Features

How Oslo’s handshake became the world’s most expensive photo-op

Published

1 month ago

2025/10/1

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shaking hands on the White House lawn, with President Bill Clinton congratulating them. (File photo)

The Peace Mirage:

Remember that iconic photograph of September 1993? Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shaking hands on the White House lawn while President Bill Clinton beamed between them like a proud father at a wedding. The world watched and thought: “Finally, śhāntiya (peace) is possible.”

That iconic 1993 handshake on the White House lawn—Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat clasping hands while Bill Clinton beamed like a proud parent—was supposed to be the beginning of Middle East peace. Instead, it became the most over-promised underdeliver in diplomatic history. Three decades later, the Oslo Accords have delivered neither the Palestinian state nor Israeli security they promised, but they’ve certainly delivered plenty: more settlements, more violence, more broken promises, and a peace process that exists mainly in the nostalgia of ageing diplomats. The handshake cost Nobel Prizes, billions in international aid, countless lives, and—most expensively—the credibility of anyone who still believes that photo-ops can substitute for political will. Oslo didn’t fail because peace was impossible; it failed because both sides treated it as a starting gun for a race to create facts on the ground rather than a roadmap to compromise. The real question isn’t whether Oslo was a mirage—it’s how long we’ll keep pretending we see water in the desert.

Thirty years later, that handshake looks less like a breakthrough and more like the world’s most expensive publicity stunt. As we traced in our previous column, the Palestine-Israel conflict was born from a century of broken promises and double-dealing. But the Oslo period represents something even more tragic: the systematic destruction of hope itself.

When Australia announced its recognition of Palestinian statehood last month, it wasn’t celebrating a peace breakthrough—it was performing the last rites over the corpse of the two-state solution.

The Oslo Māyāva (Illusion): 1993-1995

The Oslo Accords didn’t emerge from some sudden burst of goodwill. By the early 1990s, both sides were exhausted. The First Intifada (1987-1993) had drained Israeli resources and international patience, while the PLO was broken and diplomatically isolated after backing Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Sometimes peace talks happen not because people want peace, but because war becomes too expensive.

The secret negotiations in Norway—away from the media circus and American micromanagement—produced something remarkable: mutual recognition. Israel acknowledged the PLO as the legitimate representative of Palestinians, while Palestinians recognised Israel’s right to exist. For the first time since 1948, both sides admitted the other wasn’t going to disappear.

The plan was elegant in its simplicity: gradual Palestinian autonomy, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas, and final-status negotiations on the tough issues—Jerusalem, refugees, borders—within five years. The Palestinian Authority (PA) would govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza, building institutions for eventual statehood.

November 4, 1995: Yigal Amir, a Jewish extremist, shot Rabin dead at a peace rally in Tel Aviv. The assassin didn’t just kill Israel’s Prime Minister—he executed the peace process itself. Rabin was the one Israeli leader with enough military credibility to sell territorial concessions to a skeptical public.

But here’s what most people miss: Rabin’s assassination wasn’t just about one extremist. It reflected a broader Israeli society torn between those willing to trade land for peace and those who saw any compromise as rājadrōhīkama (treason). The same dynamic exists today.

Meanwhile, something else was quietly destroying Oslo’s foundations: settlements. Even as Rabin negotiated withdrawal, Israeli settlements in the West Bank expanded. Between 1993 and 2000, the settler population nearly doubled from 116,000 to 200,000. Imagine negotiating the sale of your house while the buyer is simultaneously building extensions in your backyard.

The Camp David Destruction: Summer 2000

By 2000, the five-year Oslo timeline had expired with none of the final-status issues resolved. President Clinton, desperate for a foreign policy legacy, dragged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to Camp David for what he promised would be the final negotiations.

The conventional narrative says Barak made “generous offers” that Arafat rejected because Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The reality was far more complex. Barak’s offer would have given Palestinians 91% of the Imagine if someone offered you 91% of your house but kept the kitchen, bathroom, and all the connecting hallways.

The Gaza Mess: Hamas vs. Fatah

By 2006, Palestinian society was fragmenting. Hamas—the Islamic Resistance Movement—won legislative elections, defeating Fatah for the first time. The international community, led by the United States, refused to recognise a Hamas government and imposed sanctions on the PA.

The result? Civil war. In 2007, Hamas violently expelled Fatah from Gaza, creating two competing Palestinian governments: Hamas ruling Gaza and Fatah controlling the West Bank under President Mahmoud Abbas. It was like having two captains on a sinking ship, each steering in opposite directions.

Israel’s response was a comprehensive blockade of Gaza, controlling everything from construction materials to kekiri (cucumber) imports. The stated goal was preventing weapons smuggling, but the effect was collective punishment of Gaza’s two million residents.

This created a perfect storm: Hamas could claim resistance legitimacy by fighting the blockade, while Israel could justify the siege by pointing to Hamas rockets. Meanwhile, ordinary Gazans became prisoners in their own territory, with unemployment reaching 45% and basic services collapsing.

Sri Lanka’s Diplomatic Dilemma

During this period, Sri Lanka faced its own challenges. The post-9/11 “War on Terror” era put pressure on countries to choose sides. The LTTE’s terrorist designation made it awkward for Colombo to maintain its traditional support for “liberation movements” while cooperating with Western counter-terrorism efforts.

Yet Sri Lanka consistently maintained its support for Palestinian self-determination in international forums. This wasn’t just principle; it was recognition that small nations need international law to protect them from big power bullying. As Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar often noted, Sri Lanka’s own sovereignty depended on the same principles it advocated for Palestinians.

The irony wasn’t lost on observers: Sri Lanka was fighting its own separatist movement while supporting Palestinian separatism. But Colombo drew distinctions between legitimate national liberation and terrorism, lines that became increasingly blurred in the post-Oslo landscape.

The Death of the Two-State Dream

By 2010, even the most optimistic observers acknowledged that Oslo was dead. The two-state solution that once seemed inevitable now appeared impossible. Israeli settlements had tripled since Oslo, creating 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinian authority had split between two competing governments that couldn’t agree on the time of day, let alone negotiating strategy.

More fundamentally, both societies had moved away from compromise. Israeli politics shifted rightward, with parties opposing Palestinian statehood gaining strength. Palestinian politics radicalized, with Hamas gaining influence by promising resistance rather than negotiation.

The international community kept paying lip service to the two-state solution while doing nothing to preserve its viability. It was like doctors discussing treatment options for a patient who had already died.

The Revenge Cycle Continues

What emerged from Oslo’s wreckage wasn’t peace but managed conflict. Israel could control the situation without making concessions, while Palestinians could claim resistance legitimacy without accepting responsibility for governance. International donors could feel good about funding Palestinian institutions without pressuring Israel to end occupation.

The system worked for everyone except ordinary Palestinians and Israelis who continued dying for their leaders’ failures.

When Hamas launched its October 7, 2023 attack, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 240 hostages, it wasn’t an irrational explosion of violence. It was the logical endpoint of three decades of failed diplomacy, broken promises, and managed despair.

Israel’s massive response, killing over 40,000 Gazans according to local health authorities, followed the same logic: overwhelming force to restore deterrence and destroy Hamas’s military capabilities.

Both sides were playing by rules written during Oslo’s collapse: might make right, negotiation is weakness, and the other side only understands force.

The Recognition nāṭakaya Theater

Australia’s announcement recognising Palestinian statehood isn’t really about Palestinians. It’s about signaling to domestic audiences and international partners that the old rules no longer apply. When even traditionally pro-Israeli countries start hedging their bets, it suggests that Israel’s post-October 7 response has crossed red lines.

But recognition without a viable path to actual statehood is just nāṭakaya (theater). The fundamental problems that killed Oslo remain incompatible claims to the same land, leaders who benefit more from conflict than compromise, and international powers that prefer managing crisis to resolving it.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

All News Advertisement

Features

Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean – references Prof. Gamini Keerawella

Published

2 days ago

2025/11/7

Thilina Walpola

The following are the references for the four-part article, Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean byProf. Gamini Keerawella, published in The Island on 10, 11, 12 and 13 Nov.

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press

Amrith, Sunil S. 2013. Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baldwin, David A. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brewster, David. 2014. India’s Ocean: The Story of India’s Bid for Regional Leadership. London: Routledge.

Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., and Colin Flint. 2017. “The Geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative.” Geopolitics 22 (2): 223–245.

Bose, Sugata. 2006. A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Browning, Christopher S. 2006. “Small, Smart and Salient? Rethinking Identity in the Small States Literature.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (4): 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570601003536

Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Campbell, Kurt M., and Iain H. Houlden, eds. 1989. The Indian Ocean: Regional and Strategic Studies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Chacko, Priya. 2021. “Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean: Geopolitical Crosscurrents.” Third World Quarterly 42 (8): 1647–1665.

Chaturvedi, Sanjay, and Michal Okano-Heijmans, eds. 2019. Connectivity and the Indo-Pacific: Concepts, Challenges, and Prospects. Singapore: Springer.

Chaudhuri, K. N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, Neta C. 2000. Rethinking International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cordner, Lee. 2010. “Rethinking Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean Region.” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 6 (1): 67–85

Das Gupta, Ashin, and M. N. Pearson, eds. 1987. India and the Indian Ocean, 1500–1800. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.

de Silva, Colvin R. 1953. Ceylon under the British Occupation : 1795-1833. Colombo: Ceylon Apothecaries

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Gunasekara, T. 2021. Maritime Diplomacy and Small State Strategy: Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 44(2): 275–292.

Hey, Jeanne A. K., ed. 2003. Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Holmes, James R., and Toshi Yoshihara. 2008. Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan. London: Routledge.

Hourani, George F. 1995. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ingebritsen, Christine. 2006. Small States in International Relations. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kaplan, Robert D. 2010. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. New York: Random House.

Keerawella, Gamini. 2024. India’s Naval Strategic ascent ane the Evolving Natal Security Dynamics of the Indian Ocean-BCIS Research Monograph Series 2024/1. Colombo: Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies.

Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2008. “The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 30 (2): 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs30-2a.

Li, Mingjiang. 2018. China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Africa, and the Middle East. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mahan, Alfred Thayer. 1890. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Marx, Karl. 1952. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.

Medcalf, Rory. 2020. Indo-Pacific Empire: China, America and the Contest for the World’s Pivotal Region. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Pearson, M. N. 2003. The Indian Ocean. London: Routledge.

Rothstein, Robert L. 1968. Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19 (1): 72–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539149.

Strange, Susan. 1988. States and Markets. London: Pinter.

Thorhallsson, Baldur, and Robert Steinmetz, eds. 2017. Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs. London: Routledge.

Till, Geoffrey. 2013. Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wilson, Ernest J. 2015. Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

(Author is a former professor of Modern History at the University of Peradeniya. He could be contacted through Keerawellag@gmail.com)

Features

Vision of Dr. Gamani Corea and the South’s present development policy options

Published

3 days ago

2025/11/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Gamani Core / Dr. Carlos Maria Correa

The ‘takes’ were numerous for the perceptive sections of the public from the Dr. Gamani Corea 100th birth anniversary oration delivered at ‘The Lighthouse’ auditorium, Colombo, by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre in Geneva on November 4th. The fact that Dr. Gamani Corea was instrumental in the establishment of the South Centre decades back enhanced the value of the presentation. The event was organized by the Gamani Corea Foundation.

The presentation proved to be both wide-ranging and lucid. The audience was left in no doubt as to what Dr. Gamani Corea (Dr. GC) bequeathed to the global South by way of developmental policy and thinking besides being enlightened on the historic, institutional foundations he laid for the furtherance of Southern economic and material wellbeing.

For instance, in its essential core Dr. GC’s vision for the South was given as follows: sustainable and equitable growth, a preference for trade over aid, basic structural reform of global economy, enhancement of the collective influence of developing countries in international affairs.

Given the political and economic order at the time, that is the sixties of the last century, these principles were of path-breaking importance. For example, the Cold War was at its height and the economic disempowerment of the developing countries was a major issue of debate in the South. The latter had no ‘say’ in charting their economic future, which task devolved on mainly the West and its prime financial institutions.

Against this backdrop, the vision and principles of Dr. G.C. had the potential of being ‘game changers’ for the developing world. The leadership provided by him to UNCTAD as its long-serving Secretary General and to the Group of 77, now Plus China, proved crucial in, for instance, mitigating some economic inequities which were borne by the South. The Integrated Program for Commodities, which Dr. G.C. helped in putting into place continues to serve some of the best interests of the developing countries.

It was the responsibility of succeeding generations to build on this historic basis for economic betterment which Dr. G.C. helped greatly to establish. Needless to say, all has not gone well for the South since the heyday of Dr. G.C. and it is to the degree to which the South re-organizes itself and works for its betterment as a cohesive and united pressure group that could help the hemisphere in its present ordeals in the international economy. It could begin by rejuvenating the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), for instance.

The coming into being of visionary leaders in the South, will prove integral to the economic and material betterment of the South in the present world order or more accurately, disorder. Complex factors go into the making of leaders of note but generally it is those countries which count as economic heavyweights that could also think beyond self-interest that could feature in filling this vacuum.

A ‘take’ from the Dr. GC memorial oration that needs to be dwelt on at length by the South was the speaker’s disclosure that 46 percent of current global GDP is contributed by the South. Besides, most of world trade takes place among Southern countries. It is also the heyday of multi-polarity and bipolarity is no longer a defining feature of the international political and economic order.

In other words, the global South is now well placed to work towards the realization of some of Dr. GC’s visionary principles. As to whether these aims could be achieved will depend considerably on whether the South could re-organize itself, come together and work selflessly towards the collective wellbeing of the hemisphere.

From this viewpoint the emergence of BRICS could be seen as holding out some possibilities for collective Southern economic betterment but the grouping would need to thrust aside petty intra-group power rivalries, shun narrow national interests, place premium value on collective wellbeing and work towards the development of its least members.

The world is yet to see the latter transpiring and much will depend on the quality of leadership formations such as BRICS could provide. In the latter respect Dr. GC’s intellectual leadership continues to matter. Measuring-up to his leadership standards is a challenge for BRICS and other Southern groupings if at all they visualize a time of relative collective progress for the hemisphere.

However, the mentioned groupings would need to respect the principle of sovereign equality in any future efforts at changing the current world order in favour of all their member countries. Ideally, authoritarian control of such groupings by the more powerful members in their fold would need to be avoided. In fact, progress would need to be predicated on democratic equality.

Future Southern collectivities intent on bettering their lot would also need to bring into sharp focus development in contrast to mere growth. This was also a concern of Dr. G.C. Growth would be welcome, if it also provides sufficiently for economic equity. That is, economic plans would come to nought if a country’s resources are not equally distributed among its people.

The seasoned commentator is bound to realize that this will require a degree of national planning. Likewise, the realization ought to have dawned on Southern governments over the decades that unregulated market forces cannot meet this vital requirement in national development.

Thus, the oration by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa had the effect of provoking his audience into thinking at some considerable length on development issues. Currently, the latter are not in vogue among the majority of decision and policy makers of the South but they will need ‘revisiting’ if the best of Dr. GC’s development thinking is to be made use of.

What makes Dr. GC’s thinking doubly vital are the current trade issues the majority of Southern countries are beginning to face in the wake of the restrictive trade practices inspired by the US. Dr. GC was an advocate of international cooperation and it is to the degree to which intra-South economic cooperation takes hold that the South could face the present economic challenges successfully by itself as a collectivity. An urgent coming together of Southern countries could no longer be postponed.

Features

Attitude development: Key to national progress

Published

3 days ago

2025/11/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

In a developing country like Sri Lanka, one of the main challenges, is developing attitudes and social values of its citizens. Attitudes are the behaviours and beliefs that shape an individual’s or society’s actions. These attitudes have a significant impact on personal and societal development. Therefore, developing the right attitudes is crucial for the progress of a nation.

Why is Attitude Development Important?

Attitude development has a profound impact on various aspects of society. For instance, promoting efficiency, creativity, and innovation can accelerate economic growth. When citizens have a positive attitude towards work and entrepreneurship, they are more likely to contribute to the country’s economic development. Similarly, preserving and promoting social and cultural values can strengthen social harmony and cohesion. A society with a positive attitude towards diversity and inclusivity is more likely to be peaceful and prosperous.

Role of Education in Attitude Development

Education is a key factor in shaping attitudes. A well-educated population is more likely to have a positive attitude towards life, work, and society. Education helps individuals develop critical thinking skills, which enable them to make informed decisions and solve problems effectively. Moreover, education can promote values such as tolerance, empathy, and respect for others, which are essential for building a harmonious society.

Impact of Media on Attitude Development

The media plays a significant role in shaping attitudes. With the advent of social media, people are exposed to a vast amount of information, which can influence their attitudes and behaviours. The media can promote positive attitudes and values, such as kindness, compassion, and social responsibility. However, it can also perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes, which can be detrimental to society.

Role of Community Participation in Attitude Development

Community participation is essential for attitude development. When individuals participate in community service and volunteer work, they develop a sense of social responsibility and empathy towards others. Community participation can also promote values such as teamwork, leadership, and communication skills. Moreover, it can help build stronger, more cohesive communities.

Importance of Leadership in Attitude Development

Leadership plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes. Leaders can inspire and motivate individuals to adopt positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as integrity, accountability, and transparency, which are essential for building trust and confidence in institutions. Moreover, leaders can create a positive work culture that encourages innovation, creativity, and productivity.

Role of Parents and Teachers in Attitude Development

Parents and teachers play a vital role in shaping the attitudes of children. Children learn by observing and imitating adults, so it’s essential for parents and teachers to model positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as respect, kindness, and responsibility, which are essential for building a positive and productive society.

Benefits of Positive Attitudes

Positive attitudes have numerous benefits for individuals and society. They can improve mental and physical health, increase productivity, and enhance overall well-being. Positive attitudes can also promote better relationships, improve communication skills, and increase resilience. Moreover, they can inspire individuals to achieve their goals and pursue their passions.

Challenges of Developing Positive Attitudes

Developing positive attitudes can be challenging, especially in the face of adversity. It requires effort, commitment, and perseverance. Moreover, individuals may face resistance from others who are not supportive of change. However, with the right mindset and support, individuals can overcome these challenges and develop positive attitudes that benefit themselves and society.

Role of Technology in Attitude Development

Technology can play a significant role in attitude development. Online platforms and social media can provide access to information, resources, and support that can help individuals develop positive attitudes. Technology can also facilitate communication, collaboration, and networking, which are essential for building positive relationships and communities.

Future of Attitude Development

The future of attitude development is promising. With the increasing awareness of the importance of mental health, well-being, and social responsibility, more people are recognising the need to develop positive attitudes. Moreover, technological advancements and innovations can provide new opportunities for attitude development and social impact.

The attitude development is crucial for the progress of a nation. It requires a collective effort from individuals, institutions, and leaders to promote positive attitudes and values. By working together, we can build a society that is more harmonious, productive, and prosperous. By developing positive attitudes, we can overcome challenges, achieve our goals, and create a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.

Recommendations

To promote attitude development in Sri Lanka, we recommend the following:

* Integrate attitude development programmes in schools and universities

* Provide training and resources for parents and teachers to promote positive attitudes in children

* Encourage community participation and volunteer work

* Promote positive attitudes and values through media and social media

* Recognise and reward individuals and organisations that demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviours

By implementing these recommendations, we can create a society that values and promotes positive attitudes and behaviours. This will enable us to build a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.

By Jayantha K. Pathirana (M.A)
(Former Principal of Katuwana National School)