Interview with Ambassador Alan Baker: Inside the Drafting Room of the Oslo Accords
Erika Grey: My guest today is Ambassador Alan Baker. Ambassador Baker served as the chief legal adviser to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Israel's ambassador to Canada, and crucially, he was one of the original legal drafters of the historic Oslo Accords.
Across Europe and the United Nations, leaders continuously cite the Oslo framework to justify their push for a two-state mandate. But what do the actual legal agreements say? And why are Brussels' current policies threatening their own strategic standing in the Middle East?
Ambassador Baker was inside the drafting room and today he's here to give us the unvarnished legal facts. Ambassador Baker, I'm beyond thrilled to have you on the show today, especially because you're going to take us inside of the drafting room.
At the Berlin 1999 council summit, the European Union stated:
"The European Union also calls upon the parties to reaffirm their commitments to the basic principles established within the framework of Madrid, Oslo, and subsequent agreements in accordance with UNSC resolutions 242 and 338. It urges the parties to agree on an extension of the transnational period established by the Oslo agreements."
So we see that they're basing their mandate, their two-state mandate on these agreements. Can you tell us what the European Union fundamentally got wrong with the Oslo Accords in that you were one of the drafters in the room?
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, first of all, I really don't understand what this term "transnational period" is. It doesn't appear anywhere in any of the agreements and it doesn't appear in any of the Security Council resolutions.
The whole framework of whether it's Madrid or Oslo was indeed based on the call by the Security Council in Resolution 242 from 1967 and 338 from 1973 to solve the dispute through negotiations. It didn't determine or prejudge what would be the outcome of the negotiations. The aim was to reach a peaceful solution between the two parties.
Now, this leads me to the other point. There's never been any such agreement on a two-state solution. It was something that appeared in a vision by President George W. Bush in a Security Council speech in 2002 where he said, "I would like to see—I have a vision that two states live side by side in peace and security." That was all he said.
Now, nothing appeared in any of the agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians or anybody else on the two-state solution. And the truth is, exactly to the contrary, the whole idea behind the Oslo Accords was that the parties will enter into permanent status negotiations in order to reach whatever permanent status they might agree to—which could be one state, two states, three states, a federation, confederation, condominium, co-imperium, autonomy, or anything that they agreed to. There was absolutely no commitment by anybody to a two-state solution.
So this concept was taken up by the EU in its various declarations and directives as if this is the holy outcome of the situation: that there has to be a two-state solution.
Erika Grey: Was there anyone in Israel at the time that was able to correct the European Union as they were having these meetings? Who was advising Europe? And this is prior to the External Action Service—you have to go back prior to the Lisbon Treaty. Who was researching these areas? Who in the EU or in Israel—was anybody in Israel able to correct this?
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, Israel had its diplomatic representatives in the EU from 1959 during the EEC period—the European Economic Community, diplomatic relations were established and Israel had its representation at the level of ambassador or otherwise. So there was always somebody in Brussels to comment or correct or to communicate with the EU people whether they were wrong or not wrong.
So I can only presume that the Israeli diplomats there would have been instructed to comment on these things and correct them. I know that where I was sitting as the legal adviser of Israel's Foreign Ministry, I would have clearly asked them to clarify to the European leadership that there's no such thing as a two-state solution.
But you see, this cant term became lingua franca. You know, it became the be-all and end-all of all the relationships between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This was the ideal solution and they established a fixation. And if you listen to the statements by the British, by the French, by the Dutch, by Spain, by Ireland, the first and only thing that they're all saying is, "Yes, well, there has to be a two-state solution," without really understanding what it means and what is the background of the relationships between the parties, which is a background of commitment to negotiate a permanent status, nothing more and nothing less.
Erika Grey: And there's a lot of pieces that are ignored—the fact that Israel has changed radically. It's a superpower nation. The European Union signed the association agreement. So, Israel is not even in the same place as when they were first jumping on this bandwagon. And nobody's looking at what this is really going to do to the current relationship, to the benefits that the European Union gets from Israel. And it's out of date. It's out of time. There's so many things wrong with it. It's hypocritical. You apply this to Israel, but you don't apply it in Cyprus. From what I can see, it's a form of geopolitical antisemitism that's taking place. And I don't even know that they're aware of that.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, yes, you're right. Look, the association agreement contains many sections and many levels of economic cooperation and cultural cooperation. The only problem is that the political element has overtaken everything else.
And this is the element that is pushing the individual countries to urge the EU to do—some of them are talking about cancelling the association agreement. Ireland, for instance, and Spain. But the Germans and the Italians and others obviously don't agree with this, because the association agreement, as I said, contains many levels and many aspects.
Israel is in the Horizon programs. Israel is essentially helping the European Union accomplish its aims. Enrico Letta and his fifth freedom—I recommend the lecture on the fifth freedom proposal, that is the way to add to the traditional four freedoms (freedoms of movement of goods, services, capitals, and persons) a fifth freedom on innovation, research, knowledge, skills, data, artificial intelligence. It's so important that the European Union can be very good on that dimension. Israel is a key part of that defense.
And this is what is so shocking about the European Union continuing on this two-state solution when it's going to hurt—if it were to ever be realized, which it never will be, but if it were, it would only hurt their own aims, because you're going to jeopardize a nation that is a strategic asset of the European Union by pursuing this two-state solution. It is also going to prevent itself from being a key player in the Middle East region, because Israel is the cornerstone of the Middle East.
Erika Grey: Well, first of all, they've already done that by taking the very extreme positions that they've taken. They've basically cancelled their own participation in any future negotiations or anything because they've come down squarely against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians. They're no longer a neutral element or a neutral observer.
But there's another very important point, Ambassador. The Oslo Accords were signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians—the Palestinian leadership, the PLO, and Israel. They were witnessed by the EU. They were witnessed by Norway, by Egypt, by Jordan, and they were endorsed by the United Nations. Now, in international law and practice, states that sign as witnesses to international agreements are obliged not to undermine the agreements. To the contrary, they're supposed to encourage the parties to observe the agreements and prevent violations.
What the EU is doing, especially the Norwegians, is to literally undermine the Oslo Accords by pushing for this two-state solution, by taking a very strange resolution to the General Assembly of the UN to recognize a non-existent Palestinian state. And by doing that, they're trying to prejudge the outcome of permanent status negotiations which have yet to take place as long as the Oslo Accords remain valid—and they are valid.
So the EU is basically shooting itself in the foot because it's undermining the Oslo Accords, it's frustrating them, and it's also bringing about a situation where they can no longer be accepted as an objective participant in any negotiation.
The Commission needs to rein in what's happening in the Netherlands right now, because there's a misconception on the power of the nation-state within the European Union, and really it is the Commission that is the legal authority, and the problem is it doesn't have enough authority. There needs to be some changes so that it has more, because the nation-states are running amok. And look what happened in Spain—it's shocking that Spain was selling component parts to Iran to use in its bombs. How did that happen?
And some of this is an issue that needs to be dealt with at the Commission level, and Israel should be saying to the Commission or contacting Ursula von der Leyen and saying, "Look, you can't let this happen," and really punching above its weight and stating, "Look, this is what we give you. You have proposals on the table that you are not going to achieve. You will not be a geopolitical player without us. And you are not going to achieve your economic, technological, and other aims without Israel and our talent." And right now, you're causing a major exodus of Jews from the European Union.
Ambassador Alan Baker: I'm not sure that Israel has got the power to say that to the Commission or any other element in the EU. They've been so overtaken by politics that they're basically not prepared to listen to anything else. And I think the Israelis are very frustrated that they're not able to overcome this political sway that's overtaken all elements of the EU, in my opinion, and it's preventing any practical, pragmatic, or logical thinking on the part of the leaders within the EU.
Erika Grey: There's a major consequence happening, and that's that there's an exodus now of Jewish talent because Jews are leaving the European Union. Also, Israel is flocking to the Abraham Accords, which the European Union really doesn't recognize—not because they're not great, but they're not European. Their initiatives could be excellent for the Middle East, but they're going to have to have Israel on their side and they can't continue to alienate Israel because of this ridiculous policy that's only going to shoot them in the foot.
There now are consequences because they are losing talent that they're desperately trying to hold on to. They appealed to the Americans, different universities trying to get more talent because they want to achieve in AI and they want to achieve in green technology and all these different initiatives so that they could really boost their economy. And Jewish talent—my goodness, just look at all of the awards through the years, startup nation, technology, medicine—there's consequences. And those consequences are happening, and Europe is going to find itself having a crisis because they're going to become this economic giant, but they're going to not have any say in the Middle East, especially if Israel continues to embrace the Abraham Accords as the only way in the Middle East and not their pact for the Mediterranean.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, you know, this will probably happen, especially if Saudi Arabia decides—and ultimately they will decide—to join the Abraham Accords, and that will really place the Europeans in a very minor status with respect to the Middle East peace process or anything else. So, I think this is going to happen very soon.
You can't bully—and essentially what they're doing is they're bullying Israel. They're funding this Palestinian Authority, they're throwing so much money at it that essentially they're funding a state which is against federalist ideology. It's against the Spinelli papers. Spinelli talked about the danger of the nation-state. And the idea of the European Union was to prevent the conflicts that can come from the nation-state. And what are they doing? They're trying to fund a state that's already made it clear that their purpose is to annihilate Israel—even though they took it back during one of their meetings with the European Union, and I don't know how the European Union bought it.
October 7th, all of the different evidence through the years, the Palestinian Authority abusing funds, UNRWA—there's just so much evidence and it's just being ignored.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Absolutely. They're not prepared to face the realities. They're financing projects which are clearly in violation of the Oslo Accords to which they witnessed. So, you know, they're playing a very strange game.
Erika Grey: Can you talk about what they're funding that's in violation of Oslo?
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, the projects—they're funding projects in Area C. Now, according to the Oslo Accords, the territories were divided up into three areas: Areas A and B under Palestinian jurisdiction and control, and Area C under Israeli jurisdiction and control, all this subject to the outcome of permanent status negotiations.
Now in Area C, Israel has full control and full administration. But the EU nevertheless insists on financing all sorts of projects, Palestinian projects, in Area C without doing this through Israel, which is the agreed-upon administering power, and in violation of the Israeli planning and zoning rules. So they're financing and encouraging the building of projects going behind the back of Israel, which is the agreed-upon administrative regime in Area C now. And they're channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars into these projects.
And then when Israel comes along and says, "Well, you know, you have to dismantle this building or this infrastructure because it's illegal, it hasn't been approved, it hasn't been covered by the various rules for electricity, sewage, and one thing and another," and when Israel moves to have these structures removed, then Israel is being accused of undermining European aid to the Palestinians, and this is further room for condemning Israel.
So it's a vicious circle: they're violating the accords, and then when Israel takes action—because it has the legal right to take action—then they're accusing Israel of undermining their attempts to help the Palestinians. You can't win in any way. And so whatever Israel might say to them doesn't make any difference, because they don't accept—you know, they don't even accept Israeli authority, despite the fact that they witnessed an agreement that gives Israel authority in Area C.
Erika Grey: It's shocking because there's no policing of this. There's no policing of the Oslo Accords, of international law, and they're doing what they wish, let's face it.
But when we talked a little bit earlier about Israel having no recourse—and I understand that the European Union is Israel's largest trading partner, so just the fact that Israel is selling over 50% of defense products to the European Union, you're intertwined like you're stuck, because it's a really very important market for your economy. But the recourse is just what we talked about: they begin to see that this path that they're following is going to hurt their own aims. They're trying to enact as much from the Letta report, the Draghi report, but Letta talks about the importance of the brain power, the fifth freedom. They're going to hurt themselves. They're going to end up being just this economic giant.
The other piece is that very soon you're more than likely going to have Iran have a new government. And when that democratic government takes hold and Israel is going to be part of that and the United States, Europe is not going to be a part of that. Europe has to act fast because they're really alienating Israel. I can see that happening.
Ambassador Alan Baker: But again, I, you know, I have to keep coming back to the fact that they have these preconceived political positions that are basically preventing them from taking a pragmatic position with respect to the issues at hand.
I can give you an example, you know, this issue of settlements, for instance. Now, as an international lawyer, I can say that Israel has got every right and justification to establish or to use land which is not owned by any private Palestinian owner to establish—whether it's farms, or grow trees, or build houses—pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. International law allows this.
But the EU and the UN have basically taken the position that any type of settlement is illegal, which has got absolutely no legal basis at all, but it's become a—again, it's become lingua franca, and this is guiding EU policy. And this is behind the sanctions that are now being applied by the British and by EU countries as well against products emanating from Israeli settlements, despite the fact that these products are produced by Palestinian workers. By sanctioning these companies, basically they're punishing the Palestinian workers, not punishing Israel.
But this is something that the whole EU political element can't accept, and they have this fixation that overrides any other logical, pragmatic, practical consideration. And this is what is prejudicing any future relationship that could be useful both to the EU as well as to Israel.
Erika Grey: The European Union is a work in progress. The problem goes back to: there's just too much say in the nation-states. The European Union does not have a brain, a research brain like the US State Department. There was a proposal—and I cite Andrew Duff, I've had the honor of interviewing Mr. Duff, he's a European Union constitutional specialist, and he actually proposed that the Commission is the one that basically establishes the foreign policy and the member nations follow.
Some of this is how EU law is made. You can't make a law at a Council summit, let's face it. And then that stays the mandate for 50 years, or practically 50 years, when the world radically changes. And it's the same thing with Iran: they have the Edinburgh summit, the nation-states that were dealing with Iran, getting oil at the time, totally closed their eyes to all of the atrocities happening inside of Iran. And then you have this policy of appeasement. And then you had Iran infiltrating Spanish television stations, think tanks, which is now some of the problem that you're facing, because Iran infiltrated media. And so you've got this disinformation.
The problem has to eventually be addressed within the European Union engine, the European movement. And they're open, because what they want is a successful economic, geopolitical European Union. Some of these problems are because of the nation-states.
But the problem is: what does Israel do? How does Israel now deal with this? How does this problem get fixed? Because I'd like to see good relations between the European Union and Israel, and Jews being able to flourish inside of European countries and not be persecuted because they're Jews, and not come in from Israel and be harassed, their stuff ransacked, and then threats of prison. This shouldn't be taking place at all in any European country. So what I'd like to see is the good relations there being a real influence on the world stage.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, look, I think the people that you mentioned could probably be more vocal in talking to the political element and saying, "Look, you're shooting yourselves in the foot. You're damaging the EU. You're damaging its overall capabilities of influencing any situation. Try and avoid overpoliticizing the central element and good work of the EU." That should be the message coming from these people who are serious people and who have the good of the EU at heart, rather than the political message that these—whether it's the Spanish or the Irish or others—are trying to push the EU into.
Erika Grey: Exactly. Sometimes a person doesn't learn unless they face consequences. And I think with Europe it's a matter of a crisis. Guy Verhofstadt has stated, "too little, too late." And I think Europe is going to find that it's on the verge of another crisis. And I really hate to see that Europe is not going to be a part of negotiations in the Middle East—it's ostracizing itself and doesn't realize that. As I stated to you, something is soon to happen with Iran, and we all know that that's going to come next, and Europe might find it's out the door if it doesn't remedy this and realize that it's losing Israel.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, look, Erica, you know, you're right. In life, you can learn from consequences and you can correct them. But in politics, and in this type of framework that we're talking about, sometimes the consequences destroy any potential for correcting.
And I think here what's happening is that the whole bona fides that existed between Israel and the European governments and the EU itself is disintegrating because of the overpoliticization and underestimation or undervaluing of the other aspects of the relationship. It's very sad for me to say this, but I'm not sure whether the consequences can be corrected.
Erika Grey: No, I always found it interesting that with the two-state solution, there was not anybody looking at the geoeconomic consequences of a supposed two-state solution. There was no writings. There was nothing. There was no analysis. It's almost like people just accepted it and went with it without realizing how it could jeopardize the political or economic aims of a nation—well, of an empire, the European Union, that's proposing it—or even of the United States when the United States was proposing it as well. The United States has moved away from that, though.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, look, they went to the UN and recognized a Palestinian state that doesn't exist without thinking about the consequences. What type of state? Where will they get their water from? Where will they get their power from? What will be the basis of their economies?
This was a purely—I would say—stupid political action, possibly to mollify internal Muslim pressures in each individual country. But it's caused so much damage, and it's ruined any chance for some type of genuinely bona fide relationship between those countries and Israel. So take each individual country and then multiply them by the members of the EU, and you have a crisis. And I can't see how this crisis can be changed unless of course the EU somehow retreats from its politicized position and re-enters its more general economic and cultural aspects.
Erika Grey: Oh, I know how it can be remedied. The 1980 Venice Declaration needs to be scrapped. The procedure—that entire procedure is flawed, mandating from Council summits. Even the External Action Service, they just follow the mandate, whatever was agreed at summits, whoever heads the External Action Service, which is Kaja Kallas right now.
So there needs to be some sort of a brain. And I don't know whether they do that with a treaty change. I don't know if Ursula von der Leyen can do that right now and have that as one of her commissioners' portfolios that's handled, but they definitely need a research brain. And I think they need to take—and now I'm going to sound like a total European federalist, so the federalists, if they're tuning in, are going to love me for this—they need to take some of this authority from the nation-states. End of story.
And there needs to be a little more authority in the Commission itself that doesn't allow these countries like the Netherlands to make this decision. And who really researches their proposals? Because let's face it, the only reason that the 1980 Venice Declaration happened was because the leading countries at the time were concerned about oil. So they went along with what the Arabs wanted put into that declaration, and you can't do foreign policy like that. You don't see that happening in the United States.
The remedy, Ambassador, is going to come from the European Union decision-making process. And I understand that they have a really difficult issue because of the veto and getting around that and how do they make these changes without a treaty change. But I think that's where it's going to be remedied.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, you know, I think once the international situation calms down one way or another—the Iranian problem will be solved one way or another, and the Gaza issue will be solved one way or another. Once these delicate, sensitive points calm down, that will probably be the time where it will be possible to re-engage and recalibrate EU policies and bring it back to what it should have been and what it could still be. But as long as these irritant situations still exist, I don't think it could happen.
Erika Grey: No, you're absolutely right. Another thing that we haven't mentioned is not just the influence of Iran, but the influence of Qatar and the huge financial outlay that's going into Western universities by the Qataris with clear political intentions. So, this is another thing that has to be addressed.
Ambassador Alan Baker: Well, also Qatar is funding media. You and I both know that Qatar bought into certain media and influenced the discourse. And so you have all of these anti-Israel terms that have no basis, like apartheid and genocide. And even Kallas just referenced—I couldn't believe Kaja Kallas. The shock for me was how uninformed even the politicians are who are in these positions of power.
Ambassador Alan Baker: That's why you're correct in saying that rather than let things be led by the politicians, they should be led by professional people who have the good of the EU at heart, rather than the political direction that their specific leaders want to push them into. As long as there is so much tension in the various political arenas, good sense won't be taken into consideration, and it's just, you know, emotions and propaganda will dictate the actions, which is very sad, as I said.
Erika Grey: Thank you for joining me for this exclusive discussion with Ambassador Alan Baker. Hearing from someone who held the pen during the drafting of the Oslo Accords provides the missing pieces that you simply will not find in mainstream news analysis.
Make sure to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and hit that notification bell. I want to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Let's continue the conversation. I'm Erika Grey, and we'll see you next time.
0 Comments