Which 'Two-State Solution' was Acceptable to the 'Oslo Process'?

When considering the key elements of the Israeli stance regarding the anticipated global recognition of a Palestinian state next month (September), the author of this text referenced last week the issue that the ruling Israeli right uses the position of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the context of its declaration rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, which is defined as having adopted a "two-state solution" approach.

This right-wing faction points out that during the Oslo process, Rabin insisted, until his assassination, that its path would not lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, nor to Israel's withdrawal to the borders of June 4, 1967. This was emphasized in a pamphlet issued in early 2019 by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, which called, albeit implicitly at the time, for annexing Area C of the West Bank, and is revisited these days by those who note that everything that has happened in Israel and the Middle East since the 'Flood of Al-Aqsa' operation on the morning of October 7, 2023, should not be ignored under any circumstances. Establishing a Palestinian state within 1967 borders with its capital in Jerusalem, under the new circumstances, will be considered, in the view of every Palestinian, a direct result of the war that broke out that morning, and "Yahya Sinwar will be regarded as greater than Saladin."

Of course, the Israeli right does not deny that Rabin wanted to end the control over Palestinians in the territories occupied since 1967 and remained committed to this goal; however, it simultaneously rejected the notion that this path would lead to a withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is also noted that Rabin's vision was not based fundamentally on ideological motives but rather on military-strategic dimensions.

There are many documents relating to this aspect of Rabin's vision and embodying it, the most notable of which is his last speech in the Knesset when he presented the "Oslo B" agreement for approval on October 5, 1995. In this speech, he outlined the principles he deemed essential and non-negotiable concerning a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which are: not withdrawing to the 1967 lines; insisting on a unified Jerusalem within its broad scope, including the settlements of Givat Ze'ev and Ma'ale Adumim; retaining the Jordan Valley as Israel's eastern security border; and defining the Palestinian state that the Palestinians would have as "a political entity less than a state." This definition represents, for the Israeli right, not only evidence of Rabin's rejection of the two-state idea but he literally spoke of "a (Palestinian) entity that is less than a state, managed independently in affairs of the Palestinians living within it." Recalling these phrases would exempt their user from any interpretive effort.

Moreover, the Israeli narrative, which has become consensus, claims that Rabin's effort to end the Israeli control over the Palestinians was fully realized.

It all began in May 1994, with the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Palestinian population centers in the Gaza Strip and transferring control over the place and its inhabitants to the newly formed Palestinian Authority. Then, following Rabin's assassination, Israel withdrew its military forces from populated areas in the West Bank — Areas A and B. On January 20, 1996, elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council took place, and shortly after, the civil administration and military rule in the aforementioned areas were canceled and replaced with a coordination and communication office. According to the same Israeli narrative, since that date, particularly after the redeployment in Hebron in January 1996, over 90% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank has been "under Palestinian control and not under Israeli occupation!"