RSS
The Oslo Accords just turned 30. Here’s how they’ll shape a Saudi-Israeli peace deal.
(JTA) — Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States seem intent on striking a trilateral deal that includes normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Saudi civil nuclear power monitored by the international community, and an American-Saudi defense treaty. So why is it taking so long? Well, a fourth party — the Palestinians — are not part of the negotiations, yet their well-being seems to loom over the negotiations.
I’ve been in the room when Israel negotiated high-stakes questions about its relationships and its future, as the secretary for the Israeli delegation of the Camp David negotiations from 1999 to 2001. So I understand the diplomatic legacies shaping the positions at play today — and the broad implications and deep freight of the issues reportedly on the table.
September can be celebrated as the “Middle East Peace Month,” marking 45 years since the 1978 Camp David Accords (on Sept. 17); 30 years since the first Oslo Accord (on Sept. 13); and three years since the Abraham Accords (on Sept. 15, 2020). These events — and others — create a legacy that is now shaping the coming major milestone: an Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement.
The Israeli-Arab peace and normalization process formally began in 1978 with the Israel-Egypt Camp David Accords that included a Framework for Peace in the Middle East. The next major contractual milestone was the Declaration of Principles (also known as “Oslo A”) which was signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993. The declaration provided for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority as an interim self-government, as well as for further negotiations on the “outstanding issues” toward “final status.” Thereafter, dozens of agreements were signed among Israel, Jordan and the PLO, mostly until 1999, as well as with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco since 2020.
In spite of episodes of conflict and bloodshed and long intermissions, these milestones add up to a 45-year continuum of Israeli-Arab peacemaking, which has been bound by an overarching logic and diplomatic principles that have been reiterated for decades. One example is U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 that establishes that Israel will withdraw from the whole (French version) or parts (English version) of the West Bank. It appears in all major agreements signed since 1978.
For Israel and the United States — and particularly for Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Joe Biden — there is another unlikely benchmark. It is the so-called Trump Plan, which was negotiated between Israel and the U.S. and presented in January 2020 without Palestinians contribution or participation. The Trump Plan clearly favors long-standing Israeli positions such as that all Jewish settlements will remain under Israeli sovereignty, which is why Netanyahu called it “the deal of the century.” Nonetheless, the plan is premised on the principle of two states for two peoples, namely envisioning a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and acknowledging that the West Bank is “disputed territory” whose future must be agreed upon between Israel and the PLO. Furthermore, while the Palestinian state is envisioned to be of “limited sovereignty,” its area will be equivalent to 86% of the West Bank and all of Gaza and its capital, al-Quds, will be in the “area of Jerusalem” immediately adjacent to the current municipal borders.
The unspoken challenge of the current negotiations over the Saudi deal is that Netanyahu is no longer willing to give Biden as much as he gave Trump. Meanwhile, Biden is bound by the legacies of Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump — all of whom were explicit about having a Palestinian state in permanent status in the vast majority of Gaza and the West Bank. These legacies put pressure on Biden to do more for the two-state solution than his predecessors, Trump included.
The Saudis, eager to secure their status in the Arab world, must be “triangulating” three other reference points: The first is the 1978 Israel-Egypt Framework for Peace in the Middle East, where President Anwar Sadat established U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 as the founding principle for future territorial arrangements and provided the framework for the Oslo Process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. The second is the Saudi peace plan, which shaped the peace initiative of the Arab League in Beirut in 2002 and then in Riyadh in 2007, which upheld the June 1967 Lines as reference point for future territorial arrangements. And the third is the success of the UAE in thwarting Netanyahu’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank in 2020 in exchange for the Abraham Accords.
In other words, how can Saudi Arabia walk back from its own plan or do less for the Palestinians than Egypt and the UAE?
These legacies create a four-point agenda for the currently unfolding negotiations:
First, regarding the P.A.: The United States and Saudi Arabia are likely to want to reaffirm the existing Oslo Accords, to which Israel is a signatory. These agreements establish the P.A. as the interim self-government in the West Bank and Gaza ahead of permanent status. In this context, negotiators are probably discussing how to prevent the expansion of settlements across the West Bank, particularly in areas that will circumvent the contiguity of a future Palestinian state, as well as how to bolster the P.A.’s economic wellbeing and capacities of governance and security capabilities.
Second, regarding future negotiations: The United States and Saudi Arabia are probably striving to reinstate the principle of “two states for two peoples,” which means that the future of the West Bank will be negotiated between Israel and the PLO and that the P.A. will eventually become a state albeit with limited powers. As mentioned, all U.S. presidents since Clinton and all Israeli prime ministers since Barak, including Netanyahu in his past tenures. reaffirmed that principle.
The likely third point is territory. Americans and Saudis must be pressing for reiterating 242 as the baseline for future territorial arrangements. How can they demand anything less? Furthermore, it has been leaked that the parties are discussing some concrete territorial steps in the West Bank such as recategorizing lands under full Israeli control (“Area C”) as lands under Palestinian civil control (“Area B”), or placing Area B under full control of the P.A. (“Area A”). Any such change implies an Israeli recognition that the current sovereign arrangements the West Bank will be negotiated with the PLO.
A veiw of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, showing the Al Aqsa mosque, center, and Dome of the Rock, top.. (Andrew Shiva/Wikimedia Commons)
Finally, there is Jerusalem, and particularly the Temple Mount and the location of Saudi’s embassy to Israel. The Temple Mount — where the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque stand on a platform that covers the historic site of Judaism’s holy temples — is the most contentious issue between Israel and the Palestinians. All past agreements established that its fate will be determined in negotiations. Even the Trump Plan, with Netanyahu’s endorsement, suggests that the Temple Mount will be subject to a special arrangement where the Waqf of Jordan (a Muslim religious society) will play a significant role.
When Sadat visited Israel in 1977, he insisted on praying at Al Aqsa, as did the ambassador of the UAE. This week, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey expressed a similar expectation ahead of his visit to Israel. While Israel maintains that “a unified and undivided Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel,” the Israeli-Arab peace process has been founded on the principle that Jerusalem’s final status will be determined in negotiations. As Saudi Arabia sees itself as a guardian of Muslim holy sites, Al Aqsa must be on its mind.
Ahead of their normalization agreement, Israel and Saudi Arabia are likely also discussing the location of their future embassies. On this point, the Saudi side can have its embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv, like all other embassies of Arab and Muslim countries, and its diplomatic mission to the P.A. in Ramallah, thereby signaling that the final status of Jerusalem is yet to be determined. But they may be considering a much bolder, more-for-more deal of establishing the Saudi embassy to Israel in Israeli west Jerusalem, thereby recognizing it as Israel’s capital, in exchange for having the Saudi embassy to the P.A. in Arab east Jerusalem. After all, seven European countries including the United Kingdom and France, in addition to the Vatican and Turkey, have their diplomatic missions to the P.A. within the municipal borders of Jerusalem.
Clearly, any such Saudi deal would shake the current Israeli coalition, whose founding agreements call for applying Israel’s sovereignty over the West Bank “when circumstances are right.” Such aspiration means canceling the Oslo Accords and dismantling the P.A. In other words, the Saudi-Israel-U.S. deal is as much about their relations as it is about the future of the two-state solution and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
—
The post The Oslo Accords just turned 30. Here’s how they’ll shape a Saudi-Israeli peace deal. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Jews Urged Not to Attend German Music Festival Headlined by Anti-Israel Rapper Macklemore
Macklemore performing on stage at Rock In Rio Lisbon, in Lisbon, Portugal, on June 22, 2024. Photo: Nuno Cruz via Reuters Connect
A major Jewish organization in Germany and the country’s commissioner for the fight against antisemitism have warned Jews against attending a large German music festival in July because the headliner is Grammy-winning American rapper Macklemore, who has a history of making antisemitic and anti-Israel comments.
Macklemore, whose real name is Benjamin Hammond Haggerty, is scheduled to perform as the main act at the Deichbrand Festival in Cuxhaven that will run from July 17-20. Approximately 60,000 people are reportedly expected to attend the festival this summer.
In his lyrics and comments on and off stage, the Seattle-based “Thrift Shop” rapper has promoted antisemitic stereotypes; repeatedly accused Israel of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes; and compared the struggles that Palestinians have in the West Bank to the horrors Jews experienced in the Holocaust.
The “Can’t Hold Us” singer made numerous anti-Israel claims in his songs last year titled “F—ked Up,” “Hind’s Hall,” and “Hind’s Hall 2,” and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “colonizer.”
The Central Council of Jews in Germany said on Tuesday that Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music festival sends a “sobering signal” that antisemitism is welcome “on the big stage.”
“The fact that Macklemore spreads antisemitic propaganda and trivializes the Holocaust in his lyrics and videos seems to be of little interest,” the Jewish organization added. A spokesperson for the Central Council of Jews in Germany further told German media that following Macklemore’s invitation to perform at the music event, “the Deichbrand Festival is therefore no longer a safe place for Jews.”
Felix Klein, the federal government’s commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against antisemitism, also condemned Macklemore’s scheduled performance at the music festival. Klein told the German news outlet RND that Macklemore promotes “very real hatred against Jews” and should not be offered a stage in Germany to perform on.
The Deichbrand Festival responded to backlash about Macklemore’s upcoming performance. “We do not tolerate discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, racism, sexism, queer and transphobia, ableism or aggressive behavior,” said a spokesperson for the festival’s organizers.
In his pro-Palestinian song “Hind’s Hall,” Macklemore applauded protests at American colleges and universities that criticize Israel’s military actions during the Israel-Hamas war. In the same song, he accused the Jewish state of occupation and suggested that the deadly Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, were an act of “resistance.” The track’s title refers to the Columbia University building Hamilton Hall, which anti-Israel student protesters broke into and occupied and renamed “Hind’s Hall” in honor of Hind Rajab — a child killed in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war.
In “Hind’s Hall 2,” Macklemore featured performers who sang “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a slogan that is widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of Israel, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and for it to be replaced with “Palestine.”
Macklemore has also supported efforts to fund the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has faced widely corroborated allegations that several of its employees are active Hamas members and participated in the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. All proceeds from “Hind’s Hall” went to UNRWA and the rapper participated in a pro-Palestinian concert in his hometown of Seattle in September 2024 in which proceeds were given to various groups, including UNRWA.
The post Jews Urged Not to Attend German Music Festival Headlined by Anti-Israel Rapper Macklemore first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports
US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks to the media, outside of the West Wing of the White House, in Washington, DC, US, March 19, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kent Nishimura
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday that the United States could stop Iran’s oil exports as part of President Donald Trump’s plan to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.
The January return to the White House of Trump, who in his first term withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear accord with Tehran and clamped down on its oil exports, has again brought a tougher approach to the Middle Eastern power over its nuclear work.
Wright, speaking to Reuters on a visit to Abu Dhabi, said he thought the Gulf allies of the United States were extremely concerned about a nuclear-powered Iran and shared the US resolve that this is an outcome that is in no one’s best interest.
Iranian oil exports recovered under Joe Biden, who became president after Trump’s first term, and so far in 2025 have yet to show a decline, according to industry data. China, which opposes unilateral sanctions, buys the bulk of Iran’s shipments.
“That’s actually very doable. President Trump actually did it in the first term,” Wright said when asked how the United States can enforce its maximum pressure policy on Tehran. “We can follow the ships leaving Iran. We know where they go. We can stop Iran’s export of oil.”
Asked if the US would directly stop Iranian ships at sea, he said, “I’m not going to talk about the specific methodology of how that’s going to happen. But can we turn the screws on Iran? 100 percent.”
Iran said on Friday that it was giving high-level nuclear talks with the United States on Saturday “a genuine chance” after Trump threatened bombing if discussions failed.
Asked if military action against Iran would lead to regime change, he said he would not talk specifics but “everything is on the table.”
“In the short run, because of the strength of American energy production and our relations with our allies, we‘re going to tighten the sanctions and tighten the ability for Iran to export oil. You start economic, you start with negotiations, we hope that’s enough. But the end of the day is, no nuclear armed Iran.”
OIL PRICES
Wright also predicted that there would be a positive outlook for oil demand and supply in the next few years under Trump’s policies, and the concern of markets about economic growth will be proven wrong.
Comfortable oil price levels are “not meaningfully different from where we are today,” he said.
“But of course industry’s got to be profitable to drive growth. And I think that’s going to come from a combination of structural impediments that are removed by the Trump administration and innovation by the industry.”
There was “no direct coordination” between the US and the OPEC+ producer group about its decision to boost supply “but we have very close relationships with our key allies” in the Gulf, Wright said, adding he believed they share the Trump administration’s view that “the world needs more energy.”
Trump, days after taking office, publicly called on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its de facto leader Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices. OPEC and allies including Russia comprise the wider OPEC+ group. Its supply boost deepened an oil price plunge triggered by Trump’s sweeping tariffs announcement last week.
Wright will fly to Saudi Arabia for his next stop of a Middle East tour that is his first trip abroad in his role, followed by a visit to Qatar.
China will likely have slower oil demand growth over the next few years, he said when asked about the impact of Trump’s tariff policies, but said demand growth would come from places like South Asia and Latin America.
The post US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The New York Times coverage of the US-Iran nuclear talks seems written from Iran’s perspective.
One Times article reports that the talks “come at a perilous moment, as Iran has lost the air defenses around its key nuclear sites because of precise Israeli strikes last October. And Iran can no longer rely on its proxy forces in the Middle East — Hamas, Hezbollah and the now-ousted Assad government in Syria — to threaten Israel with retaliation.”
For Israel and America, it’s a less perilous moment, as we no longer have to worry about our planes getting shot down by Iranian air defenses. “Perilous” seems to be from the point of view of the Iranian terror-sponsoring regime. For America and Iran, it’s a hopeful moment, as we may finally eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat or, even better yet, the terror-sponsoring and oppressive Iranian regime.
The same Times article, by David Sanger and Farnaz Fassihi, reports, “Many Iranians have begun to talk openly about the need for the country to build a weapon since it has proved fairly defenseless in a series of missile exchanges with Israel last year.”
That spins the Iranian nuclear weapon as a matter of Iranian defense, when in fact the Iranians have been pursuing it for decades as part of their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Even the Times article concedes as much later on, reporting that “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been operating for decades and is spread around the country, much of it deep underground.”
The same Times article goes on to contend, “If Mr. Trump does not achieve full dismantlement, he will be forced to confront questions about whether he got anything more than the Obama administration got a decade ago. Mr. Trump dismissed that accord as a ‘disaster’ and an embarrassment, noting it would lift all restrictions on Iran’s nuclear production by 2030. Now his challenge, experts say, will be accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did.”
Who are these unnamed “experts”? Even if Trump simply walks away from the negotiating table without giving Iran the sanctions relief that Obama and Biden did, relief that that allowed funds and weapons to flow to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, he’ll accomplish more than Obama did. The Obama deal provided a $700 billion subsidy to the terror-sponsoring nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, in exchange for unverifiable short-term promises of a pause in work on nuclear weapons, so “accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did” is a low bar. The Times “experts” apparently don’t include any with that opinion, or, if they do, the Times doesn’t share that view with readers.
In another article, the Times portrays it as a “concession” that Iran is merely willing to talk to America.
Iran has been ardently pursuing negotiations with the US for 30 years, since the Clinton administration, because those negotiations have the potential to pay off in sanctions relief of the sort granted by President Obama’s nuclear deal, which enriched the Iranian regime so that it was able to fund more Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.
The Times reports in another piece previewing the negotiations, also by Farnaz Fassihi: “On Saturday, Iran and the United States will hold the first round of talks in Oman. If this progresses to face-to-face meetings, it would be a sign of a major concession by Iran, which has insisted it does not want to meet Americans directly.” That’s ridiculous. Merely negotiating isn’t a “major concession”—if anything, it’s a concession by America, which might reasonably take the position that Iran must shutter its nuclear weapons and missiles programs, release political prisoners, and cease its backing of terrorist organizations before earning a meeting with the US For Iran, a “major concession” would be verifiably abandoning the nuclear and missiles programs or ending its hostility toward Israel and America. Simply having a meeting is not a “major concession.” That’s Iranian spin, which the New York Times is passing along unlabeled to readers.
The New York Times has a long and not credible history of cheerleading for Iran nuclear deals with the US. Back in 2022, it relentlessly, breathlessly hyped a deal:
March 8, 2022: “Iran Nuclear Deal Nears Completion…”
January 31, 2022: “US and Allies Close to Reviving Nuclear Deal With Iran….”
January 12, 2022: “…the US and Iran Inch Closer to a Nuclear Pact”
Yet that deal never happened, and the Times never really adequately explained to readers why it so misled them about the likelihood of it.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.