Because these non-treaty agreements run counter to absolutely incontrovertible legal expectations, Israel is now obligated to terminate the agreement. A parallel argument can be made concerning PLO obligations, but this would make little realistic sense, as we shall see, in view of the pertinent and authoritative grounds for termination. The Oslo Agreements do not constitute treaties because they link a state with a nonstate party. In and of itself, this incontestable fact, drawn from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, certainly does not call for termination. But because the nonstate party in this case happens to be a terrorist organization whose leaders must be punished for egregious crimes, any agreement with this party that offers rewards rather than punishment is entirely null and void.
Terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment.
This assuredly does not mean holding hands and signing documents on the White House lawn. Regarding the peremptory norm of Nullum crimen sine poena, it was reaffirmed with unassailable authority at Nuremberg in 1945 -46, and in particular response to crimes against the Jewish People. Moreover, this norm was cited specifically by Israel's Attorney General, Gideon Hausner, in his prosecution of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. It follows that the current State of Israel has a special obligation to stand by this peremptory rule regarding PLO crimes and Israel's juridical relationship to the PLO, an obligation greater perhaps than that of any other statee in the world. For Israel t willfully reject such an obligation, a rejection that has in fact already occurred several times over, may be especially violative of international law and, as a non-jurisprudential aside, is especially shameful for the Jewish State.