JUSTICE - No. 66

5 Spring 2021 identified in the recent Abraham Accords. The Bahrain Agreement , for example, though termed a“Communiqué,” uses the language of a binding treaty (“have agreed as follows,” “hereby establish,”etc.). A further question arises in relation to the agreements signed with the UAE, termed “ Treaty of Peace ” and with Bahrain, termed“ Declaration of Peace ,”as to whether they can truly be considered“peace treaties,”since the parties were never in a state of war with each other. Most peace treaties, to be sure, relate to situations where the context is a termination of hostilities. Still, there are numerous precedents where the term“Treaty of Peace” has been used even between countries that did not previously consider themselves to be in a state of war. 5 In practice, there is no difference between the legal force of an agreement termed a “peace treaty” or any other binding agreement. It seems, however, that in this case there is a declarative dimension, emphasized by representatives of the parties in their speeches accompanying their signature, highlighting that these agreements are intended not only to set out practical arrangements but also to serve as regional game- changers auguring a new era of peaceful and cooperative relations. The Content of the Agreements – Disputes Versus Deals In negotiation theory, it is sometimes advised to distinguish between disputes and deals. 6 In a dispute, parties are locked into a conflict situation, and their efforts are primarily focused on extricating themselves from areas of disagreement. In a deal scenario, by contrast, there is no urgent need on the side of either party to enter into an agreement, and the motivation is not to escape from a situation of historic disagreement but rather to explore and capitalize on potential joint gains. Viewed through this prism, the Abraham Accord agreements are far more akin to deals than dispute resolutions. (Former President Trump's use of the phrase “deal of the century,”arguably far less applicable in the Palestinian context, is much more appropriate here.) In this sense, they contrast with Israel's prior peace treaties with Egypt and with Jordan, in which the dispute- resolution elements are dominant. The focus in these recent agreements is firmly placed on the potential to be achieved based on cooperation between the parties. In the words of the preamble to the UAE Agreement , the goal is “to chart together a new path to unlock the vast potential of their countries and the region.” While in practical terms the importance of the agreements is a series of specific and tangible normalization provisions, the importance of establishing a general relationship of mutual understanding and coexistence is strongly emphasized. Though similar language appears in many treaties, in the Abraham Accords the commitment to a deep and warm relationship seems central to the intentions of the parties. This emphasis is reflected in the title the “Abraham Accords,”and the commitment, in the Joint Declaration, “to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.” In the preamble to the Israel-UAE agreement, this theme is amplified with the recognition that “the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendants of a common ancestor, Abraham,”while in the Bahrain communiqué the parties agree to promote mutual respect “in the spirit of their common ancestor, Abraham.”Beyond reflecting an aspiration for brotherly relations, this is also an important recognition of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the region. As such, the Abraham Accords represent a paradigm shift regarding Israel's peacemaking efforts, contrasting with Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinians in which the Jewish identity of the State of Israel, and the Jewish people's historic links to the land, have remained issues of contention. Flowing from the emphasis on a common religious ancestry, the agreements also place a strong emphasis on the importance of interfaith dialogue. The Joint Declaration encourages efforts“to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue.” The importance of interfaith relations is also referenced in the Moroccan declaration, which recognizes“the special ties that His Majesty [King Mohammed VI] maintains with the Moroccan Jewish community.” In practical terms, the goal of the agreements is to unlock potential through concrete normalization arrangements, which have subsequently been 5. For example: Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, signed Nov. 29, 1984; The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China, signed Aug. 12, 1978; Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation between India and the USSR, signed Aug. 9, 1971. 6. See e.g. Howard Raiffa,T HE ART AND SCIENCE OF NEGOTIATION (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982).