The release of Geneva-Dead Sea Accord triggered widespread reactions manifested by its rejecters as well as its supporters:
• The overwhelming majority of the Palestinians considered it a serious concession of the Palestinian national project, including abandoning both the Palestinian right in an independent sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital and the refugees’ right to return to their lands which were forcibly evacuated in 1948. Hence, the Accord accepted what the Palestinian delegation had rejected in the second round of Camp David negotiations in July 2000.
• The declaration was issued after two years of negotiations and considered by many commentators as a stab in the back of the intifada and the resistance. While Palestinians were generously sacrificing their lives in defense of their national rights, a group of negotiators were offering unnecessary one-sided concessions the easy way.
• The Palestinian Authority sponsored the Palestinian team participating in Geneva negotiations and covered it politically, propagandistically and financially. That simply means that the accord or declaration is not a decision of the Palestinian team leadership, but it has come within the framework of the double policy adopted by the Palestinian Authority irrespective of all possible risks confronting the Palestinian situation and of the threat of splitting the national unity.
• In addition to giving up large parts of the occupied Jerusalem, the declaration recognized Israel’s right in existence. That was the third time for the Palestinians to sign for such recognition in an official document with the Israelis. Ironically, that kind of recognition is extraneous to the international law and is never reciprocated among countries.
• The declaration presented itself as a final solution, instead of a project for the settlement, and put a limit to the demands of both parties. Obviously, it was meant to prevent the Palestinians from restoring their lost rights in the future.
• Alternatively, the declaration was vastly applauded by many regional and international countries which are concerned with the Middle East crisis. They looked at the declaration as a viable permanent solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Some of those countries considered the declaration a typical solution between the two sides. However, Israel’s official refusal of the declaration is an ill-precursor and might invite some additional Palestinian concessions, especially after the fact that the Palestinian negotiators became shackled and willingly committed to the policy of concessions.
Therefore, the seriousness of the Geneva-Dead Sea Declaration and the absolute importance of analytically and objectively reading it are strongly justified, taking into the consideration the current repercussions after one year of its emergence...