not matter here what names the authority calls itself, what is important is who has the decision and the hand. The tallest in the end, and the story of the dispute over the title of President or (Chairman) is well known. The effects of this replacement can be felt in the marginalization of the 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora. With the disintegration of the organization’s institution, these millions no longer have an institution that expresses them, whether on the national, social, or daily service levels. The natural result was the initiative to establish national structures that would carry out this necessary task in the absence of the organization. However, the Oslo Authority institution is attacking these initiators and questioning their patriotism.

A pattern of substitution was achieved over the course of thirty years: the institution of limited administrative self-government replaced the institution of the organization, while a narrow team replaced the institution of the administrative government authority. They came into being as a narrow team and are now also leading the stage as a narrow team. Nothing has changed. The same team, and the same decision-making mechanisms, have been reproduced by reproducing the same dismantled structures, which indicates a clear approach to the desire to liquidate what expresses a phase that has passed and ended, according to the Oslo team.

In terms of approach
This is what the political approach based on negotiation has brought us to, and nothing but negotiation. As for talking about (popular resistance), it is only intended as a required Oslo-based alternative to armed resistance, knowing that the armed Palestinian resistance now is popular with the masses rallying around it, and the proponents of this approach do not hide it. Their position is explicitly declared (peaceful resistance).

It is not correct to consider that the negotiation approach did not achieve anything, as is sometimes said as a critical stance towards this approach. Rather, it achieved a lot: it destroyed the PLO and its institutions, gave the Zionist entity everything and only took power with a functional security role, and created the historical division between the ranks and forces of our people, and put the issue Nationalism is isolated from the agendas of international attention. This is what he achieved, and despite the negativity and disastrousness of what was achieved as a result of this approach, he succeeded, consciously or not, in achieving everything that the Zionist entity aspires to. It is no wonder that Peres considers the Oslo Accords to be the second historical achievement after the establishment of their state. He achieved their second historic achievement and a national catastrophe for us.

This leadership is still betting on the same approach after 30 years of failure, with a strange insistence that only reflects a lack of will. At one time, they bet on reviving the Arab initiative, which is considered a gateway to an Arab demarcation by recognizing the entity and public normalization with it, and at another time on the success of an Israeli team, such as Bild and Gantz, that recognizes it as a negotiating team, and this team responds that there is no Palestinian party, and at another time they bet on Trump’s departure and the arrival of Biden, and the latter responds to them. He licked all his promises before the elections: re-moving the embassy, opening the organization’s offices in America, reviving negotiations, and now all the betting, running, and counting is behind getting some crumbs from the Saudi-Israeli public normalization deal that America seeks, crumbs of the type: redisbursing the Saudi grant, disbursing the money. Detained from the Zionists, reviving political negotiations, transferring lands from Area C to Area B, and other demands that fall within the scope of pleading to a leadership that has lost any influence. However, the sources confirm the Americans’ position: Your demands are exaggerated and cannot be achieved, while the Zionist sources point to the slim hopes of reaching public normalization as a result of the Zionists’ rejection of Saudi demands for advanced weapons and a peaceful nuclear program.

For 30 years, this leadership has not given up its insistence on the same negotiating approach that achieved everything for them and caused catastrophic damage to our national cause, until, in detail, their negotiating approach became nothing more than a patronizing approach that reflects weakness and defeat, not the will to challenge and resist. Once again: nothing has changed. The same approach is reproduced repeatedly and achieves only the achievements it achieved for the Zionists and the disasters it achieved for us.

And yet, despite all of that, the alternative to all of this exists on the ground and inspires optimism and points to the right path. Unified structures of resistance are established on the ground, and the resistance is digging the road with strength and solidity, and with a mass rally that the Zionist occupation has not succeeded in dismantling, and the conflict is returning to its reality after it was distorted by the entire Oslo phase, and the world. He returned to see the spirit and determination of our people to resist. The negotiation approach in Oued, the resistance approach in Oued, the institution of the disintegrated organization in Oued, and the structures of resistance in Oued. 30 years after Oslo: Our people are exercising on the ground their alternative option to Oslo.