The Oslo Accords - A Clear and Simple History for the Jewish People

There are moments in history when a document, a handshake, or a political agreement changes the direction of nations.

For me, the Oslo Accords are one of those moments.

The Oslo process is often discussed through political arguments, headlines, and competing narratives. But before I decide what I think about Oslo, I want to understand what actually happened.

What were the Oslo Accords?

Why were they created?

Who signed them?

What did they establish?

And why do they remain such a significant and controversial part of modern Jewish and Israeli history?

As I look at these questions, I also want to remember something important: the Tanakh gives me a framework for thinking about Israel, Jerusalem, covenant, land, peace, justice, and the responsibilities of nations.

It does not give me a verse that says, "Oslo is right," or "Oslo is wrong."

Instead, it gives me principles through which I can think carefully about these questions.

What Were the Oslo Accords?

The Oslo Accords were a series of agreements between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1990s.

The process began with secret negotiations conducted in Norway.

The first major agreement was formally known as the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1993.

It became commonly known as Oslo I.

The agreement was signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, with U.S. President Bill Clinton participating in the historic ceremony.

The basic idea was to create an interim political arrangement.

Israel and the PLO recognized one another and agreed to begin a process intended to lead toward negotiations over permanent-status issues.

The agreement established the framework for Palestinian self-government in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But Oslo was not a final peace treaty.

That distinction is extremely important.

Why Did the Oslo Process Begin?

To understand Oslo, I have to step backward.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict had already lasted for decades.

There had been wars, terrorism, military occupations, uprisings, failed negotiations, international diplomacy, and enormous suffering on both sides.

The First Intifada, which began in 1987, intensified the pressure for a political solution.

At the same time, international circumstances were changing.

The Cold War was ending.

The Gulf War had reshaped regional politics.

The Madrid Conference of 1991 had begun a new period of direct negotiations between Israel and Arab representatives.

Yet the most significant breakthrough came through a different channel.

Secret Israeli-PLO negotiations began in Norway.

These discussions eventually produced the agreement that became known as Oslo I.

Oslo I: The 1993 Declaration of Principles

On September 13, 1993, Israel and the PLO formally signed the Declaration of Principles.

The ceremony took place on the lawn of the White House.

The image became one of the most recognizable political photographs of the twentieth century:

Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shaking hands.

President Clinton stood between them.

For many people, that handshake represented hope.

For others, it represented danger.

For still others, it represented a painful compromise.

The agreement created a framework for a transitional period.

During that period, Palestinians would receive limited self-government in specified areas.

Israel and the PLO would also negotiate further agreements.

The intention was eventually to address the most difficult permanent-status questions.

These included issues such as:

Jerusalem
borders
settlements
security
Palestinian refugees
permanent political arrangements

Those issues were not resolved by Oslo I.

They were deliberately left for later negotiations.

A Remarkable Political Change

One of the most significant elements of Oslo was mutual recognition.

The PLO recognized the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.

This was a dramatic change.

For decades, the PLO had been one of the principal organizations fighting against Israel.

Now Israel and the PLO were officially entering a negotiating relationship.

That did not mean that the conflict suddenly disappeared.

It meant that the parties had agreed to attempt a political process instead of relying exclusively on confrontation.

Oslo II: 1995

The second major agreement was signed on September 28, 1995.

It is commonly called Oslo II.

Its formal name was the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Oslo II went much further than Oslo I in establishing the practical arrangements for Palestinian self-government.

The West Bank was divided into three administrative categories:

Area A

The Palestinian Authority received extensive civil and security responsibilities.

Area B

The Palestinian Authority received civil responsibilities, while security arrangements involved both Israel and the Palestinian side.

Area C

Israel retained extensive authority, including responsibility for security and other matters.

This division became one of the most important legacies of the Oslo process.

The map of the West Bank today cannot be understood properly without understanding Area A, Area B, and Area C.

What Was the Palestinian Authority?

The Oslo agreements created the framework for the Palestinian Authority, often called the PA.

The Palestinian Authority was established as an interim governing institution.

Its purpose was to administer areas transferred to Palestinian control during the transitional period.

The idea was that this interim arrangement would eventually lead to permanent-status negotiations.

But the transition did not proceed as originally envisioned.

The temporary arrangements became much more enduring than many people expected.

Jerusalem Was Not Settled by Oslo

One of the most important points I want to remember is that Oslo did not finally determine the status of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was one of the issues reserved for permanent-status negotiations.

That matters because Jerusalem is not simply another political city for the Jewish people.

The Tanakh repeatedly places Jerusalem at the center of Israel's spiritual and national story.

David established Jerusalem as his capital.

"David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the City of David."

— 2 Samuel 5:7

Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem.

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel... to King Solomon in Jerusalem."

— 1 Kings 8:1

And the Psalms speak of Jerusalem with extraordinary affection:

"If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!"

— Psalm 137:5

For me, these passages make clear why Jerusalem carries such profound meaning in Jewish history and identity.

Whatever political arrangements are discussed, I cannot understand Jerusalem without understanding its place in the Tanakh.

The Land of Israel and the Tanakh

The Oslo debate also inevitably raises questions about land.

The Tanakh contains numerous passages concerning the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants.

God said to Abram:

"Lift up your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your seed forever."

— Genesis 13:14–15

The covenantal relationship between the people of Israel and the land is therefore deeply rooted in the Tanakh.

At the same time, the Tanakh repeatedly commands Israel to pursue justice and righteousness.

"Justice, justice you shall pursue."

— Deuteronomy 16:20

That creates an important biblical responsibility.

For me, recognizing the Jewish connection to the land does not eliminate the need to think seriously about justice, security, human life, and the treatment of other people.

The Tanakh requires me to care about both truth and justice.

The Hope of Peace

One reason Oslo attracted so much support was simple:

People wanted peace.

After generations of war and terrorism, many Israelis hoped that an agreement could produce a safer future for their children.

The Tanakh itself repeatedly expresses a longing for peace.

Psalm 122 says:

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem."

— Psalm 122:6

Isaiah gives an even greater vision:

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

— Isaiah 2:4

Peace is not an unbiblical desire.

Quite the opposite.

The Jewish longing for peace is deeply rooted in Scripture.

But the Tanakh also teaches that peace cannot simply mean ignoring truth.

The prophet Jeremiah warned against those who declared peace superficially:

"They have healed the hurt of My people superficially, saying, 'Peace, peace!' when there is no peace."

— Jeremiah 6:14

That verse gives me an important principle.

I can desire peace while still asking difficult questions.

The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin

The Oslo process suffered a devastating blow on November 4, 1995.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv by Yigal Amir, an Israeli extremist who opposed the Oslo process.

Rabin had been one of Israel's most important military leaders and had served as prime minister.

His assassination shocked Israel and the world.

It also demonstrated how deeply divided Israeli society had become over the peace process.

The tragedy reminds me of another principle from the Tanakh:

"You shall not murder."

— Exodus 20:13

Political disagreement does not give a person permission to take another person's life.

Oslo Did Not End the Violence

One of the greatest hopes surrounding Oslo was that terrorism and violence would decrease.

But violence continued.

There were devastating terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians during the 1990s.

There were also continued Israeli military responses and Palestinian violence.

The cycle of violence damaged public confidence in the process.

Many Israelis began asking a painful question:

Can territorial and political concessions produce peace if terrorism continues?

Others asked a different question:

Can there be lasting peace without addressing Palestinian national aspirations?

These questions remain deeply contested.

The Second Intifada

The Oslo process eventually collapsed into a much more violent period.

In 2000, the Second Intifada began.

The years that followed brought suicide bombings, shootings, military operations, Palestinian attacks, Israeli military actions, and enormous loss of life.

For many Israelis, the Second Intifada profoundly changed how they viewed the Oslo process.

The dream of a peaceful transition had become associated with fear and bloodshed.

For many Palestinians, however, the Oslo period was also remembered as a process that failed to deliver the permanent political solution they had expected.

The result was profound distrust.

Why Did Oslo Fail to Produce the Peace Many Expected?

There is no single answer.

Different people place responsibility in different places.

Some argue that Palestinian terrorism and rejectionism undermined the process.

Others argue that Israeli settlement expansion, military control, and the failure to provide a viable Palestinian political future undermined Palestinian confidence.

Others point to failures of leadership on both sides.

Still others argue that the structure of the Oslo process itself contained weaknesses because difficult permanent-status questions were postponed rather than resolved.

The historical reality is complicated.

I do not think I have to pretend that history is simple in order to learn from it.

What Happened to the Oslo Framework?

The Oslo Accords did not simply disappear.

Many of their institutional and territorial arrangements continued to influence Israeli-Palestinian relations.

The Palestinian Authority continued to govern portions of the West Bank.

Israel retained significant security responsibilities and control over other areas.

The division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C remained a central feature of the political landscape.

But the permanent-status agreement envisioned by the original Oslo process was never reached.

The temporary process became, in many respects, a long-term unresolved situation.

What Can I Learn From the Tanakh?

When I look at Oslo through the lens of the Tanakh, I find several principles worth remembering.

1. I Should Remember Jerusalem

Jerusalem has a unique place in Jewish Scripture.

"Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion."

— Psalm 48:2

Jerusalem's importance does not begin with modern politics.

Its significance stretches back thousands of years.

2. I Should Remember the Covenant

The relationship between God, Israel, and the land is repeatedly addressed throughout the Tanakh.

God tells Jacob:

"The land on which you lie I will give to you and your seed."

— Genesis 28:13

This biblical history should not be erased when discussing modern political agreements.

3. I Should Pursue Justice

Jewish attachment to the land does not give me permission to abandon justice.

The Torah commands:

"Justice, justice you shall pursue."

— Deuteronomy 16:20

Justice matters.

Truth matters.

Human life matters.

4. I Should Not Confuse Political Agreements With God's Covenant

This distinction is extremely important.

The Oslo Accords were political agreements made by human governments and organizations.

They were not biblical covenants.

The covenantal promises recorded in the Tanakh belong to the biblical story and cannot simply be equated with a twentieth-century diplomatic agreement.

A political document can change.

God's Word is another matter.

The prophet Isaiah says:

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever."

— Isaiah 40:8

Can I Want Peace Without Forgetting History?

Yes.

I believe I can love peace without surrendering historical memory.

I can recognize the suffering of Palestinians without denying Jewish history.

I can recognize Jewish suffering without denying the humanity of Palestinians.

I can desire security for Israel without celebrating suffering.

I can believe that the Jewish people have a profound biblical connection to the Land of Israel while still asking difficult questions about how people should live together.

And I can examine Oslo honestly without turning every historical question into a political slogan.

What Does the Tanakh Say About Peace?

One of my favorite biblical visions of peace comes from Isaiah:

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

— Isaiah 2:4

That is the kind of peace I ultimately long for.

Not merely a temporary political arrangement.

Not merely the absence of fighting.

But genuine peace.

The Hebrew prophets envisioned something far greater.

Isaiah describes a future in which righteousness and justice characterize the reign of the King:

"With righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth."

— Isaiah 11:4

That vision gives me perspective.

Human agreements are important.

Diplomacy matters.

Borders matter.

Security matters.

Leadership matters.

But the biblical vision of peace is ultimately larger than any single treaty.

A Simple Summary of the Oslo Accords

If I had to explain Oslo as simply as possible, I would say:

Oslo was an attempt by Israel and the PLO to move from conflict toward negotiated coexistence.

Oslo I — 1993

Israel and the PLO formally recognized one another and established a framework for Palestinian interim self-government.

Oslo II — 1995

The agreement expanded and detailed Palestinian self-government arrangements in the West Bank and Gaza and divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C.

Jerusalem

Its final status was left for later negotiations.

Borders

Final borders were not established.

Settlements

The settlement issue was left for permanent-status negotiations.

Refugees

The refugee issue was left unresolved.

Security

Security arrangements were established and continually negotiated.

Final peace

The permanent-status agreement envisioned by the Oslo process was never successfully completed.

Why Oslo Still Matters

The Oslo Accords remain important because they changed the political landscape.

They established direct Israeli-PLO recognition.

They created the Palestinian Authority.

They introduced the Area A, B, and C framework.

They changed the way Israel and the Palestinian leadership interacted.

They also changed how many Israelis and Palestinians thought about the possibility of political compromise.

But Oslo also became associated with profound disappointment, terrorism, political division, and the failure to achieve the final peace that many people had hoped for.

That complicated legacy is why Oslo still matters.