Former Peace Now Member Admits Oslo Was A Failure
September 13, 2008 marked the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords. From the Jerusalem Post (bold added by me):
“As a philosophy professor at the University of Haifa and an active member of Peace Now, [Yuval Steinitz] recalled that he went out that night with friends to celebrate the dawning of a new era for Israel.
But after two years, as the Palestinians armed themselves in the West Bank and suicide bombers began blowing themselves up in Israel, a disillusioned Steinitz came to the conclusion that instead of fostering peace, the accords that had held so much promise were actually leading Israel on a path to its demise.
“Oslo could have been right. I gave it a chance, but then I had to be a skeptic and reexamine my position. Then I felt that what we did was a terrible mistake,” said Steinitz.
“I realized that, to my frustration, we were giving up land for war and terror and incitement,” he said.
As the Palestinians continued with their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, he worried that “instead of a demilitarized Palestinian state we might end up with a militarized Palestinian state in the center of the country.”
Terror attacks on Israelis were at their highest following the signing of the Oslo Accords. It’s time that someone has finally admitted that the Oslo Accords, and the idea of giving up land for peace with a partner who was not committed to peace, was a mistake.
Unfortunately, not everyone has learned this lesson. The Annapolis Conference continues the principles of the Oslo Accords. And there are some, like Foreign Minister Uri Savir, who think they will work. From another Jerusalem Post article:
But Savir said the negotiations now taking place between the government and the West Bank Palestinians, as part of the Annapolis process begun in November 2007, were an extension of what began on September 13, 1993.
“It is either the continuation of Oslo or nothing,” he said.
“At the Annapolis Conference everything that was said was based on Oslo. That it took longer than we had hoped is a fact of life, but it is still the same process, even if there are some who would like to define it differently,” he said.
The JPost article goes on to describe Savir’s take on the US presidential elections:
He believes the peace process would be better served by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama than his Republican rival John McCain.
Obama, Savir said, would put more emphasis on foreign policy and an active American diplomacy. He would also make the United States more popular overseas and thus he could serve as a better broker for the process, Savir added.
Many of Obama’s foreign policy advisers helped US president Bill Clinton and knew the issues very well, Savir said.
Yet another reason not to vote for Barack Obama. He would continue the ineffective land for peace deals that led to more attacks in Israel. We saw the same thing happen after the 2005 Gaza Withdrawal.
Tags: Israel, Oslo Accords, Peace, Peace Now, Security, Terrorism, Two State Solution
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.