The Oslo Diaries

"The Oslo Diaries" (2018 release from Canada and Israel; 97 min. ) is a documentary about the Oslo Accords from the 1990s, as told through the eyes of those who had a front row set during the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestines. As the movie opens, Ron Pundak's diary from these times is read. Pundak was an Israeli professor who risked his life and in 1992 opened a back channel to the PLO for secret negotiations. In January, 1993, negotiations start for real between 2 Israelis and 3 Palestines, among them Abu Ala, whose diaries are also used extensively for this film. At this point we qre less than 15 min. into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this movie delivers an eye-opening account how incredibly difficult and complicated these prolonged discussions were, but also how the negotiators started to trust each other as the weeks, month and years passed by. The film makers also interviewed the participants extensively, including Simon Peres in what turned out to be his last interview before he passed away in 2016. When you watch all of this unfold, it is at times difficult to assess the intrinsic quality of the movie vs. the historical significance of these events. As to the documentary itself, I found it to be very well done, in particular since we all know beforehand what the ultimate outcome would be. As to the historical significance, 2020 marks the 25th anniversary of the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin (and with it the end of the Oslo Accords), allowing a cynical Netanyahu to become PM. And what has he done in those 25 years to achieve peace? Absolutely nothing, on the contrary. As one of the participants of the Oslo Accords laments: "These were the years of hope."

"The Oslo Diaries" premiered at the 2018 Sundance film festival to good acclaim and later that years started airing on HBO. I recently caught it on HBO On Demand, and am astounded by the fact that it's now been 25 years since all of this took place. If you have any interest in the israeli-Palestine conflict, I'd readily suggest you check this out on VOD, and draw your own conclusion.

This is the story of the Oslo peace accords, from the period when it was illegal for Israelis to talk with terrorists (the PLO), to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the subsequent election win of Benjamin Netanyahu. The film is based on the diaries of the participants, interviews, historic footage, and recreations (with Kiev standing in for Oslo).

This is a fascinating film for those who want to see a high-stakes game of peace being played out, with the political backdrop of opposition anti-peace groups. Someday someone may make a similar film about the current Korean peace talks.

While the documentary gives much needed weight to the need for reignited communications & honest negotiation with the Israeli & Arab conflict in the West Bank & Gaza, it subliminally and unfairly condemns the current Israeli leadership as the sole responsible party for the current condition of these relations.

The duplicitous Arafat was no icon of peace, & was responsible for accelerating this bloody & horrific era in Mideastern history - he was no romantic figure!

Never loose sight of the fact that if the Israelis put down their arms, they would be annihilated, if the Arabs put down their arms, there would be peace...

I didn't know what to expect of this documentary, particularly considering that I'm well-versed in the history of the region and some of the reviews (one previously here on IMDB that has since been removed) criticized this film because of its anti-Arab/pro-Israel bias. To be sure, this is a film made by Israeli filmmakers and those on the Israeli side comprised a larger percentage of those interviewed, as more-or-less Abu Alaa (Ahmed Qurei) was the principle Palestinian interviewed for this film. That said, the film puts more blame on the Israelis than is justified. The Arab obstacles to peace - and the incitement and encouragement by the Palestinian Authority that promoted suicide bombers in the 1990s and into the early 2000s wasn't discussed in the slightest. Arafat's duplicity is not raised even in a footnote. The one comment made by one of the Palestinians interviewed (Saeb Ekrat, I believe) is that the Israelis killed the peace process through the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin. While scenes of blown up buses and carnage throughout the streets of Israel were shown, no mention of the link between the Palestinian-State Sponsorship of that violence - justified or otherwise - was remotely suggested. And that's a fact. I say this to underscore that there is bias here, but it is anything but anti-Palestinian.

That said, the contribution of this film is not the exhaustive and principled explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but rather the insight into negotiations of that process that took place from the diaries that were kept contemporaneously with the initially secretive Oslo meetings that began in 1993. This documentary is not meant to be the definitive work on this subject, but rather an insight into the subjective minds of those involved in attempting to do something historic and unprecedented. While the accusation from Mr. Ekrat is that the Israelis killed the peace process with the death of Mr. Rabin, there is no mention, for example, of the two-state solutions offered by Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, after the first Netanyahu administration fell. No metnion is made of the Camp David accords in final six months of President Clinton's second term nor of the work that Dennis Ross continued well into President George W Bush's administration. In a word, it is far too reductive to blame the failure of the peace process on the assassination of Rabin, as the peace-loving left in Israel continued to believe that peace was obtainable until 2006 in which Hamas - hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and in stark opposition to peace-- won the Palestinian elections by a landslide. Of course, no one wants to talk about that, and it's easier to hate Netanyahu (not hard to do) than it is to appreciate the insidious obstacles to peace. Since then, everything has been more of a mess than it already was. The West continues to extol the virtues of democracy and elected governance only when those who are elected share the values and the ends that it seeks to achieve. When Hamas rose to power, the Quartet pretended that Hamas didn't exist, when everyone in power from every side knows that no peace agreement will ever be worth the paper it is written upon without the assent of the most violent and militant among the opposition. Look at the IRA in Northern Ireland. When it decided that the war was over, there has literally been no more conflict. At all. The same would have been possible had Hamas come to the table. Now, however, with the settlers and the emboldened Right in Israel, who knows when the next opportunity may present itself? Still, make no mistake: there were a good 10 years after the assassination of Rabin where peace - at least from the Israeli side - was not only possible, but actively supported by the majority. Even with Ariel Sharon in office, a peace offering would have been made, and in fact was his reason for breaking from the Likud party (Netanyahu's party, which Sharon helped to found) and forming a brand-new party called Kadima. None of this is addressed in the film. So no one should look at this film as the dispositive authority on the historical narrative and accuracy of the peace process. For what it is, however, it is a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how a moment of hope blossomed, if for just a moment, in the dark history of a tragic and unnecessary conflict.

It's 1992. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at a boiling point. The act of talking to the PLO would be treason for any Israeli citizen. Two Israeli professors have been chosen by government leaders to have back-channel talks with three Palestinian representatives in Norway. If found out, the professors would be arrested and the government would deny all knowledge. It's the start of a peace process which would face many hurdles.

This is history. It is important history. It's worth going over again. I'm familiar with less than half of the events. It's interesting to see the rest of the story and it has some interesting bits of behind-the-scenes. The conceit is that these are personal diaries of the participants. There are certainly some internal thoughts being expressed. I don't know if anything is being held back or if it has the full depth of opinions. It's compelling history and as a movie, it is compelling drama.