The Oslo Accords (the Accords) consist of the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo-I), and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo-II). Oslo-I was borne out of a serious of secret peace talks conducted first by academics, and later by members of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). The two parties reached a series of compromises wherein Israel promised recognition and self-government to the Palestinians in return for recognition of Israel and an end to terrorism. Oslo-I also called for an interim period, at the end of which there would be a permanent settlement based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 242 and 338. Oslo-II dealt with several issues in a more concrete manner, such as security, civil affairs, economic relations, inter-state cooperation, and the release of Palestinian political prisoners. Importantly, the Accords left contentious issues of East Jerusalem, settlements, …show more content…
He announced that there would be a united Jerusalem, inclusive of settlements in East Jerusalem, and that the majority of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank would remain under Israeli control. Rabin also spoke to the ambiguous nature of Oslo-I, making it clear that it had left many important issues up for debate, and that the open-ended nature of the document was in fact a victory for Israel. Rabin did not indicate in his speech that these would be negotiable at a later stage, but rather presented it as an unequivocal, enduring victory for Israel. The fact that it was a victory for Israel demonstrates that the peace was not between two equal parties. The fact that Rabin felt obliged to ‘sell’ it to Israel, obscuring compromises, demonstrates that neither was it between a victor and a vanquished enemy. Thus, Oslo-I was an outworking of the hegemonic peace process between the two