Following the Sovereignty Movement's call for the establishment of a State Commission of Inquiry into the Oslo Accords, Nadia Matar was interviewed by Arutz Sheva (Israel National News), where she explained in depth the significance of this demand. We invite you to read the interview below:
To the original article and radio interview
At a discussion held by the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee's Subcommittee on the Oslo Accords, the Sovereignty Movement called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the Oslo Accords.
In an interview with Channel 7, Nadia Matar, one of the movement's leaders and the person who presented the proposal in the Knesset, explained the reasoning behind the initiative.
Matar described the discussion, chaired by MK Zvi Sukkot and attended by several organizations and agencies, which focused on Israel's handling—if any—of Palestinian Authority violations of the Oslo Accords. During the discussion, however, it became apparent that the official government bodies invited to participate—including the Civil Administration, the National Security Council, and the Ministry of Defense—had no answers. In fact, their representatives had not even arrived with a list of the Palestinian Authority's violations of the agreement. Matar said representatives of right-wing organizations were deeply disturbed to realize that, for 34 years, no official Israeli body had systematically documented or addressed these violations.
Reflecting on her own involvement, Matar recalled the early days following the signing of the Oslo Accords, when she and her late mother-in-law, Ruth Matar, founded the Women in Green organization to oppose the diplomatic initiative. At the time, many tried to reassure them by arguing that the process would never culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state and that their efforts were unnecessary. Later, following Israel's disengagement from Gush Katif, Matar met Yehudit Katsover, and together they founded the Sovereignty Movement. They concluded that it was not enough simply to oppose the Oslo Accords; it was necessary to present a positive political alternative—the plan for applying Israeli sovereignty.
In Matar's view, the call for a commission of inquiry into the Oslo Accords is an integral part of the shift that Israel's leadership must make away from the Oslo paradigm. A commission examining how Israel came to sign those agreements would help close that chapter in the country's history and mark the beginning of a new era in which Israel learns from its mistakes and ensures that such errors are never repeated.
Asked whether the demand for an inquiry stems from a belief that the agreements were the result of deliberate actions intended to harm the state, or whether they should be investigated even if the consequences were unintended, Matar referred to historian Barbara Tuchman's book on the disastrous consequences of decisions made by leaders throughout history, beginning with the decision to bring the Trojan Horse into Troy. Such decisions, she noted, were seemingly made in good faith but nevertheless led to catastrophe for their people. The fact that the actions were not malicious does not change the disastrous outcome, Matar argued. She added that, had Tuchman been alive today, she believes the historian would have devoted a special chapter to the Oslo Accords.
Addressing the fact that the Oslo Accords were a political decision—one that is not typically examined by a commission of inquiry—Matar pointed to the Agranat Commission, which also investigated political decisions surrounding the Yom Kippur War. Such a commission, she said, would not primarily examine whether decisions were made within legal authority, although that too should be considered, but rather whether decision-makers had all the relevant information before them, whether they were presented with the risks and warnings, whether the assessments they received were accurate, and similar questions. In addition, she argued, the commission should investigate why the process was not halted once it became clear that it was leading to disaster. According to Matar, right-wing governments that chose not to stop the process should also be examined.
Matar was also asked about the identity of those who would serve on such a commission. Could there be investigators whose objectivity the public could trust? She declined to mention specific names but made clear that she did not envision Supreme Court justices serving on the panel. Instead, she said, it should consist of retired legal and security professionals alongside other respected public figures capable of examining the issues carefully and responsibly. "This is not about revenge," she emphasized. "It is a tool used by a democratic state to learn from a historic failure so that these mistakes are not repeated. Unfortunately, the spirit of Oslo still exists in various places today. An entire generation has grown up under the Oslo reality and assumes that the Palestinian Authority's governing institutions and the prospect of a Palestinian state are fixed realities that cannot be changed."
Matar further argued that Israel bears responsibility not only to itself but to the wider world. When Israel yields to terrorism and reinforces the belief that territorial concessions will transform its enemies, she said, other countries observe and draw lessons for their own struggles against terrorism. A complete 180-degree departure from the Oslo approach, she maintained, would send a powerful message worldwide in favor of confronting terrorism with determination and resolve.
"We need to move toward a spirit of sovereignty. Settlement is important, and we welcome it, but communities can be reversed, as we saw in Gush Katif and northern Samaria. Without sovereignty, the message is that we ourselves are not certain that this land belongs to us."
Finally, Matar was asked how she would respond if left-wing organizations or a left-wing government were to demand a commission of inquiry into the settlement enterprise, arguing that it is the obstacle to peace. She rejected the comparison while affirming that she respects the right to call for a commission of inquiry. "The settlement enterprise is a continuation of the Zionist project. If people want to investigate settlement, maybe they will also ask to investigate the Zionist idea itself and the establishment of the State of Israel," she said, concluding that there is no comparison between that and a process that hands over weapons and territory in the heart of the country to an enemy.