Time to Cancel the Oslo Process

We have long known that Oslo didn't lead to peace. But worse, it has become a prison for the Palestinians. It is time to reject its assumptions and demand full equality for Palestinians.

I vividly remember the signing on the White House lawn. Rabin, Peres, Clinton, and Arafat, starting what seemed like a new dawn for the Middle East, with smiles plastered on their faces. My mother warned that Israel was making a deal with the devil, and it would come back to haunt us. My school principal called together an assembly and told us that this was the beginning of a new era of peace. My mother was outraged and called the school. Turns out they were both wrong. There was no peace, and this was no triumph for Arafat. The only winner was Israel.

Thirty years after its signing, the Oslo Accords have not brought peace or Palestinian statehood. Instead, they have yielded a fragmented West Bank, relentless Israeli settlement growth, deep Palestinian political division, and a Palestinian Authority (PA) that functions mainly as a subcontractor for the occupation. The time has come to confront Oslo’s legacy honestly—and call for its end.

Oslo’s Promise: Temporary Divisions, Permanent Stalemate

The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three administrative zones:

• Area A (about 18%): PA civil and security control, covering most major Palestinian cities.

• Area B (about 22%): PA civil control, but Israeli security dominance, mostly smaller towns and villages.

• Area C (about 60%): Full Israeli civil and security control, including all settlements and most land suitable for development.

The division was meant to be temporary—lasting five years—during which further withdrawals would transfer most of Area C to Palestinian control. As Yitzhak Rabin told the Knesset in 1995, “We would like to see a Palestinian entity, which is less than a state, that runs the lives of Palestinians under its authority.” The idea was that, step by step, the PA would grow into a sovereign government.

Palestinian Expectations and Early Warnings

For Palestinian negotiators, the Oslo Accords were a painful but necessary compromise after years of struggle and isolation. They expected Israeli withdrawals would continue, settlements would be frozen, and the PA would transform into a valid government. As Nabil Shaath, a lead negotiator, said in 1994: “We have not given up our rights. Oslo is the beginning of ending the occupation, not its perpetuation.”

Yet some Palestinian leaders and intellectuals warned from the outset of the dangers. Haidar Abdel-Shafi, who led the Palestinian delegation at the Madrid conference, refused to attend the Oslo signing, calling it “a surrender, not a solution.” Hanan Ashrawi wrote, “We were asked to trust that power would be relinquished voluntarily. History teaches otherwise.” Edward Said’s critique was especially prescient: “Oslo is a Palestinian Versailles. It demobilizes us, fragments our land, and gives Israel the means to dominate us indefinitely.”

The Reality: Fragmentation and Settlement Expansion

The “temporary” divisions of Oslo became permanent. The PA now has full authority over only about 18% of the West Bank. In Area B, Israeli military incursions and arbitrary restrictions are routine. Area C has been treated by Israel as its own: over 450,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem), compared to about 110,000 when Oslo was signed. In East Jerusalem, another 220,000 Israeli settlers reside.

According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, the settler population in the West Bank grew every year since Oslo, by 4–5% annually on average, often outpacing population growth inside Israel itself. The UN reported that in 2023, Israel advanced plans for over 12,000 new settlement units in the West Bank, the highest annual figure on record. In the same year, more than 300 Palestinian structures were demolished in Area C, affecting over 1,000 people, including children.

The Israeli NGO B’Tselem summarizes: “Israel has created a reality in which Palestinians are forced into small enclaves, surrounded by settlements and infrastructure for Israeli use. This is not a temporary arrangement—it is the permanent geography of domination.”

From Temporary Control to De Facto Annexation

Over the last decade, Israeli governments have moved from viewing Areas B and C as temporary arrangements to treating them as effectively annexed territory. In Area C, over 98% of Palestinian building permit applications are denied according to the Israeli Civil Administration. Entire villages, such as Khan al-Ahmar and Humsa al-Baqai’a, have faced repeated demolition orders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly declared: “Israel will retain security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River, including the Jordan Valley and all settlements. No settlement will be uprooted.” In 2023, his government approved the legalization of previously unauthorized settlement outposts, a move condemned by the UN, the EU, and even the US State Department.

Settlement Violence and Forced Displacement

Israeli human rights groups, the UN, and international observers have documented a sharp increase in settler violence against Palestinians. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported over 1,000 attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property in 2023 alone—more than double the number in 2019. These attacks include arson, shootings, and the destruction of crops and homes. In many cases, the Israeli military is present but does not intervene, and prosecutions are exceedingly rare.

B’Tselem’s director Hagai El-Ad described the pattern: “Settler violence is not random. It is a tool used with the clear aim of taking over more Palestinian land. It happens with full state support.” In 2022, the UN Human Rights Council stated that “settler violence is part of a calculated effort to transfer Palestinian communities from their land forcibly.”

Manufactured Legitimacy

The Oslo Accords delegated responsibility for civil administration and policing in Areas A and B to the PA, allowing Israel to offload the burdens of direct rule while maintaining ultimate control over borders, resources, and security. The PA provides services, collects taxes, and—under Oslo’s “security coordination” clause—polices and sometimes suppresses its population.

As Edward Said warned: “The PA has become an instrument of indirect rule. It polices Palestinians, but has no real sovereignty. Israel can intervene at any time.” Internationally, the existence of the PA gives Israel cover: it claims that Palestinians have autonomy, when the reality is that the PA’s powers are tightly circumscribed and dependent on Israeli goodwill.

Divide and Conquer: Netanyahu’s Strategy

The persistent weakness of the PA is not accidental. Netanyahu’s governments have deliberately undercut the PA’s power and legitimacy. Israel has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues owed to the PA, creating frequent fiscal crises and undermining its ability to pay salaries. Israel has conducted repeated military raids into PA-administered territory, further eroding public confidence in the Authority.

Netanyahu’s strategy has also relied on deepening Palestinian political division. By tolerating and at times facilitating Hamas’s rule in Gaza, Israel has ensured that the Palestinian polity remains split, with no unified leadership. “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu reportedly told his Likud colleagues in 2019. “This is part of our strategy—to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from those in the West Bank.”

There have also been attempts to bypass the PA entirely by encouraging the rise of local clan-based leadership, especially in Hebron. The so-called “Hebron emirate” idea would see Israel deal directly with powerful families or militias, further fragmenting Palestinian political life and weakening any unified national project.

International Community: The Process Becomes the Goal

Oslo’s fatal flaw was its lack of enforcement. The international community—especially the US and Europe—has largely funded the PA and kept the “peace process” on life support, but rarely used its influence to restrain settlement expansion or punish violations. The UN Security Council has passed numerous resolutions condemning settlements and home demolitions, but these are routinely ignored.

As former US Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in 2016: “The two-state solution is in serious jeopardy. The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation.” Yet, despite such warnings, international policy has focused more on managing the crisis than on resolving its root causes.

Edward Said’s Warning: Oslo as a “Palestinian Versailles”

Edward Said was one of the most vocal and prescient critics of the Oslo Accords from the moment they were signed. He famously described the agreement as “a Palestinian Versailles,” drawing a parallel to the Treaty of Versailles after World War I—a treaty that many historians argue humiliated Germany and sowed the seeds for further conflict.

Said argued that Oslo was not a genuine peace agreement, but rather an instrument of Palestinian surrender that institutionalized fragmentation and weakened the national cause. He warned that Oslo would demobilize Palestinian society by creating the illusion of progress while freezing out the Palestinian diaspora from meaningful participation. This process, he said, would make it much harder for Palestinians to advocate for their rights in the long term.

In his own words: “This agreement is not a peace. It is an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles. It demobilizes us, freezes out the diaspora, and makes it harder to advocate for our rights.”

Said’s critique was rooted in several concerns. First, Oslo left the most contentious and fundamental issues—Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders—unresolved, postponing them indefinitely. Second, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) created a governing body that was dependent on Israel and lacked sovereignty, effectively making Palestinians responsible for managing their occupation rather than ending it. Third, Said and others feared that the Accords would legitimize and entrench the Israeli occupation rather than dismantle it.

Using Oslo To Transform The West Bank into Greater Israel

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the physical and demographic landscape of the West Bank has been fundamentally transformed—almost always to the detriment of Palestinian self-determination.

In 1993, when the process began, around 110,000 Israeli settlers were living in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. These settlements were concentrated mainly along the “seam” between Israel and the West Bank, with several major settlement blocs—like Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and Gush Etzion—already established but still separated from many Palestinian population centers.

By 2000, the number of settlers had doubled to over 200,000. Settlement construction extended deeper into the territory, and new outposts began to appear on hilltops overlooking Palestinian towns and villages. The settlement map no longer adhered to the periphery; it began to encroach on the very heart of the West Bank.

Over the next two decades, this expansion accelerated. By 2023, nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers lived in the West Bank. Settlement growth was particularly intense in Area C, which constitutes approximately 60% of the territory and encompasses almost all the land available for development. In East Jerusalem, the settler population reached over 220,000, fragmenting Palestinian neighborhoods and encircling the city’s historic core.

A dramatic increase in physical control measures accompanied this demographic shift. Israel constructed a vast network of roads and bypasses to connect settlements and to Israel proper, often cutting through Palestinian land and restricting movement between villages and cities. The number of military checkpoints and roadblocks ballooned; by the late 2000s, there were regularly more than 500 checkpoints, barriers, and other obstacles to Palestinian movement across the West Bank.

Palestinian life in Area C became almost impossible to sustain. Over 98% of Palestinian requests for building permits in this zone were denied, forcing families to build “illegally” and live under constant threat of demolition. Entire communities have been uprooted, while new Israeli construction proceeds with official approval and infrastructure support.

The impact on daily life and demography is stark. Today, only about 39% of the West Bank’s land is under direct PA administration—and even there, Israeli military incursions, arrests, and demolitions are common. The remaining 61% remains under complete Israeli control, much of it reserved for settlement expansion, military zones, or “nature reserves” closed to Palestinians.

Meanwhile, violence and intimidation have become regular features of rural Palestinian life. In 2023, the UN documented over 1,000 violent incidents by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property—a figure that has steadily risen in recent years. These attacks, combined with the threat of demolition and economic strangulation, have driven many Palestinians away from rural areas, consolidating demographic changes and making the dream of a contiguous Palestinian state ever more remote.

What began as a process to create the conditions for peace has, in statistical and geographic terms, produced something very different: a West Bank carved up by settlements, militarized boundaries, and a demographic reality that undermines the very possibility of Palestinian sovereignty.

What Would Canceling Oslo Look Like?

Canceling Oslo means rejecting the fragmented territorial and political reality the Accords created. It’s a decisive break from decades of managed autonomy and division toward a unified, uncompromising assertion of Palestinian rights.

Rejecting the Artificial Divisions

The Palestinian Authority (PA) would stop recognizing the Oslo-imposed divisions of Areas A, B, and C as legitimate boundaries. Instead, it would assert sovereignty over the entire West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza as a single, undivided territory. This means refusing to treat the fragmented enclaves as the limits of Palestinian jurisdiction.

Demanding Full Political Rights

The PA—or a successor unified Palestinian leadership—would demand full political rights for all Palestinians living in the historic land of Palestine. This includes the right to vote and participate equally in determining the political future of the territory, regardless of whether they currently reside in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Israel, or the diaspora.

Asserting the Right of Return

A central pillar would be a renewed and unequivocal demand for the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, a right enshrined in international law but ignored by Oslo and subsequent negotiations. This demand would challenge demographic and territorial realities shaped by decades of displacement and settlement.

Ending Security Coordination

Canceling Oslo would also mean ending the security coordination arrangements with Israel that have made the PA complicit in policing Palestinians under occupation. Instead, the PA would seek to build independent institutions focused on protecting Palestinian rights and resisting occupation.

International Diplomacy and Mobilization

On the diplomatic front, canceling Oslo would involve rallying international support to recognize Palestinian rights beyond Oslo’s limitations. This could include intensified appeals to the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and global civil society to hold Israel accountable for settlement expansion, occupation policies, and human rights violations.

Building Unity

Such a move would require unprecedented Palestinian unity—a political reconciliation between factions like Fatah and Hamas, and a broad-based movement representing Palestinians across the diaspora. This unity would be crucial to present a coherent front demanding justice and equality.

In essence, canceling Oslo means rejecting the confines of a flawed framework and reclaiming the full spectrum of Palestinian rights—territorial, political, and human. It’s a radical departure from decades of incrementalism, demanding courage, solidarity, and vision.

Shattering the Oslo Illusion

The tragedy of Oslo is not just in what it left undone—but in what it deliberately set in motion: a system designed to divide and weaken Palestinians, to confine them to fragmented enclaves, and to treat them as second- or third-class citizens in what increasingly resemble Bantustans.

Today, Palestinians must recognize that the path forward cannot rely on a process that has consistently undermined their rights and aspirations. The divisions between Gaza and the West Bank, the fragmentation of political leadership, and the acceptance of limited autonomy within imposed boundaries only serve to perpetuate occupation and dispossession.

True progress demands unity—across geography, factions, and generations. Palestinians must come together to reject the false promises of Oslo and demand full, equal rights under international law: the right to self-determination, freedom of movement, access to land and resources, and protection from violence and discrimination.

No longer can Palestinians accept being treated as a population to be managed, confined, or divided for the convenience of others. The lie of Oslo—that incremental, limited autonomy leads to eventual freedom—must be shattered once and for all.

Reclaiming dignity and justice means dismantling Oslo’s architecture of division and building a new framework grounded in equality, accountability, and genuine sovereignty. It is a monumental task, but one that is essential for Palestinians, but for peace and justice in the region.