Between the Spirit and the Letter
by Ghassan Khatib
The deterioration in relations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government " "married" to each other within the framework of the Middle East peace process " has reached the stage where the two sides are splitting hairs over nit-picky points taken out of context and far from the original spirit of the agreements signed between them.
Israel has released a detailed list of 50 violations of those agreements by the Palestinian Authority, which must be rectified before Israel will consider meeting its commitments, and the Palestinians have identified 43 unfulfilled Israeli obligations, and so the race is on. This level of discussion is not a sign of healthy relations at all between the two sides, neither does it show any of the cooperative spirit which is evident throughout the original agreements and which was responsible for the birth of optimism on both sides.
At this level of deterioration, it is useful to go back to the original "marriage vows" contained in the Declaration of Principles, the most important of which is that the two sides "agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognizing their mutual legitimate and political rights and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historical reconciliation through the agreed political process." (DOP, "Oslo I", September 13, 1993).
This agreement is clear in its general objectives, particularly when it states in the first article that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will have self-governing authority "for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It is understood that the interim agreements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."
The much-discussed redeployment, currently the subject of major disputes between the two sides " with the Israelis trying to limit it to the minute percentage which should be the final phase pull-out and the Palestinians referring to it as the second phase of three " this redeployment has its basis in the agreement as well. Article IV, "Jurisdiction", of the Declaration of Principles, states that "[j]urisdiction of the Council (Palestinian Council) will cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory except for issues which will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit whose integrity will be preserved during the interim period." Para. 3 of Article V specifies these final status issues by stating that "[i]t is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interests."
The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, signed in Washington DC in September 1995, reiterates this and clarifies the issue a bit more in Article X, para. 2: "Further redeployments of Israeli military forces to specified military locations will commence after the inauguration of the Council and will be gradually implemented commensurate with the assumption of responsibility for public order and internal security by the Palestinian Police, to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council as detailed in Articles XI (Land) and XIII (Security), below and in Annex I."
Article XI states: "The two sides agree that the West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the final status negotiations, will come under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in a phased manner to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council." The nature and extent of the redeployment is dealt with in para. 2.d. of Article XI: "The further redeployment of the Israeli military forces to specified military locations will be gradually implemented in accordance with the DOP in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months after the inauguration of the Council, to be completed within 18 months of the inauguration of the Council."
Thus, Israel's security needs, which are being used as an excuse to leave most of the Palestinian territories under Israeli control, are completely contradictory to both the spirit and letter of the agreement, which does not refer to security needs or security areas but rather "specified military locations" which were to be excluded from the three phases of redeployment. Para. 2.f. of Article XI states: "The specified military locations referred to in Article X, para. 2 above, will be determined in the further redeployment phases within the specified timeframe ending not later than 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council..."
So, according to these agreements, the redeployment should include athe West Bank and Gaza Strip excepsettlements, Jerusalem and specified military locations, which by any calculation cannot exceed 10 percent of the land. This means that the redeployment must not only be carried out in three phases but also should include about 90 percent of the Palestinian territories. There are guiding principles contained in the agreements themselves. One can only conclude that Israel's real violation is, in fact, to the spirit of the agreement that is based on the objective of implementing Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which are very clearly about the Palestinian land which was occupied in 1967. Beyond that, Israel's most blatant violation of the agreement, in not only avoiding redeployment but further reinforcing its control over the land, is to the underlying principles and spirit of the original peace agreement.
This is where the United States should direct its mediation between the two sides of this awkward pairing " ignoring the lists of complaints and insisting that the parties return to their original vows to recollect and respect the spirit contained therein. Otherwise, this marriage is bound for the divorce courts.