0. Introduction *

1. Designated Road Use Arrangements *

2. Sites of religious significance *

3. Border Regime *

4. Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees *

5. Conclusion, Dispute Settlement Mechanism *

Asem Khalil. Born in Zababdeh, West Bank/the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 1976. B.A. in Philosophy (1997), B.A./Master/PhD. in Law (Utriusque Iuris) from the Lateran University in Rome, 2003. Now, preparing a thesis to obtain Ph.D. in Public Law, from the University of Fribourg/Switzerland. Proposed title of the thesis: "The Constituent Power of the Palestinian People". For comments, proposals, suggestions, please contact the author of the dissertation at: asemkhalil@gawab.com

0.1. Articles 8 to 17 consider various arguments that we will consider here. The accord that was published in the web included three articles to be completed later (12-14) that should treat vital questions for any agreement between the parties of 1) water; 2) economic Relations; and 3) legal cooperation.

0.2. The arguments that we will here are: 1. Designated Road Use Arrangements (article9); 2. Sites of religious significance (article 10); 3. Border Regime (article 11); 4. Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees (article 15)

0.3. The parties shall establish a ministerial-level committee that favors cooperation between parties in areas of common interest, article 8.

1.1. The Geneva Accord provides special arrangements for the use of indicated roads (Road 443, Jerusalem to Tiberias via Jordan Valley, and Jerusalem –Ein Gedi) by Israeli civilian. The same article provides that:

• This will not prejudice Palestinian jurisdiction.
• Israelis need authorization.
• Entrance of these roads will be controlled by MF patrols.
• In case of emergency, legal or criminal proceedings against Israelis, parties will cooperate.

1.2. This article differs from Oslo arrangements that limited the Palestinian jurisdiction over all Israelis, including Arab with Israeli citizenship. Oslo agreements, in fact, created a kind of confusion since it gave a kind of immunity for all Israelis in the territories under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority.

2.1. Parties agree to protect the religious sites, and secure free access to them. The accord mention three sites, important for Jews: the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem, and Nabi Samuel.

2.2. As for the administration of religious sites -we read in article 9- parties shall create a joint body. Is this the case of all the religious sites or the only three mentioned Jewish religious sites? Article is not clear. It seems that this will be the case only of the three mentioned sites, since the same article speak about the presence of MF and Palestinian tourist police in these sites. Some sites of religious importance are, in fact, present in Israel (the Annunciation church for example in Nazareth); it is no question of Palestinian police office there!

2.3. Entrance will be through shuttle that will be subject to MF inspection.

2.4. The Geneva agreement, we can notice, gives only MF and not Palestinian forces the power to control or to inspect, every time Israelis are involved.

3.1. Parties agree to have a border regime. Entrance will be only through designed entrances. Now, who knows Israel/Palestinian territories understand that any borders will be artificial. En gros it will follow the "green line", the line that –following the armistice of 1948- divided the new born state of Israel from the other territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) that will be the territories of the new state of Palestine.

3.2. Arriving at this point of our analysis, it seems inevitable to speak about a controversial (à la mode) question: The wall. Is it the solution? Many think, rightly, that it is not the solution, but only a solution that some defends with enthusiasm and other refuses categorically.

3.3. Personally I believe that it can be a temporarily solution, but only in case the wall followed the "green line". I have to precise that the wall that I am speaking about here is not the controversial wall that the actual government of Israel is constructing. Actually, the wall that Israel is constructing now cuts the Palestinian territories in many small and disconnected cantons. This wall intends to annex more than the half of West bank and the third of Gaza; in other words, Israel wants to annex most Palestinians territories to with the less Palestinians. The actual wall is discriminative and racist. It cannot be a solution but rather another reason for the conflict.

4.1. The application of these articles will follow the entrance into force of this agreement Palestinians representative to the Geneva Accord would accept the division of detainees in different categories:

4.1.1. Category A detainees shall be released immediately, and includes:

• All persons imprisoned prior to the start of the implementation of the Declaration of Principles on May 4, 1994,
• Administrative detainees
• Minors
• Women
• Prisoners in ill health.

4.1.2. Category B detainees shall be released within eighteen months, and includes:

• All persons imprisoned after May 4, 1994 and prior to the signature of this Agreement.
• Excluded category C detainees.

4.1.3. Category C: Exceptional cases - persons whose names are set forth in Annex X - shall be released in thirty months at the end of the full implementation of the territorial aspects of this Agreement.

2. These articles need to be understand in the light of the following clarifications:

4.2.1. Most Palestinians refuse the division of Palestinian detainees in categories because it will be subject to Israeli unilateral arbitral decision. The Israeli side to the agreement seems to refuse the fact that some Palestinians participated in violent acts against Israel (soldiers or colons), in the context of combating against occupation and not for racial hatred. Some fractions used terrorism also, but they are distinguished from the majority of Palestinian people that refuse terrorism, that, despite the occupation, is immoral. Still, not every use of violence by Palestinians is to be considered terrorism. Now, violence is not the best solution to end occupation, but –and this is a historic fact- most oppressed peoples used also violence to liberate themselves from the oppressor. Personally, I believe that negotiations within the international legality, is the best way for people in order to obtain its rights.

4.2.2. The Geneva Accord speaks about deadline: "the Declaration of Principles on May 4, 1994"; now, on that date Israel and the PLO signed the "Agreement in Gaza Strip and Jericho area that would be superseded by the Interim Agreement. The declaration of Principles, in fact, was signed in Washington on September 13, 1993.

4.2.3. Many controversial points are mentioned to be regulated by annex X (such as special detainees that will be named in that annex). Now, this annex, as we said in the first part, is not published in the web. We urge that Palestinians will sign the agreement only if they agree on the contents of this annex. Some followed the Oslo agreements and made serious critics to the Palestinian side, that signed the agreements although they received a copy of the modified agreement with new maps at the last moment.

4.2.4. Since the signature of the Geneva Accord and its entrance into force will not necessarily coincide (since the Accord does not specify when the agreement will enter into force!), some detainees will be excluded from the agreement regulations. Besides, the entrance into force of the agreement does not mean its full implementation. Meanwhile Israel would detain other Palestinians; shall they be object to further negotiations and agreements? That is not what parties wants, since they agreed to end the conflict once forever.

5.1. Geneva Accord, as Oslo, gives priority to bilateral negotiations (article 16.1) to resolve disputes regarding the interpretation of the accord. This bilateral mechanism may block the implementation of the agreement, since, practically, the same provision may be object to different or contradictory interpretations.

5.2. In fact, the two parties may submit the dispute to the mediation and conciliation by the IVG mechanism. In case the two mechanisms do not success, either Party may submit the dispute to an arbitration panel.