Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

The Geneva Accord: a breakthrough model

The Geneva Accord – a joint effort by Israelis and Palestinians – details what a credible, negotiated peace agreement could look like. It addresses all the major issues, including security arrangements, the status of Jerusalem, access to holy places, borders, settlements, and refugees.

Image

While revolt across the Arab world makes the process of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians less certain, it makes their outcome more urgent. Can the revolutionary spirit sweeping the region open the door to fresh ways to resolve the Middle East’s most troublesome conflict? This is the second essay of "Peace within Reach," a three-part commentary series that explores why peace may be closer than you think.

Photo Illustrations by John Kehe/Staff; Photos by AP

About these ads

Just over a decade ago, Israelis and Palestinians met at Camp David. The weeks leading to the summit were full of expectation. There was a sense that an agreement was within reach. It was the last summer of the Clinton administration, and everyone thought that the president of the United States would not convene a summit that would lead to anything short of a historic triumph. So determined, it seemed, was everyone to succeed, that success almost seemed predetermined. And indeed, some even believed that an agreement had already been secretly reached – that it was a done deal. Peace, it seemed, was at hand.

But this, as it turned out, was not the case. Instead, the Camp David summit of July 2000 came to be one of the most tragic milestones of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It was a particularly ironic tragedy, for the gap between expectations and results could not have been greater.

The reasons for the summit's failure are complex and will probably remain in dispute. But the failure was real and the frustration was felt by everyone. It was felt particularly acutely by those of us members of the negotiating teams at Camp David and the too-brief round of talks that followed at Taba, Egypt.

Particularly frustrating was an emerging narrative that saw our failure as a sign that the very conflict was insoluble. Someone had to prove that this was not the case. And so, in a meeting with Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo, I suggested that we continue the work that was interrupted in Taba until we could conclude an agreement. Frustrated as we were, we were determined to demonstrate to both Israelis and Palestinians that despite the disappointment, despite the violence, peace was possible.

Our work was not easy – not only because of the essence of what we had set out to do, but also because of the conditions under which we worked. The violence that erupted in the wake of the failed Camp David summit led to roadblocks and closures and restrictions on travel that made a meeting itself nearly impossible. Sometimes we had to meet abroad because meeting at home was not possible. Other times we could only meet at a checkpoint and hold our discussions in a car. The contrast between the backdrop to our work (violence and crisis) and the center of our work (a comprehensive permanent-status peace agreement) could not have been greater.

To support our effort, we built broad coalitions. On the Israeli side, we brought in a number of individuals from the heart of the establishment, including former senior military officers. On the Palestinian side we brought in officials from Fatah, parliamentarians, and leading academics. In 2003, after almost three years of hard work, our negotiating teams concluded the detailed draft agreement that has since been named the Geneva Initiative.

How the agreement works

Our proposal details what a credible, negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could look like. It addresses all the major issues between the parties, including security arrangements, the status of Jerusalem, access to holy places, and a just and agreed-upon solution to the problem of refugees.

And, of course, it addresses the contours of permanent borders and the future of West Bank settlements. In this, it draws heavily on the ideas presented to us by President Clinton. With pre-1967 lines (the Green Line) as our starting point, we devised a series of agreed-upon, minor land swaps on a reciprocal, one-to-one basis, according to a formula that would require Israel to evacuate the smallest number of settlements while granting Palestinians the greatest part of the land.

The result is a model that would create a Palestinian state on nearly 98 percent of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the shortfall compensated for by territories inside the Green Line. The borders we drew would allow the vast majority of the settler population (75 percent) to remain in territory that could come under Israeli sovereignty.

Implementation of the plan would take place gradually over 30 months, in accordance with the detailed timetable set out in the Annexes to the Geneva Accord, which were produced under the collaboration of our Israeli and Palestinian teams and published in 2009.

The key to our success in reaching a comprehensive agreement was not in the specific solution we offered to each issue – although there was also a lot of creative thinking there, too – but rather in the concurrence of the solutions we offered.

Next

Page:   1   |   2

Share