-
The Logic behind the Geneva Accord
- The University Press of Kentucky
- Chapter
- Additional Information
There are three ways in which the Geneva Accord differs from previous documents dealing with an Israeli–Palestinian settlement. First, this is a model for a permanent status agreement that puts an end to the conflict and to all mutual claims. Prior to the signing of the Geneva Accord in Jordan on October 13, 2003, no such model existed, given that the talks held by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1999–2001 on a permanent status settlement had come to naught. Second, this is a detailed model. Prior to the publication of the Geneva Accord, several joint Israeli–Palestinian declarations on the principles of a permanent agreement were prepared. Some of these documents were prepared in the official negotiations track, and others were prepared by academic experts and civil society activists through unofficial (track 2) talks. Before the Geneva Accord, however, there was no detailed model that included a precise map of the proposed permanent arrangement. Third, as opposed to earlier documents, the Geneva Accord is a signed agreement. The very fact of the signatures creates a personal commitment that differs from a document published by a host institution. Furthermore, the accord was not signed by a few individuals but by more than twenty persons on each side. The composition of the signatories is also extraordinary. Among the signatories on the Palestinian side are ministers and deputy ministers, Fatah representatives to the Palestinian Legislative Council, senior officials, and academics. Those Palestinians who held official office declared that they were signing the accord as private individuals. The public, however, understands that without the approval of the Palestinian leadership, these individuals would not have been able to take such a dramatic step or even to engage in the Geneva negotiations . On the Israeli side, the signatories include Knesset members from the opposition parties, peace activists, writers, security personnel serving in the reserves, economists, and academics. Appended to the Geneva Accord is a cover letter that emphasizes that the reference is to a model for an arrangement, not a binding document; to a document that complements the road map, not one meant to replace it; to a private initiative, not one that is representative— even in the case of those individuals who hold public office; to an appeal to public opinion on both sides in order to show that a permanent arrangement The Logic behind the Geneva Accord Menachem Klein 233 is attainable, not a pretense meant to create the impression of an accord between governments. The Geneva Accord is formulated like a legal agreement between two states. In this way, it gives tangible expression to the idea of a permanent arrangement. The text is complex, lengthy, and, as a legal text, is not friendly to the average reader. In the following pages, I outline the principles behind the formulation of the main articles in the agreement. ACCEPTANCE OF THE “OTHER” AS LEGITIMATE For many years, Israel and the PLO denied each other’s right to statehood. Israel denied the very existence of a Palestinian people and its right to a state, while the PLO saw Judaism as a religion and not a national identity. The two sides have moved closer together since the late 1980s and now recognize the existence of the other as a fact. In the Geneva Accord, the sides take an additional step forward by granting legitimacy to the other based on how the other defines itself. The accord includes the right of the Jewish people to a state and the right of the Palestinian people to a state. In addition, the sides recognize that these states constitute a national homeland for their peoples. They also emphasize that the fact that the states are founded on an ethnic-historical basis should not infringe on the rights of the citizens. In other words, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state (i.e., a state with a Jewish majority) does not legitimize discrimination against Palestinian Israelis. SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS The guiding principle in this section is security for Israel without occupation of the Palestinian state. The negotiations on the security arrangements were the relatively easy part of the Geneva talks. This is because the parameters of the security arrangements have not changed significantly since the official talks at Camp David and in Taba. What has changed is the context in which the security arrangements are to be applied. The deeper Israel is willing to withdraw and the broader its acceptance of Palestinian sovereignty, the greater the Palestinian readiness to...