Guardian op-ed by Avi Shlaim on Oslo’s failure erases Palestinians entirely from the story

Guardian contributor Avi Shlaim is an Oxford University anti-Zionist “historian” who’s been roundly criticized for his shoddy research and clear political biases and has characterised Zionism as the greatest single threat to Jews, blaming Israel – and not anti-Semites – for the upsurge of antisemitism throughout the world. 

Shlaim’s latest Guardian op-ed on the 25th anniversary of Oslo (“Palestinians still live under apartheid in Israel, 25 years after the Oslo accord”, Sept. 13), consistent with the denial of Palestinian agency seen in so much British media coverage of the region, manages to erase the actions of Palestinians, and the decisions of their leaders, almost entirely from the equation.

Shlaim places the blame for Oslo’s failure almost entirely on Benjamin Netanyahu, who he accuses of having ‘froze, distorted, subverted, and undermined’ the accords during his first stint as prime minister, and blocking peace talks with unrealistic demands during his second stint.  What Shlaim omits can consume volumes, but, for starters, he fails to note that Netanyahu’s government advanced Oslo by agreeing to major territorial withdrawals from the West Bank under the terms of the Hebron Agreement in 1997 and the Wye River Accords in 1998. 

However, even if Shlaim’s criticism of Netanyahu’s role in Oslo’s failure is on target, that doesn’t explain why he omits all facts which run counter to his desired narrative.  For instance, he completely ignores the role of constant Palestinian terror and incitement – and endemic antisemitism – in the two and a half decades since the iconic handshake between Rabin and Arafat on the White House lawn. Remarkably, the word terrorism is only mentioned once, and this is in the context of Shlaim’s claim that Netanyahu denounced the 1995 Oslo 2 Accords as a “surrender to terrorists”. 

Shlaim doesn’t write a single word about the 2nd Intifada, the five-year PA orchestrated campaign of violence that killed over 1,100 Israelis and arguably was the single biggest factor why much of the Israeli public soured on Oslo’s promise.  Nor does the Oxford historian so much as allude to multiple Israeli offers of peace – which would have created, for the first time in history, a sovereign Palestinian state – rejected by Palestinian leaders.

Olmert’s Peace Proposal in 2008

In over 1200 words of text in Shlaim’s column, there isn’t even once sentence so much as suggesting even the possibility that some Palestinian actions since 1993 may have been injurious to the peace process, providing yet another example of the one-sided, distorted and agenda-driven commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that Guardian editors consistently promote. 


Related Articles




5 replies »

  1. It seems that every week the Grauniad publishes another anti-Israel “op-ed”. Why is it that there are never any pro-Israel op-eds?

    It seems to me that there can only be two reasons: First, that there are no writers capable of putting Israel’s story into an op-ed in a clear fashion that even Guardian readers can understand, but second, maybe the “newspaper” refuses to publish anything like that that argues with its biases. I think it’s more than about time for op-eds to be written from a different perspective – let’s not call it even “pro-Israel”, let’s just say “including all the facts” – , and then demanding that they are printed.

    • When, if, you are a dogmatic, biased, unfair judge, you MUST avoid or deny all contrary evidence. A Jew and a Palestinian who somehow manage to love each other is ipso facto impossible, they say. The heart and soul are flatly denied, even murdered in cold blood.
      So this is where we are, most of you obviously in a more conflicted realm that I am, in Minneapolis. The lovely women are studying medical science and dancing, yes, in my apartment building, life goes on! Willkommen, aber im Wien before the looming mindlessness. mit Kunst und Kultur.
      Snow we must cope with, but why obstinate bias against Jews, or anyone else? What’s the point, General Dreedle?
      Adam is, in my opinion, continuing to do a righteous project, and with verve and intelligence. But really, why should this be necessary? Are art and music, science and chess, sport und spiel, drama and beautiful women NOT ENOUGH {He exclaimed!}, what the hell do you people, you bigots, you “haters” as the younger generation term that contagion, want? What is it that drives otherwise healthy,{ or mostly sound and healthy people}, bonkers, about Jews and Judaism? It surely is not their “fault,” they are some of the most creative & etc. etc. etc. humans on the planet? And so are we all, given the right setting — cosmically speaking, mind you!
      Possibly that’s the answer, such as it is. Too many people despise the life of the mind, and achievement, and even moral goodness and fairness, paradoxical as that sounds. Jews, like any morally and aesthetically people, LOVE those aims and goals, so, why, I ask again, rhetorically, is that a problem?
      We are going to survive and evolve out of this, or perish trying, and also have fun fun fun.
      That’s a Beach Boys song in case etc. etc. Google it, bubbeleh.