Video 3.2: Failing negotiations about peace: Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the 1993 O

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has historically been regarded as the legitimate representative body of all Palestinians.
Yasser Arafat, who passed away in 2004, was the charismatic chairman of the PLO, symbolizing Palestinian resistance.
The PLO has engaged in diplomatic, political, and militant activities focused on the Palestinian right to self-determination.

In 1993, the PLO signed the Oslo Accords with Israel, creating a framework for the gradual transfer of power in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to a newly formed Palestinian Authority (PA).
The Accords were viewed as a historic breakthrough aimed at establishing a two-state solution: a future Palestinian state alongside Israel.

After signing the Oslo Accords, the legitimacy of the PLO among Palestinians significantly diminished.
The effectiveness of this agreement came into question, leading to the investigation of what went wrong and how it led to problems for the PLO.

The Palestinian Authority was created as a foundational institution for achieving statehood.
Pursuing statehood within the Oslo framework ultimately came at the expense of the Palestinian struggle for freedom.
The PA prioritized security to prove its governance capability and ensure Israeli safety.
This included sending about 150 Palestinian policemen into the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip.

Critics argue that the PA engaged in practices like arresting or intimidating individuals perceived as security threats, which undermined trust.
Allegations of political arrests, restrictions on freedom of expression, and force against activists emerged.
The majority of Palestinians questioned the PA's policing efforts in the West Bank, primarily when there was no tangible progress towards the promised Palestinian state.
Meanwhile, Israel continued its colonization efforts, building new settlements and reinforcing its presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, amid ongoing negotiations over minor issues.

The Oslo Accords perpetuated Israeli occupation while providing a facade of peace, facilitated by the Palestinian political leadership.
Ordinary Palestinians and commentators started viewing the PA as a subcontractor to the Israeli occupation.
The complexity of building a national authority through collaboration with a colonial entity was emphasized.
Ill-defined responsibilities of the colonial power contributed to further disenfranchisement of the colonized Palestinian population.

Governance has been characterized by a personal and authoritative style rather than democratic and participatory approaches.
Between 1993 and 2023, elections for the parliamentary and presidency positions occurred only twice.
A significant trust and legitimacy gap exists between the Palestinian populace and their leaders.
Concentration of power persists in the presidential position and affiliated security forces, leading to systemic corruption and structural authoritarianism.
Despite these issues, the PA leadership remains focused on maintaining the Oslo framework.

Palestinian political leadership under the Oslo Accords has led to greater fragmentation and weakness within Palestinian society.
The aspirations for statehood, equality, justice, and freedom have retreated further from reach.
To address and reverse the structural deficiencies of the Oslo Accords, a shift towards accountability and a people-first paradigm is necessary.
Palestinians must reinvent their political systems to cultivate a democratic, inclusive, and legitimate leadership.
There is a call to redefine peace, emphasizing outcomes of accountability, justice, and equality while reclaiming its foundational meanings.

Next week, Peter Malcontent will explore themes of apartheid and the viability of a two-state solution.