The Oslo Accord – Twenty Years On
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Former NHK Executive Commentator
September 18, 2013
The showdown over Syria seems to have robbed the media's attention away from the Middle East peace issue. It was on September 13, fully twenty years' ago, that the foundations for a negotiated peace were laid down by the signing of the Oslo Accord. The agreement was based on mutual recognition by the Israeli government and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as counterparties in the negotiations, and resulted in the establishment of the Palestinian interim self-government. The plan was to gradually expand the autonomous region while seeking a final solution to the tough issues facing Israel and Palestine, such as setting borders and dealing with refugees, within a five-year framework.
The peace process that began with the Oslo Accord has since come to a complete standstill in the face of a myriad headwinds that have blown its way: the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli ultra-rightist; the forming of a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu; the lackluster attempts at mediation by U.S. President Bill Clinton; the Palestinian armed uprising (Second Intifada); the death of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat; the rise of Hamas and the subsequent split between the "West Bank" and Gaza; declining interest in peace negotiations on the part of Israel, which had contained Gaza and was relieved by the dramatic decline in suicide bombings; and a rightward shift in opinion among the million or so new immigrants that poured into Israel from the former Soviet Union.
Over the years there have been intermittent proposals for "guidelines" premised on a process of direct negotiation between Israel and Palestine, such as that of the current U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is based on the recognition of an independent state of Palestine by the previous administration of President George Bush and the United Nations Security Council, and recommends the two sides to decide on a borderline through land swaps along the ceasefire line preceding the 1967 war. However, successive Israeli governments – most notably under Prime Minister Netanyahu – have accelerated the construction of settlements in the "West Bank," especially around Jerusalem, and 60% of the territory on the West Bank of the Jordan River has remained under Israeli occupation.
In its reluctance to return occupied territory, the Netanyahu government has frantically sought to turn the attention of the international community, and that of the U.S. government in particular, to the "threat of Iran's nuclear arms development, which is of vital interest to Israel." Following Russia's lightening proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, the Obama administration's stated intentions of launching a limited strike against Syria has been put on hold. Yet, Israeli newspapers have reported that even now AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the largest pro-Israel lobby in America, is continuing its efforts to convince the U.S. Congress into authorizing a military strike against Syria by the Obama administration to deter Iran’s nuclear arms development.
Yakob Rapkin, a Jewish history professor at Montreal University, once said that "the greatest existential threat to Israel lies not in Iran's nuclear capability but in the occupation policy that Israel itself has maintained in Palestine." Mindful of these words, I believe America should give serious consideration to the very roots of anti-U.S. sentiment that persists among the Islamic people, who are by no means all radical extremists.
In early summer this year, ahead of the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry commented on Israel's continued construction of settlements, stating clearly for the first time that the United States "views all of the settlements as illegitimate." President Obama has frequently mentioned "America's credibility" with respect to his planned limited strike against Syria. I would like to see that "credibility" verified in the context of the Middle East peace negotiations as well.
The Russian proposal of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control is expected to result in volatile developments in a new process of multilateral diplomacy. Is it premature to hope that by involving Iran, which has reportedly adopted a "softer approach" under President Hassan Rouhani, we could turn this into an opportunity to create positive change towards resolving Iran’s suspected nuclear arms development and the Palestinian issue as well?
Kentaro Hirayama is former Executive Commentator of the NHK.
The peace process that began with the Oslo Accord has since come to a complete standstill in the face of a myriad headwinds that have blown its way: the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli ultra-rightist; the forming of a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu; the lackluster attempts at mediation by U.S. President Bill Clinton; the Palestinian armed uprising (Second Intifada); the death of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat; the rise of Hamas and the subsequent split between the "West Bank" and Gaza; declining interest in peace negotiations on the part of Israel, which had contained Gaza and was relieved by the dramatic decline in suicide bombings; and a rightward shift in opinion among the million or so new immigrants that poured into Israel from the former Soviet Union.
Over the years there have been intermittent proposals for "guidelines" premised on a process of direct negotiation between Israel and Palestine, such as that of the current U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is based on the recognition of an independent state of Palestine by the previous administration of President George Bush and the United Nations Security Council, and recommends the two sides to decide on a borderline through land swaps along the ceasefire line preceding the 1967 war. However, successive Israeli governments – most notably under Prime Minister Netanyahu – have accelerated the construction of settlements in the "West Bank," especially around Jerusalem, and 60% of the territory on the West Bank of the Jordan River has remained under Israeli occupation.
In its reluctance to return occupied territory, the Netanyahu government has frantically sought to turn the attention of the international community, and that of the U.S. government in particular, to the "threat of Iran's nuclear arms development, which is of vital interest to Israel." Following Russia's lightening proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, the Obama administration's stated intentions of launching a limited strike against Syria has been put on hold. Yet, Israeli newspapers have reported that even now AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the largest pro-Israel lobby in America, is continuing its efforts to convince the U.S. Congress into authorizing a military strike against Syria by the Obama administration to deter Iran’s nuclear arms development.
Yakob Rapkin, a Jewish history professor at Montreal University, once said that "the greatest existential threat to Israel lies not in Iran's nuclear capability but in the occupation policy that Israel itself has maintained in Palestine." Mindful of these words, I believe America should give serious consideration to the very roots of anti-U.S. sentiment that persists among the Islamic people, who are by no means all radical extremists.
In early summer this year, ahead of the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry commented on Israel's continued construction of settlements, stating clearly for the first time that the United States "views all of the settlements as illegitimate." President Obama has frequently mentioned "America's credibility" with respect to his planned limited strike against Syria. I would like to see that "credibility" verified in the context of the Middle East peace negotiations as well.
The Russian proposal of placing Syria's chemical weapons under international control is expected to result in volatile developments in a new process of multilateral diplomacy. Is it premature to hope that by involving Iran, which has reportedly adopted a "softer approach" under President Hassan Rouhani, we could turn this into an opportunity to create positive change towards resolving Iran’s suspected nuclear arms development and the Palestinian issue as well?
Kentaro Hirayama is former Executive Commentator of the NHK.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
オスロ合意２０年
平山 健太郎 / 元ＮＨＫ解説主幹
2013年 9月 18日
シリアを巡る騒ぎに注目が集まり、中東和平問題はメディアにとって影が薄くなっている感があるが、その和平交渉の土台を作ったあの「オスロ合意」の調印から９月１３日で丸２０年になる。イスラエル政府とＰＬＯ(パレスチナ解放機構)が、互いに交渉相手として認知しあい、パレスチナの暫定自治を発足させた合意だ。暫定自治区を段階的に拡大しながら、境界線や難民の扱いなど、イスラエル、パレスチナ両者間の難問を５年以内に最終的に解決するはずであった。
ラビン首相のイスラエル極右分子による暗殺、ネタニヤフ政権の発足、クリントン調停の不調、パレスチナ側の武装蜂起(第二次インティファーダ)、アラファト議長の死、ハマスの台頭による「西岸」とガザの分離、ガザの封じ込めによる自爆テロの激減がもたらしたイスラエル側の安堵感とこれに伴う和平交渉への関心の低下、旧ソ連からイスラエルに流入した新規移住者１００万余人の右傾化・・・これらさまざまな逆風の中で.オスロ合意に基づく和平へのプロセスは、完全に停滞している。
ブッシュ米政権や国連安保理によるパレスチナ独立国家の容認、６７年戦争以前の休戦ラインを基礎に、必要な領土交換での境界線を決めるというオバマ現政権の勧告など、イスラエル、パレスチナ両者の直接交渉を前提にする「指針」が間欠的に提示されてはいるが、歴代のイスラエル政府とくにネタニヤフ政権による「西岸」とりわけエルサレム周辺での入植地の造成は加速され、ヨルダン川西岸の６０％がイスラエルの占領下におかれたままだ。
占領地の返還に消極的なイスラエルのネタニヤフ政権は、国際世論とりわけアメリカ政府の関心を、「イスラエルにとって致命的なイランの核兵器開発の脅威」に振り向けることに狂奔してきた。シリアの化学兵器を国際管理下におくというロシアの電撃的な提案を受け、オバマ政権が公言していたシリアへの限定的な攻撃計画が足踏み状態に入った今も、イスラエルの新聞は、アメリカ最大のイスラエル・ロビーであるＡＩＰＡＣ（アメリカ・イスラエル公共問題委員会）が、アメリカの議会筋に向け、イランの核開発を牽制するためにもオバマ政権によるシリア攻撃を認めるよう工作を続けていると伝えている。
「イスラエルの存続にとっての最大の脅威は、イランの核ではなく、イスラエル自体がパレスチナで続けてきた占領政策である」という、モントリオール大学のユダヤ人歴史学者ヤコブ・ラプキン教授の言葉を思い出しつつ、過激派ばかりでないイスラム圏の民衆が抱いている根強い反米感情のルーツに、アメリカは真面目に留意すべきだと私は考える。
ケリー米国務長官は、イスラエル・パレスチナ間の交渉再開に向けたこの初夏、イスラエルの入植地造成に関連し「占領地での入植はすべて違法（ＩＬＬＥＧＩＴＩＭＡＴＥ）である」と初めて明言している。シリアへの限定攻撃問題でオバマ大統領がしばしば口にした「アメリカのクレディビリティ」を、中東和平交渉の場でも立証してもらいたい。
シリアの化学兵器の国際管理を巡るロシア提案で流動化が予測される新しい多国間外交に、ロハニ新政権による「柔軟化」が取りざたされているイランをも巻き込み、イランの核兵器開発疑惑の解消やパレスチナ問題の解決についても、前向きの変化を生み出すきっかけになることを期待するのは早すぎるだろうか?
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹。）
ラビン首相のイスラエル極右分子による暗殺、ネタニヤフ政権の発足、クリントン調停の不調、パレスチナ側の武装蜂起(第二次インティファーダ)、アラファト議長の死、ハマスの台頭による「西岸」とガザの分離、ガザの封じ込めによる自爆テロの激減がもたらしたイスラエル側の安堵感とこれに伴う和平交渉への関心の低下、旧ソ連からイスラエルに流入した新規移住者１００万余人の右傾化・・・これらさまざまな逆風の中で.オスロ合意に基づく和平へのプロセスは、完全に停滞している。
ブッシュ米政権や国連安保理によるパレスチナ独立国家の容認、６７年戦争以前の休戦ラインを基礎に、必要な領土交換での境界線を決めるというオバマ現政権の勧告など、イスラエル、パレスチナ両者の直接交渉を前提にする「指針」が間欠的に提示されてはいるが、歴代のイスラエル政府とくにネタニヤフ政権による「西岸」とりわけエルサレム周辺での入植地の造成は加速され、ヨルダン川西岸の６０％がイスラエルの占領下におかれたままだ。
占領地の返還に消極的なイスラエルのネタニヤフ政権は、国際世論とりわけアメリカ政府の関心を、「イスラエルにとって致命的なイランの核兵器開発の脅威」に振り向けることに狂奔してきた。シリアの化学兵器を国際管理下におくというロシアの電撃的な提案を受け、オバマ政権が公言していたシリアへの限定的な攻撃計画が足踏み状態に入った今も、イスラエルの新聞は、アメリカ最大のイスラエル・ロビーであるＡＩＰＡＣ（アメリカ・イスラエル公共問題委員会）が、アメリカの議会筋に向け、イランの核開発を牽制するためにもオバマ政権によるシリア攻撃を認めるよう工作を続けていると伝えている。
「イスラエルの存続にとっての最大の脅威は、イランの核ではなく、イスラエル自体がパレスチナで続けてきた占領政策である」という、モントリオール大学のユダヤ人歴史学者ヤコブ・ラプキン教授の言葉を思い出しつつ、過激派ばかりでないイスラム圏の民衆が抱いている根強い反米感情のルーツに、アメリカは真面目に留意すべきだと私は考える。
ケリー米国務長官は、イスラエル・パレスチナ間の交渉再開に向けたこの初夏、イスラエルの入植地造成に関連し「占領地での入植はすべて違法（ＩＬＬＥＧＩＴＩＭＡＴＥ）である」と初めて明言している。シリアへの限定攻撃問題でオバマ大統領がしばしば口にした「アメリカのクレディビリティ」を、中東和平交渉の場でも立証してもらいたい。
シリアの化学兵器の国際管理を巡るロシア提案で流動化が予測される新しい多国間外交に、ロハニ新政権による「柔軟化」が取りざたされているイランをも巻き込み、イランの核兵器開発疑惑の解消やパレスチナ問題の解決についても、前向きの変化を生み出すきっかけになることを期待するのは早すぎるだろうか?
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説主幹。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟