How could a small, cosy and secret setting in Norway in any way compete with, or replace, the huge and prestigious Middle East peace process that was taking place in Washington in 1993? It was Norway – and not the United States – that ultimately contributed to the Oslo Agreement. The United States knew nothing and was kept in the dark. How can this be explained? When the Oslo process started in 1992–93, the Norwegians had come in as low-key facilitators; they had no intention of acting as mediators. But, gradually, the Norwegians moved into a new role, as an active mediator. But Norway was not a mediator on equal terms with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Norway could not alter the power asymmetry between the two sides. It was no superpower, and it could not force solutions on unwilling parties. Israel was the stronger party, with a clear national security agenda, and it was unwilling to concede much. The PLO was the weaker party, willing to accept little in order to avoid further marginalization. Norway had to be acceptable not to both parties, but mainly to the stronger party, Israel. Its mediating role demanded such a loyalty. Like it or not, there was nothing Norway could do about this situation: this was Norway’s room for manoeuvre. Indeed, Israel had found an easier counterpart in Oslo than in Washington. Compared with the superpower, Norway was also a much more willing instrument, one that was more prepared to accept Israeli conditions. Thus, Israel chose the weak PLO and little Norway to obtain more, to protect Israeli self-interests and, hence, to get its own way. As a consequence, the United States was deliberately kept uninformed and was even misled by two of its closest friends and allies: Norway and Israel. The paper is based on a wide variety of sources, including recently declassified (and partly still classified) documents filed at the Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs, records of the Norwegian government and parliamentary proceedings, and documents from the US state department. In addition Norwegian newspapers have been examined, and a large number of interviews conducted with key actors in Norway, Sweden, the United States, and the Middle East.