Opinion
& Comment
A Public Commitment Ceremony by Private Citizens
Some ten years ago, the government of Israel signed an
agreement on the White House lawn with Yasser Arafat as a
representative of the Palestinian people.
Last week, some private Israeli citizens associated with the
Left held a "public commitment ceremony" for an agreement
with private Palestinian people. It was originally supposed
to be a signing ceremony, but when no Palestinian agreed to
sign the description had to be changed. So the "Geneva
Accords" (named to honor the country of the people who paid
for them) were "launched" (in the language of the press
releases), like a new bar of soap.
Although it is the product of more than two years of work by
one of the most accommodating Israelis, most of the key
sections of the agreement are yet to be completed. For
example, Annex X, referred to in the document 49 times, has
yet to be started. Most of the difficult points are referred
to Annex X. (It is not clear if it is one annex or if the "X"
is a variable that may take on different numbers.)
According to Dr. Yossi Beilin, who is the prime mover, the
agreement has three major concessions from the Palestinians.
The first is that the Palestinian state will be demilitarized
and that it will fight terror. The second is Palestinian
recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The third is a
Palestinian concession on the refugees' "right of return."
When the agreements were signed ten years ago, and in two
subsequent agreements, the Palestinians agreed that "the
Palestinian Police will act systematically against all
expressions of violence and terror." Since then we have seen
the Palestinian Police as perpetrators of terror. The
Palestinians tried every means at their disposal to import as
many weapons as possible, including the use of ambulances
with real sick people riding inside with weapons underneath
the stretcher.
The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is very vague.
The agreement "recognize(s) Palestine and Israel as the
homelands of their respective peoples." The Palestinians have
argued all along that the territory of Israel is part of
their homeland, and the agreement does not clearly go beyond
that.
While Beilin claims that his Palestinian partners agreed to
limit their right of "return," the agreement is again very
vague about this. A mechanism is given for allowing a limited
number of Palestinians to return, but every Palestinian
organization has said that they do not waive this demand, and
they have threatened to murder anyone who does waive it.
At the "launching" of the agreement, the Israeli speakers
spoke in glowing terms of promise, but the Palestinian
speakers had nothing but strong criticism and name-calling.
Yasser Arafat did not let any private Palestinians go until
the last minute, and it was clear that his intent was not to
support the agreement but to embarrass Israel.
Perhaps the most glaring lack in the text is its weak
approach to dealing with violations. Earlier negotiators can
excuse themselves by saying that there was hope of a new
beginning that would build its own momentum and lead to a
stable arrangement. After the bitter experience of a decade,
and especially the last three years of warfare, there can be
no doubt that any agreement that can have any hope of being
accepted by Israel must include a strong mechanism for
dealing with violations, along with a clear statement of what
constitute "red-line" violations.
All in all, the greatest success that the Geneva Accords have
any chance of achieving is helping elect Beilin as the leader
of the new Leftist party. They are nothing more than
aspirations and statements of hope.
All material on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted.
Click here for conditions of use. |
