The Israeli Text and Context of the Geneva Accord

[BlackFrancis]

Apart from its moral valences, the contextual "marketing" argumentation of the Israeli participants in Geneva is politically counterproductive for the goal of engendering a change in Israeli public opinion. If political and human rights do not exist and if the conflict results from an irrational Palestinian determination to eradicate Jews, what Israeli is going to believe that Palestinians may change? Furthermore, if Palestinians change only because the Israeli peace camp were tough enough in dealing with them, than why not be even tougher and force them to accept Israeli domination with no concession whatsoever?

Even political alchemists of the Geneva school's caliber cannot build trust based on a lie: in order to harness Israeli public opinion, some of the Geneva participants argue that, this time, the Palestinians have given up their right of return. A simple reading of Article 7 of the accord reveals that the Palestinian participants in the Geneva process are indeed ready to make remarkably far-reaching compromises on the rights of Palestinian refugees. However, they certainly have not gone so far as to relinquish the "right of return," as established by UN Resolution 194 passed in 1948, as such a move would ruin completely and instantaneously their legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian public.

Those who are interested in a lasting peace -- one that is as just as possible -- between Israelis and Palestinians must therefore pose one question: why does the Geneva school try to buy Israel public opinion by marketing the complete opposite of what their Palestinian counterparts say to their own public opinion precisely in order to harness its support for the joint initiative? The end result of the Geneva process is guaranteed to split the difference between the Israeli and Palestinian readings, setting the stage yet again for the Israeli accusation, most likely echoed by doyens of the Geneva school themselves, that the Palestinians are liars.

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4564§ionID=22

[Paschall]

1. Sounds like a bad remake of the "PR" around Oslo

[The Magistrate]

2. Little Surprise Here

Z-Mag insists on radical purity rather than some substantial progress towards an actual settlement.

Many elements have a vested interest in the present situation continuing: careerism is a beseting vice of radical organizations without any responsibility or hope of gaining same. Things must continue as vile as it can possibly be portrayed, else what will there be to write about, and display moral purity over?

[BlackFrancis]

3. The critique I found more interesting wasn't the substance of it..

It's in the selling of it to the Israeli public. This is going to go down just like Oslo if they are telling the Israeli's one thing and the Palestinians another.

[The Magistrate]

4. But That Is How The Thing Is Done, Sir

Viewed from different angles, a thing takes on differing aspects.

What must be done is, in essence, similar to building a political coalition, which each seperate party must necessarily join for its own reasons. The thing itself, put into practice, ought to enjoy sufficient support among both populations to put things on a better course than the present one. That is what seems to me most important just now.

"Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof."

[tinnypriv]

6. It's from MERIP

Zmag picked it up a few days after it became available. This has been discussed on Israeli lists for a few days now BTW.

I personally think this is a useful article, certainly interesting and I mentioned this positive "hard sell" of GA a week or so back (the full version of that I did privately unfortunately, but I will repeat in this thread).

Incidentially, I also alluded to that "hard sell" in the "two-state" thread I posted.

Anyway, regarding the point you make, a few Israeli views:

• "I (call) for supporting the Geneva accords, keeping in mind the shortcomings of the intellectual background that bred them and the dangers that emanate from it" - Yehudith Harel



• "I find it interesting that those who are negating the GA Accord mostly live outside Israel/Palestine. Are we doomed to perpetuate the dismal status quo? Just because any available compromise is imperfect?" - Ze'ev Raphael

and, my favourite, in response to some of MERIP's points:

• "Who the fuck cares?" - Ran E-H

Still, I disagree with your view that Z-Mag "insists on radical purity". For example, Z-mag's principal commentator (Noam Chomsky), has these points to make about Geneva:

1. "We should be making efforts to place these proposals on the agenda"



2. "I think the proposals, at least as published, have considerable promise ... They leave plenty of injustice, but considering the realistic options, they should by no means be left to wither on the vine"



3. "The proposals are an improvement over the Taba discussions of Jan 2001, which were a very considerable improvement over Camp David II (2000)"

Etc, etc.

[The Magistrate]

8. Prof. Chomsky's Comments Here, Sir, Are Welcome And Valuable

Coming from me, that may cause some here consternation, as he is not among my favorite figures, to put it mildly.

My machine today is the old dial-up, which is not reliable for pursuing connections to other sites, and so my comment was based the assumption this was a Z-Mag effort. Your information does put the matter in somewhat different light. Mr. Raphael's comment is particularly charming: of course all compromise is imperfect; it would not be a compromise otherwise. Still, on the substance, the "hard-sell" does not trouble me too much. It remains a leading tool of marketing, and regardless of why the product is purchased, if it performs satisfactorily, buyer's remorse will not be too great a problem.

[papau]

5. It is an extremely limited "right of Return" - still there for PA, not a

problem for Israel.

So what is the fuss.

No one is telling lies.

[tinnypriv]

7. Considering a few mentioned it, here is how Geneva is sold to Israelis:

(all from the official site: http://www.heskem.org.il/Principles.asp)



Main principles:

· end of conflict & all claims and demands
· two states
· will be final border
· final solution to the refugee problem. absorption only by decision of Israel
· majority of settlement blocs annexed to Israel
· recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel + Jewish sectors of EJ
· palestinian state will be demilitarised and have no army
· specific/detailed Palestinian commitments to fight terror and incitement
· international framework to oversee implementation of commitments



geneva accord addresses all the problems of the conflict, adoption will result in historic new relations with neighbours, shows it is possible, democracy/social justice boilerplate etc..



1. Mutual Recognition

palestinians recognise Israel + recognise it as the homeland of the jewish people, israel recognises palestine state.



2. Borders

· final border, no further claims to be made
· israel's borders will be expanded to include majority of settlement areas and those needed for the security of Ben-Gurion, Jewish suburbs in/around East Jerusalem etc, in 1/1 land swop
· israeli's will be allowed to use (WB) roads freely, in accordance with specific agreements. i.e. Jeru-Modin highway, Jeru-Jordan Valley, gedi-she'an etc



3. Jerusalem

· palestinians recognise jerusalem as the capital of israel
· boundaries of israeli jerusalem will include those with majority jewish areas
· all israeli suburbs of east jerusalem will be part of israel, will have ("enjoy") connections to Western Jerusalem
· israeli settlements beyond the green line which are adjacent to jerusalem will be annexed to israel. givat ze'ev, ma'ale adummin, giv'on etc
· western wall and jewish quarter (of old city) will be under full israeli sovereignty
· the old city will be open with free movement
· palestinians recognise the historic jewish connections to the temple mount
· israelis will have guarantee of freedom of access to temple mount
· international force will prevent excavation, construction etc on the temple mount
· palestinians in east jerusalem who are now residents of israel will become citizens of the palestinian state



4. International monitoring

large international force with mutil-state participation under the leadership(?) of the US will supervise commitments. will be armed and monitor crossing points from the arab states, to prevent weapons smuggling and serve as a deterrent against attack



5. Refugees

palestinian refugees do not have the right of return into israel.

the solution to the refugee problem will be solved by a combination of monetary compensation and a choice of permanent residence. the refugee will be able to choose the state of palestine, the new 1/1 swapped areas of palestine, a third country, their host countries or israel. the number israel will allow will be a set and fixed and will be based on an average of the number accepted by third countries. the numbers allowed in all cases will be the sovereign choice of respective states



6. Terrorism

the palestinians commit themselves to a constant fight against terror and violence (must not allow armed groups to operate). if this is not undertaken continuously there is the possibility of crisis between the sides. in addition, both sides will enact legislation against incitement

palestinians are not to enter into treaties or alliances with states hostile to israel

the palestinian state will be demilitarised, with the exception of armed forces for the keeping of law and order and prevention of terror

[Jack Rabbit]

9. No peace accord will be perfect

By way of critique of the piece, there is very little in it that tells the reader how the Geneva Accord is being sold to the Palestinians. There is a critique of the accords by two Israeli peace activists from the point of view of perceived Palestinian interrests and some talk of how the Arrord is being presented to Israelis, but nothing about what Palestinian leaders are saying to the Plaestinian people or what might be wrong with it.

I agree with Behar and Warschawski that the Palestinians are giving up much more than the Israelis in the Geneva agreement. However, the Israelis haven't lost a war and Israel isn't the country that's occupied. In addition, Israel has legitimate security concerns that are at odds with the goals of extremists among the Palestinians. It is true, in exchange for about a quarter of the land between the Jordan and the sea, the Palestinians are asked to give up their right of return, which is a right recongnized by international law. In exchange, the Israelis will give the Palestinian state land quivalent to what is given to the Israel to accommodate settlements near Jerusalem; these settlements are recognized by most students of international law as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Nevertheless, we must realize that this omlette will only be made by breaking some very precious eggs. No Israeli government of the Left or Right will agree to sign away Jewish majority in Israel by allowing Arabs back into the country. It may be unjust, but it is a reality. It is a reality to which Behar and Warschawski present no viable solution.

As of now, I believe that the Geneva Accord represent the best hope yet presented for a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Behar and Warschawski may be right in pointing out some problems with it, but they have not convinced me that my judgment is wrong or that the proposal is not viable.