Israeli Minister Calls Oslo Accords 'Damned', Reigniting Peace Debate

The handshake that once symbolized hope is now under attack. Thirty years after Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn under Bill Clinton's watchful eye, an Israeli minister has branded the Oslo Accords "damned" and called for their complete cancellation.

This isn't just political rhetoric. The demand to scrap the foundational peace agreement comes as Israel's war in Gaza drags on and Palestinian relations hit rock bottom. The timing suggests something deeper: a fundamental shift in how many Israelis view the entire peace process.

The minister's comments reflect a growing sentiment within Israeli society that the 30-year-old framework has not only failed but actively harmed Israeli security interests. But tearing up Oslo would mean dismantling the legal foundation upon which all subsequent Middle East peace efforts have been built.

Why Now? The Context Behind the Call

The Oslo Accords established mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), creating the framework for Palestinian self-governance and eventual statehood. But three decades later, both sides harbor deep grievances about unfulfilled promises.

Israeli hawks argue they gave too much for too little—granting Palestinian autonomy that eventually became a launching pad for attacks. Palestinians counter that the promised state remains a mirage while Israeli settlements have tripled since 1993. The October 7thHamas attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis, and the subsequent Gaza war that has claimed over 30,000 Palestinian lives, have hardened positions on both sides.

For many Israelis, the current violence validates their skepticism about peace processes. Why maintain agreements with Palestinian leadership when Hamas controls Gaza and the Palestinian Authority struggles to maintain legitimacy in the West Bank?

Yet canceling Oslo carries enormous risks. The accords remain the international community's primary reference point for Middle East peace, endorsed by the United States, European Union, and United Nations. Unilateral withdrawal could accelerate Israel's diplomatic isolation.

International Stakes and Strategic Calculations

The timing couldn't be more precarious for Israel's international standing. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, while the International Court of Justice examines genocide allegations. Against this backdrop, abandoning peace agreements would hand critics powerful ammunition.

President Biden's administration, despite unwavering security support for Israel, continues advocating for a "two-state solution"—the very outcome Oslo was designed to achieve. European allies have grown increasingly critical of Israeli policies in occupied territories. Scrapping Oslo could strain these vital relationships further.

But domestic Israeli politics operates on different logic. Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition partners openly oppose Palestinian statehood, viewing it as an existential threat. For them, maintaining failed peace processes makes less sense than pursuing unilateral security measures.

The regional dimension adds complexity. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have made Palestinian statehood a prerequisite for full normalization with Israel. The 2020Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain demonstrated alternative paths to Arab-Israeli peace, but the Gaza war has reminded everyone that the Palestinian issue remains central to regional stability.

What Comes After Oslo?

Here's the problem: critics of Oslo haven't articulated a viable alternative. What replaces a flawed peace process? Permanent Israeli control over Palestinian territories? Forced population transfers? These options carry their own enormous costs and risks.

Some Israeli strategists envision managing the conflict rather than solving it—maintaining security control while allowing limited Palestinian autonomy. Others propose regional solutions involving Jordan and Egypt. But none of these alternatives address the fundamental aspirations driving both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism.

The international community would likely reject any unilateral Israeli moves to replace Oslo. China and Russia are already positioning themselves as alternative mediators, potentially filling any vacuum left by American-led peace efforts. This could reshape Middle East geopolitics in ways that don't favor Israeli interests.

The Peace Process Paradox

The minister's call to cancel Oslo reflects a broader paradox in peace-making: agreements often become casualties of the very conflicts they're meant to resolve. Every terrorist attack, every military operation, every civilian death erodes public faith in negotiated solutions.

Yet history suggests that abandoning peace frameworks rarely leads to better outcomes. The absence of dialogue doesn't eliminate underlying conflicts—it just makes them harder to manage. Without Oslo's institutional mechanisms, however imperfect, both sides would lose important channels for communication and coordination.

The economic dimension matters too. The Palestinian economy depends heavily on coordination with Israel, while Israeli businesses benefit from Palestinian labor and markets. Complete separation would impose costs on both societies, potentially fueling further instability.