Why was Oslo I Accord so harsh or controversial?

Question

The Oslo I Accord was an attempt in 1993 to set up a framework that would lead to the resolution of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It was the first face-to-face agreement between the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). (Wikipedia).

As we know, this is one of the significant causes that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Israel was full of incitement towards Rabin at that time. Many people claim that the assassination led so the Oslo Accord would not be executed.

I have learned about this assassination fact, what happened and where it happened. In addition, I have tried to search in Internet what happened in this Oslo accord. Nevertheless, I don't understand besides of peace, what did say the accord. I would want to know why were people against the accord by each side. What were the consequences? What did the assassination stop of happening?

Answer 1

I think that Wikipedia article has an adequate description of the Oslo accord. The main point was the mutual recognition between Israel and PLA, a promise of PLA to stop violence against Israel, and withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza. This also implied that Israeli settlements had to be removed. Some people on both sides were against the accord. One of the results in the Israeli side was the assassination of Rabin. On he Palestinian side it was the revolution against the PLA, and establishment of Hamas government in Gaza. The net result is that Israeli troops were eventually withdrawn and settlements removed from Gaza, but violence against Israel did not stop, and the new Hamas government in Gaza does not recognize the accord.

Oslo accord was a temporary accord, it assumed further negotiations about Palestinian state and the status of Jerusalem. These negotiations failed. (See 2000 Camp David Summit).

Answer 2

Oslo was Israel recognising that Palestinians have some rights that the PLO were entitled to negotiate for them, agreeing for the Palestinian Authority to be set up and giving it some autonomy and control over parts of the west bank. The Palestinians recognised Israel and the 1967 borders while agreeing to negotiate a permanent border. Basically both sides signing up to the Two State Solution. Some Israelis did not accept handing over any of the west bank, some Palestinians against recognising Israel.

There was a lot of criticism on the Palestinian side that the framework let all the power in the Israeli hands. there were meant to be serious negotiation on permanent issues and further hand overs of areas of the west bank. there is a strong perception that it enabled the creation of butu-stans isolated Palestinian enclaves while Israel continues to expand it's settlements in the west bank. (100,000 before Oslo 350,000 now not counting Jerusalem another 300,000)

Both sides had a lot of internal propaganda for years building up a following for no compromise at all. Oslo came out of the blue part of the reason the talks worked is that they were hidden and the wider leadership let alone the publics were unaware of the talks or their substance. the solo agreements were a surprise. there were strong groups on both sides which were opposed.