There is neither sincerity nor truth in the maxim "Sanctity of Contracts" as far as the Oslo
agreement is concerned. The only thing true about Oslo is, that its honest implementation is
impossible, and any attempt at strict compliance will necessarily bring the agreement to an
immediate end. Paradoxically, our Prime Minister is in the position of having to forgive any major
Arab violation as the only way to save the agreement from extinction. He does not do this, of
course, for the love of Oslo, but simply has no choice but to knuckle under to American
pressure. Giving in under duress may be unavoidable, but still it should not be crowned with the
halo of sanctity.
TERMS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE TO FULFILL
* Arafat promised in the Interim Agreement to "../...exercise (his) powers and
responsibilitiespursuant to this agreement with due regard to internationally accepted norms and
principles of human rights and the rule of law".
Had Israel made it known that it would cease to honor the agreement as long as Arafat did not abide by the Rule of Law or respect Human Rights (as regards his own people!) - this would have been the end of Oslo.
Moreover, it is Israel that would be blamed, and by whom if not by the Israeli stalwarts of Human Rights?
* In the agreement, the Palestinian Authority pledged to - "abstain from incitement, including
hostile propaganda../... and../... take legal measures to prevent such incitement by any organization,
groups or individuals../..." and to "ensure that their../... educational systems contribute to peace../... and
refrain from the introduction of any motifs that could adversely affect the process of
In fact, the Palestinian Authority makes use of the frequencies and stations which Israel gave to them, as well as the schools built by us - in the same manner as it uses the rifles and machine-guns we gave them - to fire venom, incitement and hatred, to indoctrinate the coming generation to "liberate" all the country from us. This pernicious use of their media was made public only apropos the violent attacks by the Palestinian "police", but this is an ongoing phenomenon, hidden persistently from the public by Israel's own hostile media.
Should Netanyahu try to make them abide by these commitments, the Oslo agreement would surely explode. Again, all the world would condemn not the Arab violations, but Israel's insistence on compliance.
"RE-DEPLOYMENT" IN HEBRON EQUALS HOW MANY VIOLATIONS OF OSLO?
There is nothing like Oslo-Hebron to illustrate the self-destructive potential of this agreement, activated whenever an attempt is made to impose the "Sanctity of Contracts" principle on the Palestinian side.
The fulfillment by Israel of its commitment to introduce the Palestinian "police" into
Hebron automatically triggers the following breaches:
../... a total of up to 400 policemen, equipped with 20 vehicles and armed with 200 pistols and 100
rifles for the protection of (the) stations".
Relying on experience from police stations established in Area B, the number of personnel,
weapons and vehicles will largely exceed the stipulated numbers. The vehicles will be stolen from
Israel. Israeli inspections of those police-stations to confiscate surplus arms and retrieve the stolen
cars would be potentially more explosive for Oslo than ten tunnels in Jerusalem.
Only thanks to the license Israel has given to Arafat to break the Oslo agreement's most
fundamental commitments is this agreement still alive, albeit a life "nasty, brutish" and most
probably also "short". Any conceivable additional security measures in Hebron- from Separation
Zones to mixed patrols to limiting the use of rifles - will quickly evaporate. Israel will do nothing,
for fear of being accused of scuttling the agreement. There is only one stipulation of any value:
Freedom of operation for the IDF in all parts of the town.
THE VIOLATIONS - MORE HOLES THAN CHEESE.
According to the Interim Agreement, the rifles in the police-stations of area B are designated
only "for the purpose of guarding the police-station". Only in special cases may the rifles be taken
outside the stations, but even this only after prior notification given to the District Coordination
Office. It goes without saying that Arafat flouts all these restrictions. Israeli insistence on
enforcing them would kill the agreement.
And there is still the unamended Palestinian Charter, the illegitimate drilling of wells, the
infiltration of at least 100,000 persons into the area in breach of the agreement. Imagine an Israeli
Prime Minister sending forces into the villages to remove all of those who entered the country as
visitors or students for a few weeks or months. Such a measure would not only sabotage Oslo - a
war would break out ! Enough for Netanyahu to discontinue the fulfillment of the agreement on
our part until Arafat himself deports the illegal infiltrators - to create a complete stalemate, with
Israel being accused of bad faith. To sum up in the spirit of George Orwell in his unforgettable
book "1984": Oslo - its keeping (by the Jews) is in its violation (by the Arabs).
CRUTCHES FOR OSLO : LIMITATIONS OF SETTLEMENT
More proof that "Sanctity of Contracts", coming from the Prime Minister, is indeed a hollow
mantra can be adduced by studying his settlement policy.
The Prime Minister does not tire to stress - rightly so - that there is not one word in the Oslo
agreements which prohibits or restricts Jewish settlement. But if this is so, why did he freeze
this settlement? Why did he promise not to erect new settlements and why was the Defense
Minister authorized to supervise restrictively even the development of existing settlements, at
five different, bureaucratic stages to implement the Rabin-Peres doctrine of allowing only "natural
Because massive settlement, as promised by Candidate Netanyahu to his voters, would cause the
Arabs to abrogate the Oslo agreement forthwith. No matter, that such abrogation would be in
violation of the Oslo agreement, which does not interdict settlement. Here again, Netanyahu
perseveres in keeping the "Sanctity of Violation" on the part of the Palestinians. One is
reminded of the old anecdote about a man with a huge hat who stubbornly refused to take it off
"out of principle". But the "principle" was no more than his bald head. It is not the worn out
Latin sentence, brought into circulation by Menahem Begin and recycled by Netanyahu - "Pacta
sunt servanda" ("Agreements must be kept") that motivates him, but the American whip.
Let He Who Kept International Commitments Come and Throw the First Stone
There is another principle in international law, that international obligations are made "Subject
to the Prevailing Circumstances" ("Rebus Sic Stantibus" ). Serious changes in circumstances
sometimes entail changes in treaties, even their suspension. For illustrations, let us first look at
our dear neighbors.
The United States, which preaches to us from above like an impatient teacher to a
retarded child, is hardly in the position to lecture us on the sanctity of its own obligations.
Consider the following:
The dubious distinction to have committed the "Mother-of-all-Violations" goes to Great Britain, to which the Land of Israel was entrusted in the form of a Mandate, literally, a Power of attorney, actually - in trust. By the terms of this trust, England was obligated to the League of Nations to establish in Palestine "a Jewish National Home", also to make use of state land to facilitate dense Jewish settlement. Ultimately, the state lands
Britain gave to the Arabs and in the White Paper of 1939 it stopped almost completely Jewish
immigration and settlement, preparing the ground for a Palestinian state. The English could have
claimed in defense that conditions had changed since 1920. Facing the impending WW2 England
needed the Arab world. Nevertheless, this was a base, cynical violation, closing the gates of a
"National Home" while this home's nation was being slaughtered before their eyes, five full
years. England should be the last to preach to the remnants of this exterminated nation anything
about the "Sanctity of Contracts".
Many treaties in history were side-stepped, one time or another, most often not by express repudiation, but by tacit non-compliance. When it comes to vital national interests, to questions of life and death, nations generally do not treat treaties rigidly, ritually, or dogmatically. Therefore, the almost ritual conjuration of the "sanctity" of the evil that is Oslo, is not only a mixture of self-delusion and self-destruction, it is also a mockery. One day it will be said of the Jews, mistaken in the past as clever and
intelligent, that they proved themselves to be the suckers of the world.
OSLO - CONCEIVED IN SIN, BORN IN ILLEGALITY
And then there are the dubious circumstances under which those agreements came into being.
This is, maybe , the first time in history that a state signs an international instrument with a
terrorist group, so designated by its statutes. It is also unheard of that an international treaty is
made and signed when the mere contact with the other party constitutes an offense against the
law. Indeed, talks or meetings with the PLO were strictly forbidden by the "Order for Prevention
of Terrorism" at the very moment in which the "Declaration of Principles" (Oslo A) was signed.
In other words, the begetting of this agreement was tainted , its birth - illegitimate.
Furthermore, the world never saw a state making an alliance with a party, whose constitution
calls for its destruction. Isn't the "liberation" of all Palestine from the Jews the very heart of the
PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) Charter? Didn't Arafat, only a day or two before the
September 1996 riots, make clear again his intention "to kill and get killed" for all Palestine?
How can you ally yourself to a body whose life depends on your death? Doesn't the life of the
cancer mean the person's death and vice versa ? This was the reason why the rescission of the
Charter, which defines the PLO as exterminator of the Jewish State was made a fundamental
condition to the validity of the Oslo agreement. But the Charter was not changed .
NETANYAHU AND THE "SANCTITY OF OSLO"
If, in spite of all the foregoing, Netanyahu did not make the annulment of the Charter a condition
precedent to further "honoring" the agreement on his part, first and foremost by evacuating
Hebron - how does he dare to invoke the "Sanctity" of keeping contracts? On the contrary, it
is he, Netanyahu, who presides over the nonfulfillment of Oslo by his new "partners", the terrorist
authorities, who does not keep the promise he made to his nation, to insist on "reciprocity".
We have had more than enough of his tragicomic posing, having "lost confidence" in Arafat, but being ready to accept one more solemn promise in consideration for Hebron, for further stages of "re-deployment" - ending in 1997 by giving up all of Judea-Samaria, etc! As if Netanyahu ever believed Arafat , as if he believes now that this time his signature on a new check, drawn on an account known to be non-existent,
has any chance of being honored.
Netanyahu's demonstration of loyalty to Oslo sounds hollow and lacks credibility for yet another
reason, which is that the Oslo agreement itself constitutes a breach of promise by the Labour
party to its voters and to the people - not to negotiate with the PLO and not to allow the
establishment of a Palestinian state, which was knowingly made inevitable by the negotiators of
Another shadow is cast on Oslo by its ratification in the Knesseth by a majority, of which the Arab
delegates were the decisive component, it being well known that their loyalty lies with Arafat
and their national interest collides with the Jewish national interest.
On this background Netanyahu committed himself to his voters to accept only the static,
established facts created by Oslo, excluding further, dynamic, steps to execute the Interim
Agreement to its end. After all , if Netanyahu, like Peres, is committed to the full execution of
Oslo , why vote for him in the first place ?
In the final analysis, Netanyahu himself, by further carrying on the Oslo agreement, violates the
"Sanctity" of his pledge made to his voters and to the nation.
The punishment for such a breach of truth will be sure to come. Never will Netanyahu win
the support of the Left. On the contrary, they will heap scorn on him - and rightly so -
for having gone their way. On the other hand, his own voters and admirers, those who had
hoped to find in him a leader and a statesman, will surely abandon him, their hopes
All is not lost, yet . There is still some time left to take a firm and courageous stand, to
brave the all out onslaught , from without as well as from within, to behave like any
normal nation in the world.
Kiryat Arba 90100
Ramat Mamre P.O.Box 2066