For more than two decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has played a central role in the failure of the US-sponsored Oslo negotiations process and the two-state solution that it’s predicated on. As he boasted to a group of Israeli settlers in a candid moment caught on video in 2001 following his first term as prime minister (1996-1999): "I de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords.” https://imeu.org/article/netanyahu-putting-an-end-to-the-oslo-accords-the-two-state-solution
First of all I'll say that it doesn't matter what Netanyahu said he did, what matters is what he actually did. As all politicians lie, and of course both Israelis and Palestinians.
I might misunderstood you. When you claimed that Israel withdrew from the Oslo Accords, it seemed like you meant that Israel retracted all of the agreements related to said accords, similar to what Abbas did in 2020. So that didn't happen. If you meant that Israel canceled all further negotiations, then I would point out that the last time negotiations took place was in 2013-14 (under Netanyahu's government), and it seems to me that both sides made some questionable things that jeopardized the success of these talks. And as I showed in my previous comment, it is a fact that some agreements were signed after 1996.
This comment also answers your last point, when you linked a source that also references the 1997 agreement.
Obviously the two entities weren’t equal in the sense of military power, economical development, moral values, state institutions, foreign relations. But in what sense was it unfair?
You answered your own question...
If these are you're definitions of fair and equal, then those are just facts about the situation. It's reasonable to have two unequal entities having negotiations, and of course they both have to compromise in some way. So this information is irrelevant, we can ignore it.
The same argument can be made about the debates concerning the ‘two-states solution’ that was offered in Oslo. This offer should be seen for what it is: partition under a different wording.
What’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong is that it’s not an actual two state solution because
Israel would not only decide how much territory it was going to concede but also what would happen in the territory it left behind.”
It would not be a free and independent Palestinian state if the Israelis are still in control...
I don't think it's fair to criticize the Israeli negotiators for not committing to a full-blown Palestinian state, especially having their own army. Jews know the implications of underestimating their enemies. They have a long history of being defenseless, being subjected to foreign rule, not being able to control their own fate.
Without the IDF's crackdown on terrorism in the West Bank, it could very quickly pose an even grater security threat than the Gaza strip under Hamas. As you might know, Hamas was always against the peace talks. In the '90s they sent suicide bombers to blow up buses, restaurants etc, in order to stop negotiations. The peace camp in Israel lost almost all of its political power because of the Palestinian violence.
The truth is for the the Palestinians to have a full-blown free and independent state alongside Israel, if you really want that, the dominant entities in Palestinian society should be truly peaceful. In this day and age, that's the only thing Israelis are willing to except. These entities can't be terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Not Fatah, not Hamas, not Islamic Jihad, not the PFLP etc.