A Guardian report says:

After a phone call with Biden on Tuesday, Netanyahu said that there was “disagreement” between the allies over “the day after Hamas”.

The Israeli leader said he hoped “we will reach agreement here” but he vowed not to “repeat the mistake of Oslo”, referring to the 1993 peace accords signed in the United States.

Has Netanyahu (or his party or his allies in the coalition government) ever outlined what "mistakes" were made by Israel in the Oslo Accords?

Comments have highlighted that Netanyahu also said:

After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers, I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism and finance terrorism. Gaza will be neither Hamastan nor Fatahstan.

and that explains his reasoning. This is even more confusing because by mentioning "Fatahstan" Netanyahu seems to be attacking Fatah / PLO and indicating that he is considering changing one the major points of agreement of the Oslo Accord - recognition of Fatah / PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. If Netanyahu is now saying that he will not deal with the Fatah lead PA too, it effectively means breaking from the Oslo Accords for good - if that assumption is right, it's not at all clear why.

So, what is the political ideological opposition to the Oslo Accords that now Netanyahu seems to be publicly airing?

  • 2
    2 VTC on The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit. Giggles. This is Q asking the background for a political figure's statements and most of the Q consists of quoting what he said. I challenge close voters to explain themselves. After all, y'all can rally more people to the VTC cause by making a good case for it. Dec 16, 2023 at 19:44
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica the lack of prior research does not appear in reasons for closure of this SE, but the question is partially answered by the Netanyahu's next sentence, not quoted by Guardian, but easily googled: After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers, I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism and finance terrorism. Gaza will be neither Hamastan nor Fatahstan. , e.g., here Dec 18, 2023 at 10:02
  • @RogerV. You may perhaps understand what Netanyahu means in the second sentence, due to the knowledge you have on the subject. I don't, and in fact find it even more confusing because by mentioning "Fatahstan" Netanyahu now seems to be changing Israel's long established political position that it has been willing to deal with Fatah / PLO (now PA) as the representatives of Palestine. (Which, again, was established during the Oslo Accords). If Netanyahu is now saying that he will not deal with the Fatah lead PA too, it effectively means breaking from Oslo Accords for good and its not clear why.
    – sfxedit
    Dec 18, 2023 at 10:21
  • @sfxedit I tried to explain Netanyahu's position in my answer. I don't think he is changing it - but until recently he still behaved according to the existing accords (Oslo), whatever are his personal misgivings. His intentions in respect to Gaza are a clear departure from Oslo. Dec 18, 2023 at 10:44
  • @sfxedit Just to say that I am not suggesting closing this one - I think it is a useful question. And with the material you added it is also complete. Dec 18, 2023 at 12:14

2 Answers 2


If you're talking strictly about what Netanyahu said...

Multiple Hebrew media outlets reported Monday evening that during a closed-door meeting of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Netanyahu said “the mother of all sins was Oslo — not the deal itself, but the fact that they took the most anti-Zionist element and brought it here from Tunisia to the heart of the land [of Israel].”

Essentially, he seems to include Fatah in that because next day he said:

"Gaza will be neither Hamastan nor Fatahstan,” he said on Tuesday.

Anyhow, the mention of Tunisia, where the PLO leadership had been based 1982-1994 is a rather obvious reference to the PLO leadership (and Arafat) being allowed back to Gaza in 1994, after Israel recognized them as representatives of the Palestinians during Oslo I. Technically speaking, the PLO is an umbrella organization, but Fatah plays a prominent role in it. Arafat was both chairman of the PLO (1969-2004) and leader of the Fatah (1959-2004), according to Wikipedia.

  • Note: I've updated the Q in response to the criticism it got.
    – sfxedit
    Dec 18, 2023 at 12:26

Has Netanyahu (or his party or his allies in the coalition government) ever outlined what "mistakes" were made by Israel in the Oslo Accords?

The question seems like an attempt to associate all of Israel with Netanyahu's view. A more precise formulation would be about what Netanyahu considers as the mistakes made by Israel in the Oslo accords.

Some history
It is necessary to point out that Netanyahu's first prime-ministership took place in 1996-1999, immediately following the Oslo accords and the intifada unleashed by Palestinian groups (including Hamas):

Netanyahu's victory over the pre-election favorite Shimon Peres surprised many. The main catalyst in the downfall of the latter was a wave of suicide bombings shortly before the elections; on 3 and 4 March 1996, Palestinians carried out two suicide bombings, killing 32 Israelis, with Peres seemingly unable to stop the attacks. During the campaign, Netanyahu stressed that progress in the peace process would be based on the Palestinian National Authority fulfilling its obligations–mainly fighting terrorism—and the Likud campaign slogan was, "Netanyahu – making a safe peace". However, although Netanyahu won the election for prime minister, Peres's Israeli Labor Party received more seats in the Knesset elections. Netanyahu had to rely on a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and UTJ in order to form a government.

Netanyahu's misgivings about the Oslo process were made known already then:

A spate of suicide bombings reinforced the Likud position for security. Hamas claimed responsibility for most of the bombings. As prime minister, Netanyahu raised many questions about many central premises of the Oslo Accords. One of his main points was disagreement with the Oslo premise that the negotiations should proceed in stages, meaning that concessions should be made to Palestinians before any resolution was reached on major issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, and the amending of the Palestinian National Charter. Oslo supporters had claimed that the multi-stage approach would build goodwill among Palestinians and would propel them to seek reconciliation when these major issues were raised in later stages. Netanyahu said that these concessions only gave encouragement to extremist elements, without receiving any tangible gestures in return. He called for tangible gestures of Palestinian goodwill in return for Israeli concessions. Despite his stated differences with the Oslo Accords, Prime Minister Netanyahu continued their implementation, but his Premiership saw a marked slow-down in the peace process.

Notably, Netanyahu signed the Hebron protocol, which saw withdrawal of the Israeli Army from the key areas of the West Bank and their transfer to the Palestinian authority:

Netanyahu first met Palestinian President Arafat on 4 September 1996. Prior to the meeting, the two leaders spoke by telephone.[62] The meetings would continue through Autumn 1996. On their first meeting, Netanyahu said: "I would like to emphasize that we have to take into account the needs and the requirements of both sides on the basis of reciprocity and the assurance of the security and well-being of both Israelis and Palestinian alike." Arafat said: "We are determined to work with Mr. Netanyahu and with his government." The talks culminated on 14 January 1997, in the signing of the Hebron Protocol. The signing of the Hebron Protocol with the Palestinian Authority resulted in the redeployment of Israeli forces in Hebron and the turnover of civilian authority in much of the area to the control of the Palestinian Authority.
enter image description here

It is necessary to note that Hebron's Cave of Patriarchs is the second holy place in Judaism after Jerusalem, and is also holy for Muslims:

Netanyahu's position today
Netanyahu's position today is not much different. The full quote on which the OP is based explicitly says it:

“Yes, there is a disagreement when it comes to ‘the day after Hamas,’ and I hope we will come to an agreement here too,” Netanyahu adds. “I want to clarify my position: I will not allow Israel to repeat the mistake of Oslo.”

“It can’t be that after the enormous sacrifice of our citizens and fighters, we will let into Gaza those who teach terror, support terror, finance terror,” the prime minister adds, an apparent reference to the idea of the Palestinian Authority ruling Gaza. “Gaza will not be Hamas-stan nor Fatah-stan.”

His misgivings about the Palestinian Authority are expressed as:

"Oslo was the mother of all sins. The difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is only that Hamas wants to destroy us here and now, whereas the PA wants to do it in stages. We cooperate with them against Hamas when it serves both their interest and ours, and up to a certain limit. We decided several months ago that we do not want them to collapse so that Hamas does not rise up in Judea and Samaria as well," he said.

Beyond Netanyahu
It is now generally acknowledged that the Oslo accords were failed, as they linked together many issues, which could have been resolved separately one by one:

But critics say the accords had a fundamental flaw – the guiding principle that “nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”

That was meant to encourage negotiators to be fearless. Instead, it linked the two most difficult issues — Jerusalem holy sites and Palestinian refugees — to those where progress was made.

The critics on both sides tend to stress the points where the other side didn't live up to its commitments. The Palestinians point out that Oslo didn't demand from Israel to immediately stop building settlements, while Israel charges that the Palestinians never seriously tried to stop the terror - whether one things that killing people is an appropriate response for taking land is, as they say nowadays, "depends on the context" - perhaps it is okay in Texas, but certainly not in New York.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .