Where's the beef?

On Monday a group of Israelis and Palestinians signed a much-publicised peace agreement in Geneva. The "Geneva Accord" proves, at least, that there are partners on both sides willing to negotiate. But without the seal of official authority, will it mean anything?

Geneva seems set to become yet another bargaining chip in a slow and torturous war of diplomatic attrition. Sharon thumbs his nose at the Palestinians. Geneva, it seems, means nothing to him. But he is backed into a corner; proof of which is the flurry of right-wing initiatives coming in the wake of Geneva.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are aware that this celebrated accord will not protect their rights under international law. The Palestinians have in the past offered substantive compromises, and they are fully aware of the trade-offs necessary to any negotiated agreement. Palestinians want peace, but compromise by Israel is all that can assure justice. Sharon may start talking more about peace, but can the Likud deliver a sustainable settlement which must, by definition, be just?

This is what Geneva calls into question. Its effect, therefore, may be much more pronounced on Israeli domestic politics than regional politics. But nothing is assured.

Geneva may prove Ehud Barak wrong. It may embarrass Sharon and force his hand. But the real parties who must meet were not present in Geneva. Until symbolic accords are replaced by official negotiations, the Geneva Accord will remain but a staging point or pawn in the history of this conflict.