The real feature of the agreement that was supposed to ensure its success was its ruin. A few years later, however, triggered by the brutal assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, all agreements were violated. The United States is convening this meeting in another attempt to revive the peace process. First, both sides are involved in disagreements. But after Clinton continued a marathon 21-hour session, Palestinians and Israelis agreed to what became known as the Wye River Memorandum. Commitments have been made to ensure the sincerity of the agreement, such as maintaining the status quo of the territory and maintaining Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, such as Orient House. By excluding Jerusalem and the settlements from the territories to be transferred to the Palestinians, the Israeli presence, including the army to protect them, would not change without a negotiated agreement. The agreements also preserve Israel`s exclusive control over the borders, airspace and territorial waters of the Gaza Strip. Oslo II, Article XII: While Peres had limited settlement construction at the request of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Netanyahu continued construction in existing Israeli settlements and presented plans for the construction of a new neighborhood, Har Homa, in East Jerusalem. However, it was far from the level of the Shamir government of 1991-92 and refrained from building new settlements, although the Oslo Accords do not provide for such a ban.  Housing construction before Oslo: 1991-92: 13,960, after Oslo: 1994–95: 3,840, 1996–1997: 3,570.  Repeated rounds of negotiations on a final status agreement, notably in 2000 with the Clinton parameters and in 2008 under Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, served to define the parameters of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. This would require both sides to make substantial compromises, but to offer both a viable sovereign state and the right to self-determination: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jewish Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Arab Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and a special arrangement in the Holy Basin to ensure religious freedom for all; Annexation of the main Jewish settlement blocs next to the Green Line in exchange for the exchange of equal lands; Removal of all other settlements in the West Bank; and to allow Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to settle in a new State of Palestine – not Israel.
If the Palestinians had not abandoned these offers in 2000 and 2008, two peoples would have settled behind secure borders in their countries of origin today. For example, during the months-long talks that led to the signing of the “implementation agreement” in Cairo in May 1994, he refused to discuss the practical details with his own negotiators (let alone the Israelis). Instead, his only concern was to obtain Israeli approval for Palestinian police and a flag to stand at the Jericho border crossing with Jordan, symbolizing the “sovereignty” he was sure would soon be fully realized. The controversy has surrounded Oslo from the moment it came into being. Two articles were published in the October 21, 1993 edition of the London Review of Books; Edward Said presented the case in the first. He called the agreement “an instrument of Palestinian capitulation, of Palestinian Versailles,” arguing that it ignored international legality and undermined the basic national rights of the Palestinian people. It could not promote true Palestinian self-determination because it meant freedom, sovereignty and equality, not eternal submission to Israel. Barak then unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon and returned to the Palestinian trail. At the Prime Minister`s insistence, Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000, where he, Barak and Arafat attempted to reach a final agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are different accounts of the reasons for camp David`s failure, but it is clear that despite Barak`s additional concessions across borders, Jerusalem, and whether Israel would recognize the “right of return” of Palestinian, Israeli and Palestinian refugees have remained deeply divided. The summit ended without an agreement; Clinton would blame Arafat for his failure. Exactly 20 years have passed since the signing of the Oslo Accords on the white house lawn.
For all their shortcomings and ambiguities, the agreements represented a historic breakthrough in the centuries-old conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. It was the first peace agreement between the two main parties to the conflict: the Israelis and the Palestinians. In fact, just days before the official signing of Oslo I, the two sides signed a “letter of mutual recognition” in which the PLO agreed to recognize the State of Israel (prior to this agreement, they considered the country contrary to international law since its founding in 1948), and the Israelis recognized the PLO`s role as the “representative of the Palestinian people.” After five weeks of talks between the two main negotiators — Saeb Erekat for the Palestinians; Gilead Sher for Israel – the two sides agree on a bold framework and timeline for the final peace agreement. It is signed by Arafat and Barak. Palestinian and Israeli delegations gather in Egypt in Sharm el-Sheikh to celebrate the fruits of the negotiators` efforts. As a confidence-building measure, Israel agrees to release 350 security prisoners in two phases. .