On these hot, sticky days of the Israeli summer, it is pleasant to feel the coolness of Oslo, even if the visit is only virtual. Fourteen years after the signing of the Oslo agreement, it is again the subject of debate: Was it a historical mistake? In the past, only the Right said so. They talked about “Oslo criminals,” as the Nazis used to rail against “November criminals” (those who signed the November 1918 armistice between the defeated Germany and the victorious Allies.)

Now, the debate is also agitating the Left. With the wisdom of hindsight, some leftists argue that the Oslo agreement is to blame for the dismal political situation of the Palestinians, the near collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The slogan “Oslo is dead” can be heard on all sides.What truth is there in this?On the morrow of the agreement, Gush Shalom held a public debate in a large Tel-Aviv hall. Opinions were divided. Some said that it was a bad agreement and should not be supported in any way. Others saw it as a historic breakthrough.

I supported the agreement. I told the audience: True, it is a bad agreement. No one looking only at the written paragraphs could stand up for it. But for me, it is not the written paragraphs that are important. What is important is the spirit of the agreement. After decades of mutual denial, Israel and the Palestinian people have recognized each other. That is a historic step, from which there is no going back.

 It is happening now in the minds of millions on both sides. It creates a dynamism for peace that will overcome, in the end, all the obstacles embedded in the agreement.This view was accepted by most of those present and has since determined the direction of the peace camp. Now I am asking myself: Was I right?Yasser Arafat said about Oslo: “This is the best agreement that could be achieved in the worst situation.” He meant the balance of power, with Israel’s huge advantage over the Palestinians.For the sake of fair disclosure: I may have contributed in a small way to the shaping of his attitude.

At my meetings with him in Tunis, I advocated again and again a pragmatic approach. Learn from the Zionists, I told him. They never said “No”. At every stage they agreed to accept what was offered to them, and immediately went on to strive for more. The Palestinians, on the contrary, always said “No” and lost.Some time before the agreement was signed, I had an especially interesting meeting in Tunis. I did not yet know what was happening in Oslo, but ideas for a possible agreement were in the air. The meeting took place in Arafat’s office, with Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Abed-Rabbo and two or three others.It was a kind of brain storming session. We covered all the subjects under discussion — a Palestinian state, borders, Jerusalem, the settlements, security and so on. Ideas were bandied about and considered. I was asked: What can Rabin offer? I asked in return: What can you accept? In the end we reached a kind of consensus that came very close to the Oslo Agreement that was signed a few weeks later.I remember, for example, what was said about Jerusalem.