Press Release - 2 October 1995
Analysis of Oslo 2 Agreement Reveals
Several Changes From Previous Accords
The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement
on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, signed in
Washington last week, is an extensive and
complicated document. To contribute to a fuller
understanding of the agreement, which has come
to be known as the Oslo 2 Accord, Peace Watch is
publishing this background analysis. Though not
an exhaustive survey, this paper does highlight key
points in the agreement that differ from previous
accords. In addition, it notes several points in the
Oslo 2 agreement where changes were expected, but
were not carried out. Peace Watch will shortly
publish an
in-depth analysis of the Oslo 2 agreement.
Eight Noteworthy Changes in the Oslo 2 Accord
Establishment of a Palestinian Executive
Authority
Although both the Declaration of Principles
(DOP) and the Gaza-Jericho Agreement established
one body which contained both legislative and
executive authorities, Oslo 2 sets up two separate
bodies, one legislative (the Palestinian Council) and
one executive (the Executive Authority). In
addition, the DOP did not mention an office of
'head of the Palestinian Authority', but Oslo 2
establishes a directly elected "Ra'ees" who has
powers greater than that of the other members of
the Executive Authority, including the right to
choose the members of the Executive Authority.
Israel No Longer Has Veto Over
Palestinian Legislation
The Gaza-Jericho Agreement provided for an
Israeli veto over proposed Palestinian legislation;
under that agreement, any such legislation would
not take effect until it was approved by a legislation
committee composed of an equal number of
Palestinian and Israeli representatives. In practice,
although the PA passed a number of new laws, the
above mentioned clause was disregarded and no
laws were submitted for the approval of a joint
Palestinian-Israeli committee.
Oslo 2, while stating that legislation which is
inconsistent with the provisions of the agreement
shall be void, and requiring that all legislation be
communicated to Israel, removes the Israeli veto
which existed before; Israel can only 'refer for the
attention of the Legal Commitee' any legislation it
objects to. The committee has no power to prevent
legislation from taking effect.
Palestinians in Jerusalem May Vote in the
City Itself
Oslo 2 provides that residents of Jerusalem
will vote in the elections in Jerusalem, candidates
who are residents of Jerusalem and other towns in
the West Bank may stand for election, and
Palestinian election campaigning may take place in
the city of Jerusalem. Although the principle of
participation in elections by residents of Jerusalem
was part of the DOP, all of the above mentioned
details were in dispute until Oslo 2.
No Firm Deadline for Elections
The DOP established a target date for
Palestinian elections, 13 July 1994, which was not
met. Oslo 2 does not establish a firm deadline for
elections, providing only that they take place 'at the
earliest practicable date following the redeployment
of Israeli forces'. It is also significant that the
decision on the date of elections is in the hands of
the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, who
presumably will himself be a candidate in the
elections.
PLO Must Win Formal Approval of
Changes in its Covenant in the PNC
In previous agreements, the PLO undertook
to submit for formal approval the necessary
changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
There was no deadline set for this action, and the
PLO was required only to submit the changes for
approval, without guaranteeing the outcome of the
vote. The Gaza-Jericho Agreement specifies that the
PLO would submit the changes for approval at the
next meeting of the Palestinian National Council
(PNC), but no fixed date was set.
Oslo 2 sharpens the PLO's obligations in two
respects. First, it commits the PLO to convene the
PNC (which is an internal PLO organ) within two
months of the inauguration of the elected
Palestinian Council. Second, under Oslo 2, the
PLO's obligation to submit changes in the Covenant
has been strengthened to include a commitment to
win formal approval of such changes. It should be
noted that the requirement that the PNC be
convened two months after the inauguration of the
elected Council is dependent on other factors for
which no firm deadline yet exists, specifically the
date of Palestinian elections and the inauguration
of the elected Council.
Despite proposals that had been made,
according to which the elected Palestinian Council,
rather than the PNC, would vote on changes in the
Covenant, Oslo 2 reaffirms that it is the PNC which
must effect the changes in the Covenant.
Enlargement and Expansion of the
Palestinian Police
Oslo 2 changes a number of provisions
which appeared in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement
regarding the Palesinian Police. Under the Gaza-
Jericho Agreement, the Palestinian Authority was
permitted to deploy a total of 9,000 policemen in
Gaza. Under Oslo 2, the number of policemen
permitted in the Gaza Strip is raised from 9,000 to
18,000, and the Palestinians are allowed to deploy
12,000 additional policemen in the West Bank.
The clause raising the number of policemen
permitted in Gaza is actually a retroactive approval
of a fait-accompli, as the Palestinians exceeded the
number of police allowed under the Gaza-Jericho
Agreement and have already deployed 18,000
policemen in Gaza. The number of weapons and
armoured vehicles permitted the Palestinian Police
in Gaza remains the same as it was under the Gaza-
Jericho Agreement, despite the fact that the number
of policemen permitted is doubled.
Another change in Oslo 2 is the expansion of
the Palestinian Police to six branches from the
original four (placing the requirements on the
Palestinian Police more in accordance with the de
facto reality).
More Specific Steps Against Terrorism
The Gaza-Jericho Agreement committed
both sides to take 'all measures necessary' in order
to prevent acts of terrorism, but did not specify all
of the steps required in order to achieve that aim.
Oslo 2 details more of the steps necessary, though
not all. Specifically, it requires the Palestinian Police
to 'act systematically against all expressions of
violence and terror', to 'arrest and prosecute
individuals who are suspected of perpetrating acts
of terror' and to confiscate any illegal arms (this last
requirement was only implicit in the Gaza-Jericho
Agreement). Oslo 2 also requires both Israel and the
Palestinians to apprehend, investigate and
prosecute perpetrators and all other persons directly
or indirectly involved in acts of terrorism, violence
and incitement. In addition, the Israeli veto on who
may serve in the Palestinian Police has been
strengthened.
Released Prisoners May Return to Their
Homes Throughout the West Bank
The Gaza-Jericho Agreement required Israel
to release 'about 5,000 Palestinian detainees and
prisoners' within 5 weeks of the signing of the
agreement. Oslo 2 relates to the release of prisoners
by criteria rather than by quantity.
Oslo 2 requires Israel to release Palestinian
prisoners in three stages, but only the first stage is
tied to a specific time limit (the release must take
place on the signing of the agreement). The second
stage is to take place prior to Palestinian elections,
and there is no time limit set for the third stage. No
minimum number of released prisoners is set;
instead categories of those to be released are
established.
In addition, in contrast to the Gaza-Jericho
agreement which required released prisoners from
the West Bank to remain in Jericho, Oslo 2 permits
all released prisoners to return to their homes
throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Five Subjects Not Changed in the Oslo 2 Accord:
Transfer of Terror Suspects Between the PA
and Israel
The issue of transfer of suspects between the
PA and Israel was in dispute in the weeks prior to
the signing of Oslo 2, with elements within both
the Israeli government and the PA differing
significantly in their interpretation of some of the
clauses relating to the transfer of suspects in the
Gaza-Jericho Agreement. Despite this, virtually no
changes were made in the provisions regarding
transfer of suspects in the Oslo 2 agreement. No
amendments were made to clarify whether those
who committed crimes before the signing of the
Gaza-Jericho Agreement are liable to be transferred,
nor were changes made to address the issue of
whether the PA may detain a suspect in order to
prevent his or her transfer to Israel.
Palestinian Gun Licensing
Despite speculation that provisions for
Palestinian gun licensing would be changed, given
that the PA issued licenses for rifles and automatic
weapons in violation of the Gaza-Jericho
agreement, Oslo 2 re-affirms the Gaza-Jericho
provisions on licences for pistols only. No mention
is made concerning Palestinians holding PA
licences already issued for rifles and automatic
weapons. Oslo 2 does grant a one month grace
period for those holding unlicensed weapons to
apply for licences. It also specifically permits Israelis
to carry licensed weapons. There was no explicit
mention of this in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement,
which led to some minor altercations between
Palestinian Police and Israelis.
Palestinian Authority Institutions in
Jerusalem
There has been an ongoing dispute between
the Palestinian Authority and Israel
concerning the presence of PA institutions in
Jerusalem. Israel has argued that the Gaza-Jericho
Agreement permits PA institutions to operate only
in the areas of Gaza and Jericho, thus barring such
institutions from operating in Jerusalem. The
Palestinians have asserted that the secret letter sent
by Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to his
Norwegian counterpart guaranteed that Palestinian
offices which operated in the city prior to the
signing of the DOP would be allowed to continue to
function.
The Oslo 2 accord does not further clarify the
issue. It states that all official Palestinian offices will
be located within the territory under Palestinian
control in the West Bank and Gaza.
Provision for Safe Passage Routes
The Gaza-Jericho Agreement provided for
safe passage routes to be established permitting
Palestinians to travel between Gaza and Jericho.
These safe passage routes were never opened by
Israel. Despite this, Oslo 2 repeats the same basic
commitment to the existence and operation of safe
passage routes between Gaza and the West Bank,
with very minor changes.
The PLO, not the PA, Signed the
Agreement
Despite speculation that Oslo 2 would be
signed by the Palestinian Authority, rather than the
PLO, since the PA is an already existing entity and
all of the Palestinian negotiators were PA
employees, Oslo 2 followed the precedent set by all
previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, and was
signed by the government of the State of Israel, and
the Palestine Liberation Organization.
* For more information, please contact Ziv
Hellman at 02-617-726, or via beeper 02-294-666
#39784.