HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011746.jpg

on security and foreign affairs. Barely three weeks after I joined the
government, we had to decide on the most important agreement with the
Palestinians since Oslo. Dubbed Oslo II, it involved a major transfer of
authority and territory. The process would begin with our pulling out from more
than a quarter of the West Bank, including the major Palestinian towns and
some 450 smaller towns and villages. After that, there would be three further
redeployment phases, at six-month intervals, in so-called "Area C" of the West
Bank – a mix of unpopulated land, settlements and a number of points we’d
designated as strategically important. Under Oslo, and its parent agreement
Camp David, it was all part of ensuring the Palestinians could exercise their
"legitimate rights" in the "single territorial entity" of the West Bank and Gaza –
in other words, a path to statehood. But only by the time the final three phases
of redeployment were complete were we required to begin the "permanent-
status" talks on issues like land and borders, Israeli settlements, the future of
Jerusalem: the real core of a peace agreement.

By the time I joined the discussions on Oslo II in August 1995, the main
points had already been agreed. Rabin was in favor, as were virtually all the
cabinet ministers. Whatever scant influence I might exercise would have to
come at the decisive cabinet meeting, set for August 13. From the objections I’d
raised to the Gaza-Jericho deal as chief of staff, Rabin knew I’d be concerned
not only to ensure the security provisions avoided potential misunderstandings
on the ground, but about the longer-term implications, especially since the scale
of the Israeli withdrawals was much larger this time. In fact, the agreement
could be interpreted as requiring us to cede Palestinian control over virtually all
of Gaza and West Bank by the end of the third redeployment phase –quite
possibly before talks on the permanent-status questions had even begun.

I went to see Rabin a few days before the cabinet vote. I explained why I
thought the agreement was flawed. I argued we should either delay some of our
redeployments or bring the permanent-status negotiations forward. He listened
to me. He barely spoke. He knew I’d be against Oslo II, and knew the reasons
why. But we both knew something else: having been brought into government
by Rabin, I would be expected, on a vote of this importance, to be in his corner.

The cabinet vote wasn’t happening in a political vacuum. Likud’s defeat in
1992 had meant the end of Yitzhak Shamir’s leadership. The new Likud leader
was the former Sayeret Matkal officer with whom I’d shared a newspaper cover
in 1986 predicting that he and I would end up facing each other at the ballot
box: Bibi Netanyahu. Positioning himself as the fresh young face of Israeli

275
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011746