33 years after Oslo: The question Israel still refuses to decide

33 years after the Oslo Accords and a decade after Shimon Peres's death, Israel has yet to decide on its borders. The article argues that securing Israel's future as Jewish and democratic requires partitioning the land, distinguishing between a sovereignty border and a security border. The author suggests leveraging the Trump administration and the Arab peace initiative to anchor permanent borders, without deciding on the political nature of the Palestinian entity at this stage.

33 years after the Oslo Accords and a decade after the death of Shimon Peres, Israel is further than ever from a decision on its borders. The article, by Avi Gil, argues that the October 7 massacre and the war in Gaza have undermined public trust in the Palestinian partner, but this does not absolve Israel from deciding its future. The author distinguishes between a sovereignty border, which should ensure a Jewish majority and democracy, and a security border, which should allow security control up to the Jordan River as long as reality requires it. The starting point for a permanent border, he says, would be the 1967 lines with land swaps, leaving the main settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty. Gil suggests leveraging the Trump presidency and the Arab peace initiative to pursue an international decision that would anchor Israel's permanent borders, without deciding at this stage on the political nature of the Palestinian entity. Such a move, he argues, would pave the way for peace with Saudi Arabia and the weakening of Iran. The author concludes that Israel does not need to return to Oslo, but to the logic that underpinned it: securing Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state requires partitioning the land. He notes that the chance of this move emerging from within is slim, as a leader who does not exist is needed.