Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yassir Arafat at the Oslo Signing Ceremony, September 13, 1993. Photo: Wikipedia.

Twice recently, at an Oct. 16 memorial ceremony for the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and at a diplomatic conference on Oct. 24, President Shimon Peres, architect of the September 1993 Oslo Accord, claimed that the Israeli-Palestinian accord was the “opening to dialogue and peace.” Is Peres’ claim vindicated by a reality check?

The Oslo state of mind

The Oslo state of mind was most accurately pronounced by Peres at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy onSept. 16, 2000, on the eve of the Second Intifada: “I believe that the previous borders, made of barbed wire, minefields, military positions, are irrelevant to our life. … I sincerely believe that a good hotel on the border will provide more peace and security than a military position. … I can see very little use for the past. Two things lose their importance: land and history. … To imagine is more important than to remember. … War is out of the question now. … I doubt very much if the Palestinians will go back to terror. … Once a nation’s economy turns from a focus on land to a focus on brains, borders are irrelevant. …”

The blueprint for the Oslo Accord was documented by Peres in his October 1993 book, “The New Middle East“: “The international political setting is no longer conducive to war (p. 80). … Peace is the means for security (p. 84). … We need soft — not rigid — borders. … While signing the documents on the lawn of the White House… you could almost hear the heavy tread of boots leaving the stage. … You could have listened to the gentle tiptoeing of new steps making a debut in the awaiting world of peace (p. 194).”

The new vs. the real Middle East

The Oslo Accord state of mind, and the new Middle East vision, have been swept away by the Arab Tsunami that inundated the real Middle East, transitioning the region toward further fanaticism, terrorism, tyranny and “anti-infidel” sentiments, away from moderation, peace, democracy and tolerance.

The Oslo state of mind underestimated the potency of the deeply rooted 1,400 year old fundamentals of the real Middle East, which are sweeping the combusting Arab street in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and other Arab countries: violent unpredictability, uncertainty, unreliability, instability and shifty regimes and policies; religious, ethnic, ideological and geographic fragmentation; violent intolerance toward other Muslims and the “infidel”; no freedom of speech, religion, press and association and no gender equality; no intra-Arab comprehensive peace and no compliance with most intra-Arab agreements, which are tenuous in nature.

Has Oslo transformed Israel and the Palestinians?

Ariel University’s Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna, formerly with the Mossad and one of Israel’s leading experts on the Palestinian issue, documented in “Line of Furrow and Fire: The Conflict for the Land of Israel, 1860-2010″ (Achiasaf Publishing, 2013) that the 1993 Oslo Accord snatched the Palestine Liberation Organization from the jaws of oblivion. Arab regimes severed financial assistance to — and most contacts with — the PLO, due to the PLO’s collaboration with Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. suspended itsdialogue with the PLO in 1990. The First Intifada was largely subdued by Israel in 1991. The PLO lost two key cofounders, Khalil al-Wazir (1988) and Salah al-Khalaf (1991). Its popularity among Palestinians was significantly marred by corruption and embezzlement, attributed primarily to Yassir Arafat and his wife, Suha, Mahmoud Abbas and his sons, Yasser and Tareq, Arafat’s financial advisor, Muhammad Rashid, and the Tsumud (steadfastness) Fund. The Oslo Accord resuscitated the PLO, which still oversees the Palestinian Authority, legally and operationally.

The Oslo Accord transformed Israeli policy dramatically, strategically and tangibly. Israel made concessions to the Palestinians, never extended by the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate or the Arabs, transferring parts of Israel’s own cradle of history to its archenemy and advancing Palestinian sovereignty. Israel imported some 70,000 Palestinian terrorists from Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia to the Gaza Strip and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria — the doorsteps of their intended victims — arming them with weapons and lobbying on their behalf in Washington, D.C.

Contrary to Israel, the PLO was transformed tactically and intangibly, while sustaining its strategy, as enunciated by its 1964 Covenant, considering the Land of Israel a divinely ordained Muslim land (waqf). Arafat stated that the Oslo Accord was provisional, aiming to destroy Israel, triggering an unprecedented level of Palestinian noncompliancewith agreements. Mahmoud Abbas established a hate-education system. And an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism erupted in April 1994, producing so far over 1,600 Israeli fatalities, five times as large as the toll of the 20 years prior to Oslo. One hundred and sixty Israelis were murdered during the pre-Oslo First Intifada, compared with 1,000 during the post-Oslo Second Intifada. In June 2001, Faisal Husseini, the PLO darling of the Western media, clarified that the Oslo Accord provided the Palestinians with a Trojan horse in the heart of Israel.

The Oslo-driven Palestinian conduct has been consistent with the Palestinian intra-Arab track record of subversion and treachery, which caused Arafat’s and Abbas’ expulsion from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. It has also been consistent with the Palestinian collaboration with the Nazis, the Communist Bloc, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The Oslo Accord reality check documents that contrary to the hope of its architects, the Palestinian leopard does not change spots, only tactics.

This article was originally published by Israel Hayom.