Why did Arafat/the Palestinian leadership accept terms of the Oslo Accords that seemed to make it hard to achieve Palestinian sovereignty?
I am referring to this lecture. Mehran Kamrava claims that the terms of the Peace agreement were so skewed that it made Palestine statehood impossible. Among these were 3 things:
- The leadership chose policies that sustained the status quo instead of working towards statehood.
- Dividing Palestine into 3 parts, 1 ruled by the Israel, 1 ruled jointly by Israeli military with Palestinian Civilian govts. and another under Palestinian control
- Giving Israel economic control over Palestine with the accompanying Paris Protocol which made Israeli currency dominant in Palestine and gave Israel the right to collect Tariffs not Palestine.
These terms seem very 1 sided. This has lead political scientists like Kamrava to claim that Palestinian leadership betrayed the public. My question is basically did they do that ? Why would they do that ? OR was their situation such that they had to accept these terms and it wasn't a betrayal ?