Steven Erlanger has been writing about Israel for The New York Times for nearly 30 years. How can it be that he still doesn’t know what the Oslo Accords say?
Even before he was hired by the Times, Erlanger was writing about the Middle East for The Boston Globe in the 1980s. In early 1996—a little more than two years after the signing of Oslo I on the White House lawn—he became the Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent in Washington, and wrote plenty about America’s Middle East policy.
He even served as the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief from 2004 to 2008.
How, then, can one explain this egregiously erroneous statement in Erlanger’s Oct. 21 news analysis in the Times: “The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were supposed to lead to an independent Palestine.”
It’s not the first time he has made such a statement. In an article for the Times on November 24, 2023, Erlanger wrote: “Set up after the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority was intended as a temporary administration on the way toward an independent Palestinian state.”
Yet in reality, there is not one word in the Oslo Accords about a Palestinian state.
Oslo I—the agreement that was signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House Lawn in 1993—said in Article 1: “The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council, (the “Council”) for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement”—nothing about a state.
Oslo II, signed in 1995, used the exact same language in its Preamble. Again, there was no reference to a state.
And that was deliberate. Because when then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin presented Oslo II to the Knesset for ratification on Oct. 5, 1995, he directly addressed the question of a Palestinian state. He said he favored “a Palestinian entity … which is less than a state.”
Rabin then emphasized that “We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines,” and outlined a number of areas that should be within Israel’s borders in a final settlement. He said Jerusalem, under Israeli rule, should include suburbs such as Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev. He said the eastern border should be in the Jordan Valley. And he said Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar “and other communities” should be part of Israel.
Rabin’s position put him at odds with the advocates of a Palestinian state. They demanded that Israel return to the June 1967 lines. They demanded that a Palestinian state include all of those communities that Rabin mentioned should be part of Israel. And they demanded that the Old City section of Jerusalem, where the Temple Mount and Western Wall are located, also should be part of “Palestine.”
So, of course, the Oslo agreements could not refer to a Palestinian state. Rabin could not have asked the Knesset to ratify an accord giving up all the things he said he would not give up.
All of which leaves two possible explanations for Erlanger’s false statements in the Times about Oslo and Palestinian statehood. Both explanations are deeply disturbing.
One is that he has never read the Oslo Accords. This would, of course, constitute an extremely serious case of professional misconduct. To fail to acquaint himself with the most basic documents concerning a subject that he was writing about—and then to make such an incredible error out of sheer ignorance—could be grounds for dismissal.
The second explanation is perhaps even worse. It would be that Erlanger knows exactly what the Oslo Accords say, but he consciously chooses to misrepresent it in order to advance the statehood agenda.
Of course, statehood advocates were hoping that Oslo would lead to a Palestinian state. And by pretending that Oslo required such an outcome, they make it appear as if Israel is in gross violation of its treaty obligations. So that would fit perfectly with the theme of so many articles in The New York Times—namely, the idea that Israel is to blame for the absence of Middle East peace and creating a Palestinian state will bring everlasting tranquility to the region.
Not surprisingly, most Israelis see it differently. Even before the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, polls consistently showed that most Israelis feared a Palestinian state would be used as a springboard to attack the Jewish state, especially at its most vulnerable nine-mile-wide points along the coast. After Oct. 7, the idea of a Palestinian state seems to most Israelis to constitute a direct threat to Israel’s existence.
But those who remain committed to the goal of a Palestinian state—apparently including journalists such as Steven Erlanger—seem ready to do anything, including misrepresenting major international agreements, in order to advance their scheme no matter what.