On September 13, 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles, which led to the signing of the Interim Agreement in September 1995. Known as the Oslo Accords, the agreements were based on the idea of gradualism. In the first phase, an interim period of five years, a Palestinian Authority would be established and gradually gain more areas of responsibility and authority over more territory. First, it would gain authority in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area, then over areas populated by Palestinians in the West Bank, which were defined as areas A and B, and later, over additional areas that are part of Area C, which remains under Israeli control. In tandem, negotiations would be held on a permanent agreement, to decide the issues at the heart of the dispute, including the settlements, borders, Jerusalem, security arrangements, and refugees.
In practice, the agreement was partially realized. A Palestinian Authority was established and was given responsibility for the day-to-day life of most Palestinians. However, no agreement was reached on a permanent solution to the conflict. Furthermore, instead of the gradualism being accompanied by confidence building between the parties, deep suspicions arose. This was due, first and foremost, to the wave of Palestinian terrorism of the 2000s, and due to the alarming precedent of Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip following the Israeli disengagement in 2005. At the same time, Israel has adopted a policy of expanding the settlements, even in the depths of the territory, and refrained from transferring additional territories from Area C to Palestinian control. Attempts to reach a permanent solution to the conflict have failed, and since 2014 no substantive negotiations have taken place.
In the thirty years that have passed, the promise that peace will bring security has proven empty. Countering this message is the claim that any territorial compromise and transfer of territory to the Palestinians will expose Israel to more security threats. In addition, those who embrace the Greater Land of Israel ideology and oppose any division of the land command more political power.
Israel is very comfortable having a Palestinian Authority that manages the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians and has no interest in directly controlling them again. Despite this, over the years it adopted a policy leading to the weakening of the PA. Beyond that, the lack of progress toward a final status agreement to end the conflict eclipses any horizon for the end of control over the Palestinians and deepens entanglement in the territory, which means evolution into a one-state reality. This reality challenges the preservation of the Jewish, democratic, and liberal values of the State of Israel. The Palestinian issue does not receive attention among the majority of the public in Israel due to a sense that there is no viable solution to the conflict. However, the prolonged ignoring of what is unfolding beyond the Green Line turns a blind eye to the direct connection that exists between the reality there and democracy within the State of Israel.
On September 13, 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles, which led to the signing of the Interim Agreement in September 1995. Known as the Oslo Accords, the agreements were based on the idea of gradualism. In the first phase, an interim period of five years, a Palestinian Authority would be established and gradually gain more areas of responsibility and authority over more territory. First, it would gain authority in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area, then over areas populated by Palestinians in the West Bank, which were defined as areas A and B, and later, over additional areas that are part of Area C, which remains under Israeli control. In tandem, negotiations would be held on a permanent agreement, to decide the issues at the heart of the dispute, including the settlements, borders, Jerusalem, security arrangements, and refugees.
In practice, the agreement was partially realized. A Palestinian Authority was established and was given responsibility for the day-to-day life of most Palestinians. However, no agreement was reached on a permanent solution to the conflict. Furthermore, instead of the gradualism being accompanied by confidence building between the parties, deep suspicions arose. This was due, first and foremost, to the wave of Palestinian terrorism of the 2000s, and due to the alarming precedent of Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip following the Israeli disengagement in 2005. At the same time, Israel has adopted a policy of expanding the settlements, even in the depths of the territory, and refrained from transferring additional territories from Area C to Palestinian control. Attempts to reach a permanent solution to the conflict have failed, and since 2014 no substantive negotiations have taken place.
In the thirty years that have passed, the promise that peace will bring security has proven empty. Countering this message is the claim that any territorial compromise and transfer of territory to the Palestinians will expose Israel to more security threats. In addition, those who embrace the Greater Land of Israel ideology and oppose any division of the land command more political power.
Israel is very comfortable having a Palestinian Authority that manages the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians and has no interest in directly controlling them again. Despite this, over the years it adopted a policy leading to the weakening of the PA. Beyond that, the lack of progress toward a final status agreement to end the conflict eclipses any horizon for the end of control over the Palestinians and deepens entanglement in the territory, which means evolution into a one-state reality. This reality challenges the preservation of the Jewish, democratic, and liberal values of the State of Israel. The Palestinian issue does not receive attention among the majority of the public in Israel due to a sense that there is no viable solution to the conflict. However, the prolonged ignoring of what is unfolding beyond the Green Line turns a blind eye to the direct connection that exists between the reality there and democracy within the State of Israel.