“Thus, we declare that as long as Israel refuses to commit to the agreements signed with us, which render us an authority without real powers, and as long as Israel refuses to cease settlement activities and to release of the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners in accordance with our agreements, they leave us no choice but to insist that we will not remain the only ones committed to the implementation of these agreements, while Israel continuously violates them. We therefore declare that we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements and that Israel must assume all of its responsibilities as an occupying Power, because the status quo cannot continue and the decisions of the Palestinian Central Council last March are specific and binding.”-Mahmoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly (Full speech here)

It was this section of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s remarks to the UN General Assembly that sent the media into an uproar. A flurry of headlines emerged, declaring Abbas had claimed Palestine was no longer bound by the Oslo Accords, and that he would no longer observe them. Yet, these headlines, much like the speech itself, are more rhetorical than anything else. The claim that Abbas cast off the Oslo Accords is not entirely accurate.

To begin with, Abbas never cited the Oslo Accords by name. That might seem to be an overly semantic judgment, but it has important consequences for both the intention and outcome of his remarks. His address was marked by vague language, unclear in its scope, timeframe, or potential action. Without presenting an ultimatum, new policy, or any specificity, Abbas’ remarks were, in the eyes of many, empty. A week before the address, Abbas promised to drop a “bombshell” at the General Assembly. Had he intended to propose a radical new suggestion, policy, or even annul the Oslo Accords, he could and would have done so.

Moreover, annulling the Oslo agreements would be against Abbas’s interests. It would require disbanding the Palestinian National Authority, which employs 150,000 Palestinians (including himself), as well as ending mutual security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, which benefits both sides.

It is possible, admittedly, that Abbas still intends to dismantle the Oslo Accords. Regardless, his decision not to propose an alternative solution and instead make vague platitudes about Israel illustrates more about the intentions likely behind his remarks.

The speech reflects Abbas’s political struggles. On the domestic front, Palestinians are unhappy with his leadership, with a recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research finding more than two-thirds of Palestinians favor his resignation. At the same time, he is challenged by rising support for Hamas. Though Fatah is seen as inept in its failure to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Hamas’s actions during Operation Protective Edge have garnered them additional backing in both Gaza and the West Bank. Abbas’s remarks were provocative enough to raise headlines, but lacked sufficient substance to ruffle any feathers, the very balance he needs to strike to maintain support.

It also fits in with Abbas’s strategy of internationalizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Frustrated by the failure of peace talks, Abbas has previously attempted to incorporate the international community into the peace process. The goal, ostensibly, is to put international pressure on Israel to return to the negotiating table. Palestine’s bid to join the International Criminal Court, for instance, was seen by many as an attempt to put diplomatic pressure on Israel.

There are certainly legitimate grievances regarding the Oslo accords, such as its failure to adequately address the issue of Israeli settlements. But if Abbas does intend to nullify the Oslo Accords, an alternative must be proposed. Without one, vaguely worded statements will not be enough to achieve real peace.