Publication
Omar Shaban Ismail · Brookings · 2015
A 2015 Brookings commentary examining what Palestinian cancellation of the Oslo Accords would actually mean in practice. Shaban argues that beyond political symbolism, nullifying Oslo would dissolve the revenue transfer mechanism (70-75% of the PA budget), end security coordination, and collapse the legal framework for Palestinian governance — creating institutional chaos that falls disproportionately on civilians.
A 2015 Brookings commentary examining what Palestinian cancellation of the Oslo Accords would actually mean in practice. Shaban argues that beyond political…
The possibility of a Palestinian leadership decision to cancel or nullify the Oslo Accords has been discussed periodically since the agreements were signed in 1993, but the discussion intensified during the post-2014 war period when Palestinian frustration with the accords' outcomes reached new heights. This Brookings commentary examines what "canceling Oslo" would actually mean in political and practical terms.
The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority, defined its administrative competencies, established the framework for Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, and set up the economic arrangements (Paris Protocol) that govern trade and fiscal relations. Unilaterally declaring Oslo void would therefore not simply be a political statement — it would dissolve the institutional framework through which Palestinian governance operates.
The specific implications would be severe. Security coordination with Israel, which the PA's security apparatus depends on, would end. The Paris Protocol, which governs revenue transfers (clearance revenues) that constitute 70-75% of the PA's budget, would be voided. The legal framework that gives Palestinian security forces authority to operate in Areas A and B would collapse. In effect, the PA would be dismantling the institutions of self-governance that Oslo created.
This does not mean Oslo should be defended uncritically. The agreements have produced outcomes far from Palestinian aspirations: settlement expansion has continued and accelerated, Jerusalem's status has worsened, Gaza has been under siege, and the "interim" period intended to last five years has stretched past two decades without a final status agreement. Oslo's failures are real and documented.
But the question of what "after Oslo" looks like is more complex than the declaratory politics suggest. Without the revenue transfer mechanism, the PA cannot pay 150,000 civil servants. Without the security coordination framework, the military balance in the West Bank would shift toward a confrontation the Palestinian security forces are not prepared for. The political symbolism of canceling Oslo does not automatically produce better political outcomes. What it produces, in the immediate term, is institutional chaos that would fall disproportionately on Palestinian civilians.
Topic: Palestinian Economy — Oslo · PA · Security coordination · Paris Protocol — Text © Brookings — archived here with attribution to the source. — Original source