You want Oslo included in the October 7 probe? Be careful what you wish for
The Israeli government, under whose watch the horrific massacre of October 7 took place, is rightly terrified of an independent national commission of inquiry committed to pursuing the truth, free from political pressure. Instead, the government seeks a committee of its own creation. As part of this outrageous move, Prime Minister Netanyahu convened a ministerial team on Monday to determine the commission’s scope. Netanyahu insisted that the inquiry must include an examination of the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Other members of this team have already voiced their opinion that the Oslo Accords must be investigated as the supposed original sin that led to this terrible disaster. In their view, Palestinian aspirations center only on Israel’s destruction; therefore, the “naïve” Oslo initiative led inevitably to the catastrophe.
Raising these claims within what is gearing up to be a political whitewash committee is clearly intended to divert blame from Netanyahu and his ministers. However, pointing the finger at Oslo may prove to be a boomerang that turns the accusers into the accused. Opening a debate on Oslo’s role in the October 7 disaster will expose the Right to a counterargument:
The profound Israeli strategic failure at the heart of October 7 does not lie in the Oslo Accords, but in their systematic sabotage by right-wing governments that chose to promote a diametrically opposed ideology.
Anyone who views Oslo (1993) as the ideology that led to the disaster (2023) is implicitly asserting that had Israel avoided the “sin of Oslo” and adhered to the Right’s counter-ideology, the disaster would have been averted. In other words, the Right’s ideological alternative was supposed to be the force capable of preventing the October 7 massacre.
Was it?
The 30 years between the signing of the Oslo Accords and the October 7 massacre were mostly spent under right-wing rule. A bewildered Israeli public might ask: Should the commission then convict Netanyahu and his colleagues of criminal negligence for failing to erase every trace of that “loathed” agreement born in Oslo?
3 decades of anti-Oslo ideology
The reality, of course, is different. In the three decades since Oslo, right-wing governments achieved significant results in implementing their anti-Oslo ideology. While they did not officially declare sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel, they deeply entrenched the occupation, expanded settlements, and established dozens of outposts in the heart of dense Arab populations. They worked tirelessly to prevent any future possibility of partitioning the land and weakened the moderate Palestinian camp that was open to compromise.
While the Oslo architects viewed Hamas as the primary threat to their vision, the disciples of the anti-Oslo ideology ensured Hamas was funded and strengthened. This was done to guarantee a deep internal Palestinian rift, crush the standing of any peace-seeking Palestinian partner, and block any chance for diplomatic negotiations or a compromise-based settlement.
Abandoning the Oslo ideology left Israel with a policy that empowers Palestinian extremists, weakens moderates, rejects territorial compromise, and thus perpetuates conflict and bloodshed. Those who define control over the entire Land of Israel as their highest principle consciously condemn Israel to perpetual conflict. Consequently, they must be prepared for the inevitable: endless rounds of confrontation. The October 7 massacre was one of them – the most brutal and cruel of all – but it was not the first, and sadly, it will not be the last.
Palestinian terrorism is a despicable crime, but fighting it effectively requires pairing a diplomatic path with the military fist. In the absence of a political horizon, any young Palestinian who feels humiliated under Israeli occupation becomes a candidate for recruitment by terror organizations. The Oslo path offered a different alternative: a horizon for Palestinian independence, a chance for national dignity, and an incentive to prefer a historic compromise over bloodshed. When right-wing governments extinguished this hope, they did not diminish terrorism; they fed it.
It is important to emphasize: the Oslo path was not born of “bleeding-heart” sensitivity to Palestinian rights or a tormented conscience. It was a cold calculation of realpolitik, seeking to serve a clear Israeli interest: security, peace, and the preservation of Israel’s Jewish and democratic character. It stemmed from the understanding that prolonged control over another people does not bring security; it generates violence and erodes the norms upon which Israeli society is built.
The guilt of the right-wing governments that blocked every peace-settlement initiative is twofold. First, they knowingly destroyed the potential within the Oslo approach to end the violent conflict. Second, they acted with gross negligence, ignoring the inevitable outcome of their anti-Oslo policy. A government whose path is to “live by the sword” should have been ten times more meticulous in its defensive preparations and its rigorous oversight of the IDF and the various security agencies toward the “next round,” which, by its own logic, is always coming.
The whitewash committee under formation will, of course, ignore arguments that crack the Right’s conventional talking points. But anyone seeking to trace the ideological roots of the disaster must examine how decades of policy aimed at eliminating any political horizon, empowering extremists, and blocking any possibility of an agreement helped produce a reality in which Israel is locked into an endless war with no escape. From the perspective of Israel’s actions, the conceptual failure behind the October 7 disaster is not found in Oslo, but in a campaign led by right-wing governments, with the assistance of Hamas, to deliberately collapse Oslo.
