On 2 February 2004, the IISS Conflict Management Programme hosted the architects of the Geneva Accord, Yasser Abed-Rabbo and Dr Yossi Beilin for a presentation and panel discussion on the new Accord.
For any of the following, please click on the related documents links at the bottom of the page:
Full transcript of the presentations and question and answer session
Audio of the address
Audio of the Q & A session
Biographies of the speakers
Click here for the full text of the Geneva Accord (external website)The Geneva Initiative is an informal draft agreement negotiated over the last three years by members of the opposition in Israel and Palestine. It was signed in Geneva on 1 December 2003 and is the first document to outline a detailed and creative solution to the thorny so-called ‘final status’ issues - including borders, settlements, refugees and the question of Jerusalem - of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The Geneva Accord calls for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, Palestinian control of most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. The Accord stipulates that East Jerusalem will be Palestinian and West Jerusalem Israeli, and that Israel will relinquish control of Temple Mount/ Haram Al-Sharif, but will retain control of the Wailing Wall and have guaranteed access to both holy places.
IISS Director John Chipman and IISS Research Fellow for Conflict Management Nomi Bar-Yaacov co-chaired a panel of six, composed of: Yasser Abed-Rabbo, former Minister of Information in the Palestinian Authority; Dr Yossi Beilin, one of the key negotiators of the Oslo Agreements and former Minister of Justice in the Barak government; Iyad Saraj, Head of the Gaza Mental Health Project and a prominent human-rights activist; Nehama Ronen, a former Likud Member of Knesset and current member of the Likud Central Committee; Elias Zananiri, media consultant for the Palestinian Peace Coalition and the Geneva Peace Initiative; and Daniel Levy, former adviser at the prime minister’s office on Jerusalem affairs and a drafter of the Geneva Accord.
Dr Chipman opened the presentation by welcoming the delegation and thanking Sir Joseph Hotung and his School of Oriental and African Studies-based Centre for Law, Human Rights and Peace-building and the Middle for sponsoring the event. Dr Chipman also welcomed Sheikh Mohammed bin Issa al-Jaber as a robust supporter of the Geneva Initiative.
The presentation’s first speaker, Yasser Abed-Rabbo, explained that the most difficult, yet unique, aspect of the Geneva Initiative was its search for a ‘win-win’ solution in which the aspirations of both sides could be met. He pointed out that previous negotiations had depended upon staunch, maximalist positions on either side. Compromises, he said, are easy to criticise because they necessitate giving something up, but one has to look at the benefits - the ‘full half of the cup, not the half empty part’.
The second speaker, Dr Yossi Beilin, said that before the negotiations commenced he had expected Jerusalem to be the toughest issue for the Israeli delegation to make concessions on. However, to his surprise, the refugee issue had in fact proved more difficult to negotiate than Jerusalem. He also highlighted the difficulties surrounding the territorial issue, stressing that although the 1967 borders were generally accepted as the basis for negotiations by both sides, each individual had a different idea of what ‘minor modifications’ would be acceptable.
Dr Beilin reiterated Yasser Abed Rabbo’s assertion that the importance of the Geneva Accord is not that it be implemented as it stands but that it provides something for governments to work with, something that directly addresses the so-called ‘final status’ issues. He stressed that the Accord proves that a solution to the conflict is feasible, that an agreement is ‘around the corner’ and that there are ‘willing partners’ in Palestine. He said that rejecting such ‘partners’ would mean leaving Israel to deal with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In response to Dr Chipman’s question on what the international community could offer, Dr Beilin said that more constructive than threats and boycotts would be potential incentives to signing an agreement, for instance offering Israel upgraded relations with EU, or being considered a partner in an enlarged NATO. He added that investing in a solution would be expensive but that the cost of continuing instability would be far greater.
Dr Saraj explained that although he had been imprisoned by Yasser Arafat for criticising the Palestinian leader, he still feels that the humiliation of the leader is counterproductive: Arafat’s position as virtual hostage was crippling the police and army rendering them ineffective and unable to combat the extremists.
Nehama Ronen spoke of the need to increase the 40% support for the Geneva Accord among Israelis. She questioned whether the true meaning of defending Israel should entail conscripts patrolling checkpoints in Nablus and Jenin at the heart of the West Bank, and acting as ‘occupiers’.
Elias Zananiri focused on the need for the international community to take action against unilateral acts such as the Israeli construction of a separation fence between Israel and the West Bank, and the actions taken by Palestinian extremists. He stressed the need for continuing diplomatic support and financial assistance.
Daniel Levy concluded the meeting with a dynamic presentation. He emphasised that the situation on the ground has been steadily deteriorating for the last three years and that the conflict was in danger of being categorised as ‘intractable’. He stressed that the importance of the Geneva Accord was in resuscitating the belief among Israelis and Palestinians that a negotiated solution could be found. He also returned to Yasser Abed-Rabbo’s starting point that the Geneva Accord’s ability to change attitudes to the conflict stemmed from its claim that looking for compromise was in the best interests of both sides. Dr Levy therefore questioned the merit of unilateral action such as Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s recently proposed disengagement. Said Mr Levy: ‘Is it in my interest to make the moderates look like fools, and give what looks like a prize to Hamas." He concluded that "a victory where the other side is humiliated is not a victory".
A lively question and answer session chaired by Ms Bar-Yaacov followed in which the speakers stressed the urgent need to reconcile. Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor with The Daily Telegraph, raised the issue of the lack of trust between both parties and asked what would happen if a final status agreement would not be implemented. Yossi Beilin responded by saying that even if an agreement were signed but not implemented and violence continued, this would still be better for Israel than the status-quo or the continuing policy of taking unilateral actions. Israel would have internationally recognised eastern borders and capital city, there would be an agreement on the refugee issue, and an end to problematic UN resolutions.
The event was attended by more than 170 invited guests, including heads of diplomatic missions to the UK, MPs, FCO and MoD representatives, major newspaper columnists, academics, barristers, and other interested individuals and groups such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Palestine and Peace-Now-UK.
The 90-minute presentation was preceded by a reception in the Library at Arundel House.
