De uitroeping van een Palestijnse staat door de Palestijnse Autoriteit is in strijd met de Oslo akkoorden en andere overeenkomsten die in het kader van het Oslo vredesproces zijn gesloten. Toch heeft de EU daar geen kritiek op, en bekritiseert slechts opmerkingen van minister Lieberman die heeft gedreigd dat Israel in reactie daarop zich niet meer aan de Oslo Akkoorden zou houden. Een typisch geval van omgekeerde wereld: het is immers de Palestijnse (voorgenomen) actie die de akkoorden in gevaar brengt. Waarom zou Israel zich aan een overeenkomst houden die voor de Palestijnen niks meer waard is?
EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton said Israel's foreign minister could not undo the Oslo Accords in response to a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, in an interview with Israeli daily Haaretz published Thursday.
"I'm not sure that it's up to him to declare that Oslo is void really," Ashton said, adding, "I don't accept that Oslo is void, [if] so, it would be a different world."
The EU leader met with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Friday as part of tour of the Middle East and meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials in an effort to give peace talks a push.
Ashton confirmed reports that Lieberman said in their meeting Israel could back out of past agreements, including the Oslo Accords that established the Palestinian Authority, if Palestinians seek UN recognition in September.
Lieberman said "something to the effect," Ashton told Haaretz.
I'm not sure about the specific 1993 Oslo agreement, but a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Arab state is definitely an abrogation of the 1995 Interim Agreement that was part of the Oslo process under Article XXXI:
7. Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
It is also an abrogation of the 1998 Wye River Memorandum:
V. Unilateral Actions
Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement.
Not to mention the identical wording in the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum:
10. Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement.
Apparently, the EU interpretation of the previous agreements between Israel and the PLO is that the PLO can violate the agreements with impunity but Israel must still adhere to them.
This is not exactly the textbook definition of an "agreement."