Friday, December 26, 2025

Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaeedi, Founder of Oman Rulers Dynasty

Enchanting Prose that Beckons the Reader into a Captivating Tale

Sultan: Unveiling the History of Bo Saeed Imams in Oman

In a grand literary endeavour befitting its esteemed status, Al Qasimi Publications unveils a literary masterpiece authored by His Highness Sheikh Dr. Sultan bin Muhammad Al Qasimi, Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Sharjah. This opus, titled "History of Bo Saeed Imams in Oman (1749-1856 AD)," stands as the resplendent fourth instalment within the illustrious "Sultan of Dates" series, a trove of knowledge spanning 282 enthralling pages.

This remarkable book comprises an introduction, forward, and ten chapters. It also features a conclusion and various explanatory appendices. The book proudly stands as the 80th edition from the esteemed author, His Highness the Ruler of Sharjah.

In the book's introduction, His Highness shares his profound intention with heartfelt words: "Within these pages, I weave a narrative that illuminates a significant period in Oman's history. It revolves around the leadership of four imams, who dedicated themselves to preserving their beloved nation and shielding their land from division, fuelled by the ambitions of foreign powers."

Within the preface of this enthralling book, His Highness delves into the tale of Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Bo Saeed, the esteemed Wali of Sohar, whose presence graced the dawning of the year 1734 AD. His Highness paints a vivid portrait of this noble imam, whose unwavering loyalty to Imam Saif bin Sultan bin Saif Al-Yarubi stood firm, despite their numerous disagreements on various matters.

In those tumultuous times, a Persian commander by the name of Kelp Ali Khan laid siege to the city of Sohar. Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaidi, the valiant leader of the city, found himself at the forefront of this arduous struggle. It was during this gripping siege that Imam Sultan bin Murshid sought refuge within the protective walls of Sohar. Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaidi and his steadfast compatriots rallied together, fortifying the defences of Sohar. In the midst of the relentless siege, tragedy befell the revered Imam Sultan bin Murshid, as he met his untimely demise.

Extreme resistance

Amidst the blooming of spring in the year 1743, a tale of unwavering defiance unfolds. Sohar, with the exception of its fortified fortress, fell under occupation, yet one brave figure remained, standing resolute: Sheikh Ahmed bin Said Al Bo Saeed.

In the preface of this remarkable book, His Highness, recounts a gripping narrative of the indomitable Sohar Fort. Despite enduring a relentless siege by the Persian fleet and forces for over six long months, it stood as a beacon of unyielding resistance. Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaid, with unmatched valor, safeguarded the fortress throughout this arduous period.

However, as the days turned into weeks, and weeks into months, the supplies that sustained their resistance dwindled. The provisions that had once arrived from neighbouring cities ceased, and the necessity of the moment forced a difficult decision upon him. In July 1743, compelled by circumstances, Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaid had no choice but to accept the terms presented by the occupying Persians and surrender.

His Highness, guided by the words of Humaid bin Muhammad bin Zurayq in his book, "The Common Ray of Shine in Mentioning the Names of the Imams of Oman," reveals an intriguing twist. It is said that Sheikh Ahmed bin Said, the Wali of Sohar, cunningly invited the Persian officers to a deceptive feast in Barka. Within this carefully laid trap, the officers met their untimely demise, while those who remained were allowed safe passage back to Persia.

Establishment 

In the inaugural chapter, we are transported back in time to witness the establishment of the esteemed State of Al Bo saeed. At the heart of this remarkable tale stands the illustrious figure of Imam Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaid. In the words of His Highness, the Ruler of Sharjah, we learn that Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed possessed a noble and endearing character, which endeared him to the hearts of his people and paved the way for his ascent to the esteemed position of Imam. In response to the radiance of his personality and his inherent qualities, the scholars and sheikhs recognized the imamate of Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaid. With great reverence and anticipation, the sheikhs gathered in Rustaq, their presence a testament to the weight and significance of this momentous occasion. It was on the eve of a Monday, the twenty-third of the month of Jumada, in the year 1162 AH, which coincided with the tenth of June in the year 1749, that the mantle of imamate was bestowed upon him.

Within the realm of this chapter, the reader embarks upon a captivating journey that unveils the pivotal stages of a momentous era, forged under the reign of Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Busaid. It is in this tapestry of events that the path of his rule becomes clear, as the fortresses of Oman align themselves under his banner, with the notable exceptions being the fortress of Al-Hazm, which remained with the descendants of Saif bin Sultan Al-Yarubi, and the fortress of Nakhl, which remained with Muhammad bin Suleiman bin Uday Al-Yarubi.

This chapter shed light on a multitude of intriguing details, illuminating the reign of Imam Ahmad bin Said as he held sway over the vast lands of Oman, with the exception of the western region known as "Sir." Here, the reader discovers a tapestry of events surrounding Imam Ahmad bin Said's relentless battles and confrontations against his adversaries, amidst the chaos that beset Persia. 

On the twenty-third of March 1751, a significant alliance formed between Mullah Ali Shah and Sheikh Rahma bin Matar Al Qasimi, the ruler of Ras Al Khaimah, as they joined forces against their common adversaries. However, amidst this alliance, the Arabs of Hula stood united in opposition to Mullah Ali Shah, and Imam Ahmad bin Said of Oman rallied alongside them.

Then, on the seventh of May 1751, Sheikh Rahma bin Matar Al Qasimi journeyed to Bandar Abbas to meet with Mullah Ali Shah. This encounter served to settle the disputes that had arisen between Mullah Ali Shah and the Arabs of Hula, with Sheikh Rahma Al Qasimi acting as a mediator, reconciling their differing requests. 

The book delves into the events that followed, recounting the confiscation of Mullah Ali Shah's property on the thirty-first of January 1752 by the valiant Knights of Nasir Khan, who had arrived in Bandar Abbas. Not long after, two thousand soldiers under the command of Nasir Khan joined their ranks. Upon learning of Mullah Ali Shah's predicament, Imam Ahmad bin Said of Oman promptly dispatched a thousand of his finest men to aid in the fight against the Arab tribes of Hula.

Within the pages of this chapter, an abundance of captivating details concluded by His Highness sheding light on the state of tumult that plagued the Persian coast, stretching from Minab to the city of Charek, famously known as Hormuz Gan.

In this troubled region, under the authority of Nasir Khan, the people fell victim to the relentless looting perpetrated by Arab groups. The inhabitants suffered grievous losses at the hands of these marauders, while at other times, it was Nasir Khan himself who led plundering campaigns, leaving cities and their surrounding areas ravaged. The roads became perilous, frequented by numerous marauding bands who brazenly invaded, instilling fear and chaos along their path.

Renaissance

In the second chapter, the Ruler of Sharjah, His Highness, casts a luminous spotlight on the remarkable renaissance that unfolded across various domains in Oman. Foremost among these advancements were the realms of trade and economy, where the visionary leadership of Imam Ahmed bin Saeed bore fruit. Imam Ahmed bin Saeed's shrewd strategies and farsighted vision bore witness to a flourishing trade landscape. With astute acumen, he successfully enticed a significant number of commercial vessels to chart their course through the bustling port of Muscat. Such was the extent of his achievements that the road linking the East and the West came to be known as the Muscat Road, a bustling thoroughfare of vibrant commerce. 

Within the captivating pages of this chapter, the reader is immersed in a rich tapestry of historical events, shedding light on the bustling activity of various companies, including the Dutch East India Company. Notably, the book delves into the fascinating agreement forged between the Dutch and Sheikh Khalfan bin Mohammed bin Abdullah Al-Busaidi, wherein the Dutch were granted the freedom to engage in trade within the region. Moreover, the book underscores the close bond shared between Jacob Musil, the Dutch Governor-General of the Dutch East India Company in Indonesia, and the Imam Ahmed bin Said. Correspondence exchanged between the two luminaries serves as a testament to the strength and warmth of their relationship. It vividly portrays the unwavering support and assistance provided by Imam Ahmed bin Said, as he generously allowed the company's ships to freely access the ports of Oman.

In this chapter, the remarkable rise in the government's material income under the reign of Imam Ahmad bin Said is explored. It is revealed that he actively invested in acquiring merchant warships from the Western world, thereby bolstering his naval forces. His fleet consisted of four large ships and eight smaller ones, enabling him to navigate the seas with greater confidence and authority. Imam Ahmad bin Said not only possessed a robust military force but also enjoyed the unwavering support of his subjects. On numerous occasions, they stood by his side, demonstrating their loyalty and deep respect for his leadership. Moreover, he fostered friendships with prominent figures in the realms of politics, literature, and law, as well as esteemed scholars and scientists.

Challenging missions

In the eventful third chapter, the challenging circumstances that Imam Ahmad bin Said faced from 1756 onwards are hughlighted. The Imam found himself confronted with three simultaneous arduous tasks, each demanding his utmost attention and resilience. Firstly, he grappled with the uprising in Mombasa, a revolution that swept through the region, causing upheaval. Furthermore, Zanzibar was occupied, leaving only the castle and its immediate surroundings under his control. The Imam was faced with the formidable task of reclaiming these territories and restoring stability to the region. Simultaneously, Imam Ahmad bin Said had to contend with the issue of Al-Sir's separation from Oman. Sheikh Al-Qawasim formed an alliance with the Arabs of Al-Hula, as well as with Mullah Ali Shah, who possessed a fleet of Persian ships and a substantial stockpile of equipment and ammunition. Their combined forces presented a significant challenge, requiring the Imam's strategic acumen and military prowess to counter their threats. The third challenge centered around the remaining groups of the Ya'ariba, who still held control over parts of Oman. Their influence had recently expanded, stretching from Samail to Nizwa, and reaching as far as Wadi Bani Ghafir.

In this detailed chapter, the intricate conflict that unfolded between the Imam, Ahmad bin Said, and Ali bin Othman, who held control over Mombasa and Zanzibar is revealed. The narrative traces the course of this confrontation, ultimately resulting in the occupation of Zanzibar by Omani forces. However, Mombasa remained under Uthman's authority for a duration of eight years until his demise at the hands of Khalaf bin Qadbar in 1762.

The chapters unfold, chronicling the ongoing struggle between the Imam and his adversaries. The conflict extends until the pivotal moment when Imam Ahmad successfully seizes Wadi al-Samael, marking a turning point in the narrative. Eventually, he enters Nizwa in a peaceful manner, receiving a dignified welcome from its inhabitants. Witnessing his noble character and qualities, they deemed him deserving of the Imamate, pledging their allegiance to him. This marked the definitive end of the era known as the Ya'ariba state during the time of Imam Ahmad bin Said.

Banu Ghafir

The fourth chapter delves into the authority of Imam Ahmad in Zanzibar, shedding light on his deliberate decision to refrain from interfering in the affairs of the East Coast of Africa. Instead, he focused his efforts on solidifying the foundations of the emerging ruling families in Oman. One notable development during this period was the annexation of Al-Sir to Oman, a significant step facilitated through an agreement with Sheikh Al-Qawasim. This agreement effectively brought an end to the influence and authority of the remaining Ya'ariba princes, signifying a pivotal moment in the political landscape of the region.

Additionally, this chapter brings to the forefront the imam's arrest of the prominent figures among the Bani Ghafir and their respected sheikhs, subsequently sending them to Muscat. The book concludes this event with His Highness's poignant words: "We remain uncertain of their fate, and only God possesses the ultimate knowledge about them. Such is the course set by the divine wisdom, where Allah ordains what holds true influence."

Within the book, a significant discussion revolves around the Banu Ghafir's deep-seated desire for vengeance following the killings of their sheikhs. Moreover, the narrative delves into the events unfolding on the sixteenth of May in the year 1775, which took place in the vicinity of the Shatt al-Arab. This particular episode witnessed an ongoing conflict between the Persians, on one side, and the Arabs and Ottomans on the other. It is recounted that the people of Basra sought victory from Imam Ahmed bin Saeed during this period. Unfortunately, in 1776, the Persians successfully occupied Basra, leading to a surge of emotions and sentiments among the locals. In response, Sheikh Rashid bin Saqr Al Qasimi, driven by a desire to avenge the Banu Ghafir, formed an alliance with Sheikh Abdullah Al-Maini. Together, they seized control over all the ships destined for Muscat or departing from it, making a powerful statement of resistance and solidarity.

Quietness

In the fifth chapter, His Highness delves into the period spanning from 1779 to 1781, characterized initially by relative tranquility in Oman. However, the calm was soon disrupted by a clash between Rashid bin Matar Al Qasimi and the emerging Salafi groups. These groups had gained influence in the Al-Ahsa region in 1780 and subsequently extended their reach to Rams in Ras Al Khaimah.

In this chapter, His Highness delves into the life and reign of Imam Ahmad bin Said, during a period marked by various challenges and transitions. His Highness sheds light on the decline in Imam Ahmad's income derived from Omani taxes, which resulted in a decreased level of activity in the bustling port of Muscat. The Imam's retreat and isolation in Rustaq also come into focus, reflecting a shift in his position of authority. As the narrative unfolds, His Highness explores the pivotal moment when Imam Ahmad decided to pass on the leadership mantle to his son, Sayyid Hamad bin Said. It becomes apparent that Sayyid Hamad possessed remarkable leadership qualities, as evidenced by his swift consolidation of power across all regions of Oman. However, tragedy struck in 1792 when Sayyid Hamad fell victim to smallpox, ultimately succumbing to the illness in March of that same year.

Events

In Chapter six, the spotlight is cast upon several noteworthy individuals who played influential roles during this period of history. Among them is Sayyid Muhammad ibn al-Imam Ahmad, who assumed the position of governor in Suwaiq, overseeing its affairs with diligence. Similarly, Sayyid Qays ibn al-Imam took charge of Sohar and Muttrah, exhibiting astute governance skills.

The narrative also delves into the intricate dynamics between Nizwa, Yabreen, and the Shaikh Bani Ghafir. Under their authority, these regions maintained a strained relationship with Imam Sa'id ibn Ahmad, displaying a sense of hostility.

Significantly, Chapter six highlights the expansion of Sayyid Sultan ibn al-Imam's influence beyond the borders of Oman. With the successful control of Muscat and Rustaq falling under the dominion of Sa'id bin Ahmad, Sayyid Sultan seized the opportunity to extend his reach further. By 1798, he accomplished a remarkable feat: securing a lease for the strategic port of Bandar Abbas and its surrounding territories from the Persian government. This arrangement allowed Sayyid Sultan to tap into the revenues generated by these ports, contributing to his growing influence and resources.

Simultaneously, the British dispatched Mirza Mahdi Khan from the East India Company in Abu Shahr to Oman with the purpose of meeting Imam Sultan bin Ahmed and determining his stance regarding the French.

Military Moves

Chapter eight delves into the military developments that unfolded in Oman during March 1806. Fierce battles ensued, primarily centered in and around Muttrah. Within this context, several key figures emerged, each playing a pivotal role in the unfolding sequence of events. This intense period of conflict extended from July 1806 to November of the same year.

Following these turbulent times, the reins of government in Oman transitioned into the capable hands of Sayyid Saeed bin Sultan. As his influence began to take root, it gradually blossomed, marking the onset of a new era for the nation.

On the 19th of November 1806, Imam Saeed bin Sultan embarks on a voyage to the ports of Ras Al Khaimah and Bandar Abbas, leading a fleet comprised of three large ships and three small ships. His objective is to launch an attack against the Qawasim and the Al Bu Ma'in tribe.

By the beginning of February 1809, Imam Saeed bin Sultan mobilizes his forces on all fronts, defending Oman against various threats. During this period, there are accounts recounting the oppression inflicted upon the dawa groups by certain individuals. One such figure is Hamid bin Nasser bin Muhammad al-Ghafri, who expresses his desire to align with Imam Saeed bin Sultan. However, due to the lack of trust in his sincerity, the Imam requests evidence of his hostility towards the dawa group before extending his support.

Supplements

The book includes several appendices, each providing additional valuable information. The first appendix illustrates the two forms of the Ghafri flag, known as Al-Alam Al-Ghafri, which represents the authority of the Al-Qawasim. The flag bears the inscriptions "Nasr min Allah" (Victory from God) and "Fatah qareeb" (Victory is near), along with the British flag. The second appendix contains a letter written by William Bruce, the Director of the East India Company's Abu Shahr Agency, addressed to the First Secretary of the Pompey Government, J. Lumsden. Additionally, within the same appendix, a copy of the original letter manuscript in English is presented. Lastly, the third appendix presents another letter written by William Bruce, this time addressed to the President and Governor of the Pompeii Council, Jonathan Duncan.

Skirmishes

" Chapter ten of the book discusses a significant event that took place in October 1819, where the government of Pompeii made the decision to launch a campaign against the Qawasim. In December of the same year, the expedition reached Ras al-Khaimah, resulting in the destruction of the city and its ports. Unfortunately, the Arab forces suffered heavy casualties during the intense fighting.

Within this chapter, His Highness, the Ruler of Sharjah, also highlights military skirmishes that commenced in May 1820. These clashes involved a group of Ashikhra individuals from the Bani Bu Ali tribe who seized a boat owned by a merchant from Karachi. The boat was carrying valuable goods and a substantial amount of dollars. Tragically, a considerable number of sailors aboard the boat were killed during this incident. Alas, this audacious act of thievery came at a grievous cost, as the lives of numerous mariners were prematurely snuffed out, their souls drifting upon the unforgiving currents of destiny

Saturday, May 17, 2025

As Trump basks in Gulf Arab applause, Israel massacres children in Gaza - Soumaya Ghannoushi

As Trump basks in Gulf Arab applause, Israel massacres children in Gaza
Soumaya Ghannoushi 

From Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, a race is underway - not to end the genocide in Gaza, but to outspend one another for US favour.

 US President Donald Trump’s tour of Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha is not diplomacy. It is theatre - staged in gold, fuelled by greed, and underwritten by betrayal. A US president openly arming a genocide is welcomed with red carpets, handshakes and blank cheques. Trillions are pledged; personal gifts are exchanged. And Gaza continues to burn. Gulf regimes have power and wealth. They have Trump’s ear. Yet they use none of it - not to halt the slaughter, ease the siege or demand dignity. In return for their riches and deference, Trump grants Israel bombs and sets it loose upon the region. This is the real story. At the heart of Trump’s return lies a project he initiated during his first presidency: the erasure of Palestine, the elevation of autocracy, and the redrawing of the Middle East in Israel’s image. “See this pen? This wonderful pen on my desk is the Middle East, and the top of the pen - that’s Israel. That’s not good,” he once told reporters, lamenting Israel’s size compared to its neighbours. To Trump, the Middle East is not a region of history or humanity. It is a marketplace, a weapons depot, a geopolitical ATM. His worldview is forged in evangelical zeal and transactional instinct. In his rhetoric, Arabs are chaos incarnate: irrational, violent, in need of control. Israel alone is framed as civilised, democratic, divinely chosen. That binary is not accidental. It is ideology.

Obedience for survival 
 Trump calls the region “a rough neighbourhood” - code for endless militarism that casts the people of the Middle East not as lives to protect, but as threats to contain. His $110bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 2017 was marketed as peace through prosperity. Now, he wants trillions more in Gulf capital. As reported by the New York Times, Trump is demanding that Saudi Arabia invest its entire annual GDP - $1 trillion - into the US economy. Riyadh has already offered $600bn. Trump wants it all. Economists call it absurd; Trump calls it a deal. This is not negotiation. It is tribute. And the pace is accelerating. After a recent meeting with Trump, the UAE announced a 10-year, $1.4 trillion investment framework with the US. Across the Gulf, a race is underway - not to end the genocide in Gaza, but to outspend one another for Trump’s favour, showering him with wealth in return for nothing. The Gulf is no longer treated as a region. It is a vault. Sovereign wealth funds are the new ballot boxes. Sovereignty - just another asset to be traded. Trump’s offer is blunt: obedience for survival. For regimes still haunted by the Arab Spring, western blessing is their last shield. And they will pay any price: wealth, independence, even dignity. To them, the true threat is not Israel, nor even Iran. It is their own people, restless, yearning, ungovernable. Democracy is danger; self-determination, the ticking bomb. So they make a pact with the devil.

Doctrine of immunity 
 That devil brings flags, frameworks, photo ops and deals. The new order demands normalisation with Israel, submission to its supremacy, and silence on Palestine. Once-defiant slogans are replaced by fintech expos and staged smiles beside Israeli ministers. In return, Trump offers impunity: political cover and arms. It is a doctrine of immunity, bought with gold and soaked in Arab blood. They bend. They hand him deals, honours, trillions. They believe submission buys respect. But Trump respects only power - and he makes that clear. He praises Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Is Putin smart? Yes … that’s a hell of a way to negotiate.” He calls Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “a guy I like [and] respect”. Like them or not, they defend their nations. And Trump, ever the transactional mind, respects power. Arab rulers offer no such strength. They offer deference, not defiance. They don’t push; they pay. And Trump mocks them openly. King Salman “might not be there for two weeks without us”, he brags. They give him billions; he demands trillions. It is not just the US Treasury profiting. Gulf billions do not merely fuel policy; they enrich a family empire. Since returning to office, Trump and his sons have chased deals across the Gulf, cashing in on the loyalty they have cultivated. A hotel in Dubai, a tower in Jeddah, a golf resort in Qatar, crypto ventures in the US, a private club in Washington for Gulf elites - these are not strategic projects, but rather revenue streams for the Trump family.

Reward for ethnic cleansing 
 The precedent was set early. Former presidential adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, secured $2bn from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund shortly after leaving office, despite internal objections. The message was clear: access to the Trumps has a price, and Gulf rulers are eager to pay. Now, Trump is receiving a private jet from Qatar’s ruling family - a palace in the sky worth $400m. This is not diplomacy. It is plunder. And how does Trump respond? With insult: “It was a great gesture,” he said of the jet, before adding: “We keep them safe. If it wasn’t for us, they probably wouldn’t exist right now.” That was his thank you to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar; lavish gifts answered with debasement. And what are they rewarding him for? For genocide. For 100,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on Gaza. For backing ethnic cleansing in plain sight. For empowering far-right Israeli politicians, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as they call for Gaza’s depopulation. For presiding over the most fanatically Zionist, most unapologetically Islamophobic administration in US history. Still, they ask nothing, while offering everything. They could have used their leverage. They did not. The Yemen precedent proves they can act. Trump halted the bombing under Saudi pressure, to Netanyahu’s visible dismay. When they wanted a deal, they struck one with the Houthis. And when they sought to bring Syria in from the cold, Trump complied. He agreed to meet former rebel leader turned President Ahmed al-Sharaa - a last-minute addition to his Riyadh schedule - and even spoke of lifting sanctions, once again at Saudi Arabia’s request, to “give them a chance of greatness”. No US president is beyond pressure. But for Gaza? Silence.

Price of silence 
 While Trump was being feted in Riyadh, Israel rained American-made bombs on two hospitals in Gaza. In Khan Younis, the European Hospital was reportedly struck by nine bunker-busting bombs, killing more than two dozen people and injuring scores more. Earlier that day, an air strike on Nasser Hospital killed journalist Hassan Islayeh as he lay wounded in treatment. As Trump basked in applause, Israel massacred children in Jabalia, where around 50 Palestinians were killed in just a few hours. This is the bloody price of Arab silence, buried beneath the roar of applause and the glitter of tributes. This week marks the anniversary of the Nakba - and here it is again, replayed not through tanks alone, but through Arab complicity. The bombs fall. The Gaza Strip turns to dust. Two million people endure starvation. UN food is gone. Hospitals overflow with skeletal infants. Mothers collapse from hunger. Tens of thousands of children are severely malnourished, with more than 3,500 on the edge of death. Meanwhile, Smotrich speaks of “third countries” for Gaza’s people. Netanyahu promises their removal. And Trump - the man enabling the annihilation? He is not condemned, but celebrated by Arab rulers. They eagerly kiss the hand that sends the bombs, grovel before the architect of their undoing, and drape him in splendour and finery. While much of the world stands firm - China, Europe, Canada, Mexico, even Greenland - refusing to bow to Trump’s bullying, Arab rulers kneel. They open wallets, bend spines, empty hands - still mistaking humiliation for diplomacy. They still believe that if they bow low enough, Trump might toss them a bone. Instead, he tosses them a bill. This is not realpolitik. It is a grotesque spectacle of decadence, delusion and disgrace. With every cheque signed, every jet offered, every photo op beside the butcher of a people, Arab rulers do not secure history’s respect. They seal their place in its sordid footnotes of shame.

Tuesday, March 11, 2025

Oslo Pact: a Trap

+972 Magazine Newsletter SUPPORT US The Oslo trap: How the PLO signed its own death warrant From asymmetrical concessions to renouncing armed struggle, the fate of the Palestinians was sealed before Arafat and Rabin even shook hands. By Raef Zreik September 11, 2023 Palestinian policemen celebrate upon entering Jericho, one of the first cities handed over to Palestinian Authority control in accordance with the Oslo Accords, May 13, 1994. (Yossi Zamir/Flash 90) Palestinian policemen celebrate upon entering Jericho, one of the first cities handed over to Palestinian Authority control in accordance with the Oslo Accords, May 13, 1994. (Yossi Zamir/Flash 90) In partnership with The Oslo Accords were brokered when I was a young lawyer at the start of my career, after years of living as a student in Jerusalem under the shadow of the First Intifada. I had left the city in 1990, worn out in no small measure by Jerusalem itself, the constant tension, and the intense political activity against the occupation. It is therefore little wonder that despite my condemnations of Oslo, those days nevertheless gave me a small glimmer of hope — perhaps something new was being born after all. But as much as I wanted the agreement to work, in my mind, I knew better. There were, at the time, all kinds of opponents to Oslo among the Palestinian public. From the first, some Palestinians did not believe in the two-state solution, and saw it as a defeat for the Palestinian cause. I was not one of them: rather, my opposition to Oslo stemmed from an inner conviction that the Accords themselves could not actually lead to such a solution. I was not influenced by what was being said on television or in the public discourse; instead, I sat down and read the agreements through the eyes of a young lawyer. After all, a political agreement is one that contains its own contractual logic: it sets out a firm timeline, there are rules in case of breach of contract, and so on. It seemed to me that the Palestinian negotiators could have used a little legal advice. There are three central problems in the wording of the Oslo Accords, as can be gleaned from the exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, which preceded the signing of the Accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993. Subscribe to The Landline +972's weekly newsletter Your@mail.here Sign up The first problem is an imbalance in the two sides’ recognition of each other’s legitimacy. The PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist, and recognized Security Council Resolutions 242 (which called for the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied territories and acknowledged the claim of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the region following the 1967 war) as well as 338 (which called for a ceasefire following the 1973 war). But in return, Israel did not recognize the Palestinian people’s right to a state or their right to self-determination. Instead, it simply recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. This lack of equivalency left the PLO as little more than an empty vessel; there is, after all, a difference between recognizing the PLO’s existence and recognizing the legitimacy of its political demands. Moreover, at the time, Israel had strategic self-interest in recognizing the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. If Israel did so, the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist would supposedly represent the voice of the entire Palestinian nation. The PLO’s recognition of Israel would have been meaningless had it not come from an authentic representative. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, PLO leader Yasser Arafat, and US President Bill Clinton at the signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn, Washington, D.C., September 13, 1993. (GPO/Avi Ohayon) Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, PLO leader Yasser Arafat, and US President Bill Clinton at the signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn, Washington, D.C., September 13, 1993. (GPO/Avi Ohayon) In this light, the PLO’s instrumental nature as a representative body is clear. A representative can act either in the interest of, or to the detriment of, whomever they represent. The representative can make demands of the other side, but it can also make concessions on behalf of the people it represents. When the PLO presented clear claims and demands, Israel denied its requests, but when it recognized Israel and offered concessions on behalf of the Palestinians, Israel had no problem treating the PLO as the spokesperson of the Palestinians. In fact, the PLO used its symbolic capital as the representative of the Palestinian people to appear on the world stage and announce the absence of the people and the elimination of their narrative. In effect, this was the PLO’s last significant act in the political arena. Israel intended the PLO’s recognition to act as a de facto declaration of its own suicide. Since then, the PLO has ceased to be an important political actor, and all that functionally remains of it is the Palestinian Authority — which serves as Israel’s subcontractor for violent crackdowns in the West Bank. Two years after the Accords were signed, the PLO committed to annulling the sections of the Palestinian National Charter that do not recognize Israel. At the time, this seemed to me an ill-considered move; I published an article in Haaretz titled, “There is No Compromise Without Recognition.” The annulment of the Charter’s statements was done without any action by Israel in return, which still refused to commit to recognizing a Palestinian state in the occupied territories or the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people and other national rights in their homeland. These historic factors helped bring about the present situation, in which Israel is an immovable “fact on the ground” and has narrowed the scope of territory on the negotiating table from the entirety of Israel/Palestine to merely the West Bank, now the sole territory even remotely up for discussion. If the dispute is over Palestine as a whole, then the division of the entire territory from the river to the sea into two entities is the optimal solution. But if the whole problem boils down to the territories occupied in 1967, then a reasonable solution would lead to the division of the disputed territory between the settlers and the Palestinians. This narrowing of the territory up for debate drastically alters the playing field: if the Palestinians insist on controlling the entirety of the occupied territories, they will be perceived as obstinate radicals who are claiming everything for themselves. The fact that the Palestinians have already waived their right to more than two-thirds of their homeland before even sitting down at the negotiating table is never taken into consideration. This was a trap set for the Palestinians, who have been unable to free themselves from it to this day. Unfortunately, it is not the only such trap. Palestinian workers cross Eyal checkpoint in Qalqilya in the early morning hours to reach their workplaces beyond the Green Line, occupied West Bank, January 10, 2021. (Keren Manor/Activestills) Palestinian workers cross Eyal checkpoint in Qalqilya in the early morning hours to reach their workplaces beyond the Green Line, occupied West Bank, January 10, 2021. (Keren Manor/Activestills) Self-professed ‘terrorists’ Recently, a rising chorus of critical voices has demanded that the PLO withdraw its recognition of Israel, since Israel did not comply with the conditions of the Oslo Accords. But this is a dangerous claim. Recognition, by its very nature, is one-time and cannot be retracted. Furthermore, recognition is not a tangible, material asset — its importance lies in its symbolism, and in the absence of such symbolism, it is bereft of meaning. If the Palestinians want to withdraw their recognition, they will never again be able to trade it for Israeli withdrawal from territories under its control, since the Israelis will never believe that recognition won’t again be rescinded. The exchange of letters between Arafat and Rabin also included a clause in which the PLO pledged to renounce, and not only condemn, terrorism. That is, the PLO itself agreed to call its struggle up to that point “terrorism.” This posed several problems, but I want to focus on one in particular. I have no intention of having a debate about the definition of terrorism. Rather, the problem is related to the future: what will happen if Israel does not agree to withdraw from the occupied territories or to a two-state solution? What means will be available to Palestinians in their fight against occupation? The difficult answer to these questions became painfully apparent in the late ‘90s. Israel halted the Oslo process and continued expanding the settlement project. It was not at all clear where the Oslo process would lead and what the permanent solution would ultimately be. Israel controlled the land, the air, the borders, the water, and all the resources, and merely handed over management of parts of the population under occupation to the PA; in other words, Israel maintained actual control, but put all responsibility on the PA’s shoulders. What’s more, the agreement did not include an explicit stipulation that would prohibit the continuation of settlement construction in the occupied territories. A demonstrator from Deir Jarir waves a Palestinian flag following a march against construction on Palestinian land by residents of the Jewish settlement of Ofra, occupied West Bank, April 26, 2013. (Issam Rimawi/Flash90) A demonstrator from Deir Jarir waves a Palestinian flag following a march against construction on Palestinian land by residents of the Jewish settlement of Ofra, occupied West Bank, April 26, 2013. (Issam Rimawi/Flash90) Under these conditions, Palestinians could neither advance toward an independent state nor return to the logic of revolution and armed struggle. Not only do they still lack the power and organization to do so, but they are also conceptually trapped by the Oslo Accords. The world — above all, Israel, the European Union, and the United States — recognized the PLO on the basis that it renounced terrorism and accepted certain rules of the game. Therefore, a return to armed struggle is inescapably viewed as a return to terrorism — only this time, the Palestinians themselves will have given a name to their struggle, and they themselves have called it terrorism. Now the rest of the world is allowed to call it terrorism, too. The language of “terrorism” transformed between the First and the Second Intifada. The First Intifada began within a generation of the start of the occupation, so the world saw it and the wider Palestinian struggle as a legitimate response to military rule. The Second Intifada, which came as a response to massive Israel violence following Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Sept. 2000, came against the backdrop of the Oslo peace talks. For the most part, international observers saw every stone thrown in the First Intifada as being thrown against the occupation and in favor of national liberation, but the stone throwing that came after Oslo was viewed as “terrorism.” Oslo 30 Years - Small Banner The context had changed, and with it the meaning of Palestinian resistance. The result has been that peace talks with Israel fail to achieve any goal, but a return to armed struggle is also problematic. The Palestinians are trapped. I have no intention of proposing a manifesto for the future, but I do think that any idea of going back, re-establishing the PLO and returning to the principles on which the organization was founded 60 years ago, is now a non-starter. From here we can only move forward. The PLO did its job; it seared the word “Palestine” into the world’s consciousness and proved that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people. Today’s generation has a different role in a different reality: to draft a new manifesto with the awareness that between the sea and the river there are 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians, and the Israelis control the Palestinians and maintain a regime of Jewish supremacy that expels the latter from their land every single day. This is our starting point. A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here. Oslo Accords Local Call PLO Yasser Arafat The Oslo Accords: 30 Years Later Dr. Raef Zreik is a jurist and researcher, expert in political philosophy and philosophy of law, senior lecturer in Property Law and Jurisprudence at ONO Academic College, associate academic director at the Minerva Center for Humanities at Tel Aviv University and senior research associate at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. Our team has been devastated by the horrific events of this latest war. The world is reeling from Israel’s unprecedented onslaught on Gaza, inflicting mass devastation and death upon besieged Palestinians, as well as the atrocious attack and kidnappings by Hamas in Israel on October 7. Our hearts are with all the people and communities facing this violence. We are in an extraordinarily dangerous era in Israel-Palestine. The bloodshed has reached extreme levels of brutality and threatens to engulf the entire region. Emboldened settlers in the West Bank, backed by the army, are seizing the opportunity to intensify their attacks on Palestinians. The most far-right government in Israel’s history is ramping up its policing of dissent, using the cover of war to silence Palestinian citizens and left-wing Jews who object to its policies. This escalation has a very clear context, one that +972 has spent the past 14 years covering: Israeli society’s growing racism and militarism, entrenched occupation and apartheid, and a normalized siege on Gaza. We are well positioned to cover this perilous moment – but we need your help to do it. This terrible period will challenge the humanity of all of those working for a better future in this land. Palestinians and Israelis are already organizing and strategizing to put up the fight of their lives