BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Geneva Accord

  
 
Baz Auckland
18:24 / 02.12.03
First from The Independent

At a ceremony in Switzerland packed with former presidents and Nobel prize-winners, Israeli and Palestinian moderates yesterday formally launched the "Geneva Accord", a comprehensive alternative peace plan for the Middle East.

Watched over by former US President and Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter, Israeli opposition politicians and intellectuals and Palestinian former ministers unveiled the plan, which is billed as the most detailed and far-reaching resolution to the Middle East conflict. Nelson Mandela, and Poland's Lech Walesa, took part in the ceremony via video link-up.

The agreement was hammered out over three years of secret negotiations and is a detailed blueprint for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from most of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. The Palestinian side agreed to largely give up the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who fled or were forced out of what became Israel in 1948. In return, the Palestinian state was given sovereignty over the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif, the Holy Land's most disputed site, and much of the rest of Jerusalem's Old City.

From Yahoo:

The accord has been furiously rejected by the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, and denounced by thousands of Palestinians who marched in protest through Gaza yesterday, and, as such, has little chance of being put into practice. But it has created a storm in Middle Eastern politics by showing up the failure of Mr Sharon's policies. While he has insisted there is no partner for negotiations on the Palestinian side, the authors of the accord have proved that there is by negotiating a comprehensive settlement.

In light of the failure by Mr Sharon and Yasser Arafat to offer a way out of the violence that has left more than 3,000 people dead after three years, the accord offers a concrete alternative. It has also shown up the limitations of the US-backed "road-map" peace plan. The "road-map" calls for a Palestinian state, but leaves the question of its borders to be settled at a later date. The Geneva Accord maps out definitive borders, down to the empty desert land in Israel the Palestinians agreed to accept in exchange for some Jewish settlements in the West Bank being annexed to Israel.

Also: Sharon's Oppostion Boots Plan

Israel criticizes the US for agreeing to meet with the authors

And Colin Powell says he has the right to meet with the authors


The EU and UN have given support to the plan as well...and from The Guardian "An opinion poll in yesterday's Haaretz newspaper found that nearly a third of Israelis support the agreement, with only a fraction more opposed. Nearly 20% have an open mind."

What does everyone think of this? A good step forward? At least it's something to discuss other than condemning the latest violence? More importantly, I guess, is will it lead to anything?
 
 
Not Here Still
13:09 / 03.12.03
I'd sooner that it was happening than not, certainly...

I mean, I hold no real hope for it to work straight away, or even along its origina lines at all. I don't actually think that that is the inention behind the Accord, however. It seems to be more a talking point, something to get opinions formed and dialogue moving - and I think that's basically a good thing...
 
 
pachinko droog
16:41 / 03.12.03
Its about time. For years there has been a quiet momentum building on both sides of the conflict to end this in a civilized way, but their voices have been consistently drowned out out by both the Israeli settlers movement/hard-right Zionist crowd & militant groups like Hamas. They finally realized the best option was to simply bypass the extremists altogether and conduct their own negotiations on neutral ground. Kudos to them.

Sharon may not be in power much longer anyway. With so many Israeli army and airforce personnel disobeying orders on moral grounds, and with harsh criticism coming from the Shin Bet (Israeli equivalent of FBI) as well as various military and intelligence personnel, he may have to either change his approach really fast or be deposed. It may come down to that. Additionally, the Israelis are probably going to have to use force to remove the settlers, which I imagine will not only be quite messy, but it most likey will also drive a wedge deep into the Jewish community in Israel and abroad.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:31 / 04.12.03
Initial reaction: it's pretty fucking depressing that a plan which includes giving up the right of return *and* only demands that the Israeli military withdraw from "most of" the West Bank and Gaza, can be seen as progressive, or even moderate. I guess it's an indication of how desperate the situation of the Palestinians has become, that concessions like this are being considered as the only way to avoid being crushed even further by the US/Israeli war machine...

Still, on the plus side this helps show up the "road-map" for the joke it is. Now if only they'd stop calling that blueprint for a trouble-free occupation a 'peace plan' with a straight face.
 
 
Photine
16:37 / 04.12.03
Whatever stops them killing Jews.

Personally I'd go further, but the main thing for me is that they stop killing Jews.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:50 / 04.12.03
Surely this isn't about 'them', whether 'them' means Israelis or Palestinians.

Surely the whole point of this is for both sides to stop killing each other?

There's less of a "I hope the stop killing Jews/ I hope they stop killing Palestinians" feeling I have about the Israel/ Palestine issue than a 'for God's sake, stop all the bloody killing' feeling.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:56 / 04.12.03
A few statistics: 2,585 Palestinians and 898 Israelis have been killed since September 29, 2000.
 
 
Photine
10:13 / 05.12.03
And if they had an actual organised army they would have killed even more. Every half hour an attempt on Israel is stopped, and that's partly through some pretty horrible methods, but the next attack could come from anyone.

When there are people who aren't deprived or restricted in their daily lives targetting areas were people work hard for integration; killing children with their own bodies, what conclusion can we come to? How can we protect ourselves when they aren't in a uniform and we can't see them?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:42 / 05.12.03
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you just suggest that the Palestinians aren't "deprived or restricted in their daily lives"? That's even before we get to your attempt to sweep away the massive inequality in military strength by saying "well if the Palestinians *did* have a way to defend themselves, I'm sure they'd do terrible things!". The point is that they don't, thanks largely to the fact that Israel has been armed and funded for years by the world's largest superpower.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:46 / 05.12.03
D'you think, say, actually being open to negotiations, not pursuing a racist policy, not attempting to crush "them" with military force and not constantly conducting revenge attacks on "them", wiping out vast numbers arbitrarily, might help a little? Just, y'know, a minor suggestion or two...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:00 / 05.12.03
Perhaps if Sharon stopped ordering the Israeli's to shoot Palestinians in the street the Palestinian terrorists might take a step back too? I think the numbers put forward by Not Me Again speak for themselves. Photine I hope you understand that this situation needs to be looked at from a practical perspective rather than a religious one. This will never end if people take sides, you can't blame every Israeli walking through the West Bank for what's happening or every Jew around the world and you can't blame every desperate Palestinian but you can blame the Israeli's with power for abusing it and killing without any attempt at peace or concession.
 
 
Baz Auckland
14:03 / 05.12.03
If these accords get implemented, do you think it will end (most) of the violence?

I'm thinking of Ireland in 1922, where the north was assumed to eventually pass into the control of the south... if Palestine doesn't include all of the West Bank, will there be further attacks to gain more land?
 
 
Photine
14:08 / 05.12.03
Ahem... They don't restrict themselves to killing religious Jews so why is it a matter of religion? If a single guy on a bus can wipe out 15 teenagers in one go without warning of any kind then he's practically acheived his task. When that person is a middle class scholar and after he (or she, for that matter) has succeeded in blowing themself up then there's no condemnation from his or her community but an outpouring of pride and joy, then what are we supposed to think? That if only we would leave them be they wouldn't want to kill us and drive Israel into the sea? How is it racist when they make their stance quite clear?

No one questions the legitimate greivances of the 'Palestinian' people, yeah, we know, it's pants, but they hardly help their cause through suicide bombings.

It really winds me up a big lot that this is even taken outside the Jewish community. There is such a small degree of separation that it could so easily have been my best friend, or me. People just don't seem to get that.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:29 / 05.12.03
Where to begin with the misleading remarks in that post (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that these aren't deliberately distorted)... Let's start with the fact that you are presenting a unified response to suicide bombings which is the most extreme imaginable, and demonstrably false: condemnation of these attacks from Palestinian leaders and individuals is regularly covered even in the mainstream television news in the UK. Secondly, Israel is in no danger of being driven into the sea, not when it has the near unconditional backing of the USA and itself posseses the most military might in the region (nuclear weapons, anyone?). So even if "they" (the terrifying Arab hordes?) intended to do anything of the sort - and to believe this is a unified opinion, let's just emphasise again that you're ignoring the existence of significant numbers of Palestinians who don't want anything of the sort, of which this very thread is a rather significant example - it would be a pipe dream. The reality is that the reverse scenario is not only more likely, nor even only also clearly stated as being favourable by many of the founders of the state of Israel, but has in fact been taking place for more than 50 years. And now, the demand for the right of the Palestinians who were driven out of their homes and their country to return to that country may be given up, in order to avoid total annihilation.

But I think the fact that you put the word Palestinian in inverted commas says it all, really.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:57 / 05.12.03
One other thing - I don't quite understand what this means exactly:

It really winds me up a big lot that this is even taken outside the Jewish community.

...But I thought I should point out that I didn't really know understand anything about Israel & Palestine until I read some books by Jewish historians (Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein) as well as Palestinian writers like Edward Said.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:00 / 05.12.03
I don't think anyone here is doubting that it's tragic when a suicide bomber strikes. The point is that the Israeli's are acting badly as well and their actions are not those of a terrorist group but an institution that should behave itself in a way that a terrorist group cannot be expected too. Unfortunately those of us on the outside of this situation can see little difference in the actions of this government and a terrorist group. So please tell me who we're meant to support when we see the numbers of the dead? Those who should know better and will sacrifice nothing to stop the death or those who have been occupied and are killing themselves out of desperation?
 
 
Photine
16:09 / 05.12.03
Well when middle class people chose to blow themselves up in the most murderous ways with no warning how is that out of desparation?

And when the 'terrifying Arab hordes' appear to have the active support of mainstream UK media which offers so little coverage of the victims of suicide bombings, it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's not just the 'terrifying Arab hordes' who oppose Israel.

It's true that in the IDF soldiers have to make difficult decisions, but the result of being lenient may be the deaths of, for instance, 3 generations of families or a whole bunch of kids.

Being a good and nice person and opposing the oppression of 'Palestine' will not mean that they won't target you. Israel has a right to defend itself and a duty to defend its citizens.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:55 / 05.12.03
The thread is rotting from its original point, ie discussion of the Geneva accord.

Interestingly, the US have put some form of backing behind the accords, with even Bush suggesting he backs Powell's dialogue strategy. Sharon has also risked a rare criticism of the United States' strategy in the region, saying the move is a 'mistake.' Some Palestinians have burned effigies of the plan's authors. There's entrenched opion on both sides, it seems.

But apparently,
Israel's Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Yasser Abed Rabbo believe Mr Powell sees their efforts as complimenting the US-backed peace "roadmap".

What do people think of the theory put forward by some in Israel that the current Israeli policy towards the occupied territories puts more people in Israel in danger, by creating Palestinian martyrs, anger and ultimately suicide bombers?

And that perhaps a route of dialogue might work?
 
 
cusm
20:33 / 05.12.03
it's not unreasonable to conclude that it's not just the 'terrifying Arab hordes' who oppose Israel.

You're spot on there. And that's only something that will increase as more of the world reaches the limit of what a good conscience can allow to continue.

My projection is that this accord won't actually go anywhere until there's 'regime change' in Israel.
 
 
fluid_state
20:37 / 05.12.03
I'm hoping that the Accord will illustrate that a change in leadership is required on both sides in the conflict, for a legitimate dialogue to occur. A dialogue between Sharon and Arafat (or his Prime Minister) seems likely only to lead to a total meltdown, or a total freeze, a la Mini Cold War. Hopefully the Israeli and Palestinian people will realize just how opposed thier elected representatives are to even a very fragile peace.
 
 
Baz Auckland
23:51 / 05.12.03
...the fact that Sharon and extremists on both sides are opposed to it must mean there's something good to it. Is there any precedent anywhere for this kind of 'work around the government' action?
 
 
grant
01:11 / 06.12.03
Declaration of Independence?

The Balfour Declaration?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:26 / 06.12.03
Photine Well when middle class people chose to blow themselves up in the most murderous ways with no warning how is that out of desparation?

Because killing yourself is just something you do for a lark isn't it? And then all your composite molecules come back together and you get up, dust yourself down and go home. I'm sorry to continue the thread=rot but this is just... < boggle >
 
  
Add Your Reply