News, Views, and Analysis Governments,
Lobbies, and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
MER
| MER World | Forum | MER-TV | Search • MER@MiddleEast.Org •
(202) 362-5266 • 2 November 2003
To
receive MER regularly and free click here
Exclusive Insights, Information, and Analysis
available nowhere else
MER
WEEKEND READING AND LISTENING:
Listen to Professor Hisham Ahmed from Bir
Zeit University
about
the 'Scandal' known as the 'Geneva Agreement'
REALITIES
Of The 'GENEVA AGREEMENT'
"They push a hopeless and unjust formula,
claiming that this
is the'only alternative' to the bloodthirsty way of
Sharon,
and pretend that the Palestinian people have agreed to it."
"This is why the
declaration is so
important for pro-settlement
forces
in Israel. They have found a
Palestinian partner, one apparently
approved
by the Palestinian
Authority, blessed by neighbouring Arab
countries,
and ready not only
to cede the right of return, but scrap the historic
resolutions
passed
by the United Nations in this regard -- regardless
that
such
concessions blow a gaping hole in Palestinian conscience and rights.
For
icing on the cake, this new-found Palestinian partner is ready to
accept the
continued
existence of settlements in so-called 'Greater
Jerusalem' and Gosh Etzion."
A
glimmer of nothing
The
Geneva Declaration, borne of petty struggles internal to Israeli
politics, lowers Palestinian expectations without offering much in
return, writes Azmi Bishara in the Egyptian Al-Ahram English
weekly this week
As far as Israel is concerned, the Geneva
Declaration is little more
than a message sent to the Israeli public. The Israelis who stand
behind the Declaration are the same ones who favoured the continuation
of the Taba talks after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations,
despite the misgivings Barak voiced at the time. Faced with the
approaching elections in 2001, Barak allowed the talks to continue in
Taba, but only as a non-binding intellectual dialogue. It comes as no
surprise that those who helped draft this declaration were the same
people who took part in the Taba talks in the hope of finding a formula
to present to the Israeli public ahead of the elections. The
declaration is not an agreement binding on the Israelis, but a message
the pro-settlement forces in Israel have sent to discredit Barak, even
more so than Sharon.
At the time, Barak told everyone that there is no
Palestinian
partner willing to sign an agreement acceptable to Israel. This, he
said, is due to the Palestinian insistence on the right of return. His
claims were accepted both in Israel and abroad, particularly by
President Clinton, who -- disappointed to see his hopes of a Nobel
Peace Prize evaporate -- directed all his anger against Yasser Arafat.
Clinton lied then, as he did on earlier occasions: he blamed the
Palestinians for failing to move fast enough to strike the deal that
would secure him a Nobel before his term ended. Barak, meanwhile, gave
the Palestinians a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum. Turning his back on
the obligations of the transitional phases of Oslo and Wye River, he
put together a package re-stating Israeli conditions, and threatened
the Palestinians that should they reject it they would be forever
banished from the ranks of the peace-loving and branded with the stamp
of terror.
Barak's declaration, made immediately after the
Palestinians
refused his dictates, that there is no Palestinian partner was a stab
in the back of the Israeli pro-settlement forces that brought him to
power, and at the same time a boost to the Likud. Since then, the
latter has been bent on twisting the Palestinians' arm until such time
that they recognise their own weakness, admit their defeat, and come up
with a Palestinian "partner". From that moment on, the pro-settlement
forces in Israel have been trying to find a partner willing to debunk
Barak's claim that the Palestinians are adamant about the right of
return and the removal of all settlements. These attempts took place
under European sponsorship. Guilty over their powerlessness towards
Sharon, irked by Washington's utter monopoly of regional politics, and
mindful of their public's support for the just Palestinian cause, the
Europeans took consolation in arranging sessions of dialogue, allowing
resorts and hotels across Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and
Britain to turn into breeding grounds for hypothetical agreements
refuting Barak's claims.
Had Barak signed an agreement similar to the Geneva
Declaration he would have been able to gain the approval of the Israeli
public. This is a fact. Immediately after some of its points were
published in the press, the text of the Geneva Declaration won the
support of nearly 40 per cent of Israeli society, despite the
opposition of the central leadership of the Labour Party, and the
leaders of Shinui and other parties. This is why the declaration is so
important for pro-settlement forces in Israel. They have found a
Palestinian partner, one apparently approved by the Palestinian
Authority, blessed by neighbouring Arab countries, and ready not only
to cede the right of return, but scrap the historic resolutions passed
by the United Nations in this regard -- regardless that such
concessions blow a gaping hole in Palestinian conscience and rights.
For icing on the cake, this new-found Palestinian partner is ready to
accept the continued existence of settlements in so-called "Greater
Jerusalem" and Gosh Etzion. This is how ground-breaking this
declaration is.
Barak fired the first shot at the declaration, followed
by the
entire Likud, the Shinui leaders, and the enfeebled hawks of the Labour
Party. Barak's attacks on the declaration highlight his own pack of
lies, and those of former President Clinton. He is attacking a
hypothetical agreement that does not include the right of return. This
means that even had the Palestinians in Camp David agreed to give up
the right of return, Barak would not have been satisfied, for he wanted
further concessions on land and settlements. Insofar as this is true,
the Palestinians can use the declaration to debunk both Barak and
Sharon.
Still, and apart from the name-calling and accusations
of
treason, the Palestinians have every right to wonder: Why is it okay to
criticise the perpetrators of martyrdom operations on the ground --
that they are acting outside the scope of a unified and coordinated
Palestinian position -- but not fine to criticise the signatories of
this declaration for giving up the right of return without a mandate
from any institution, let alone from the displaced refugees? A
pertinent question, indeed.
Some would say that there is a difference between
expressing a
political opinion without consulting Palestinian institutions and
carrying out operations targeting civilians and affecting the entire
life of the Palestinian people. True, but expressing a political
opinion usually involves writing an article, marching in a
demonstration, submitting a petition, and things of that sort. Anyone
with an opinion is entitled to express it, even if that opinion
involves a renunciation of the right of return. His or hers would be an
individual opinion, and the majority of Palestinians would be entitled
to reject it. But signing an agreement carrying the semi-official stamp
of various countries is more than a mere expression of opinion. Such an
action confronts the Palestinian people with a new ceiling for
negotiations or, to be exact, a new starting point for all future
talks. Once the concession of leaving settlements in place is made, and
once the right of return is renounced in any agreement, however
non-binding, signed with Israeli opposition forces, it becomes harder
for the Palestinians to start negotiations in the future without taking
this into account.
To make matters worse, the Israeli government has
attacked the
declaration while the Palestinian Authority considered it positive.
Let's be charitable. Any Palestinian would be within
his
rights to publish such a declaration with a caveat stating that in his
or her opinion it was a good basis for an agreement between the PLO and
Israel. It would be a legitimate gesture open for discussion. But the
significance of the declaration goes beyond being an opinion or an idea
some people favour. The declaration was presented as an agreement. It
was the subject of nominal negotiations, as if it were an agreement
negotiated among states. Countries hosted it officially. It will be
signed in a ceremony. There is no room for doubting that this is more
than just an expression of opinion. It is an attempt to impose new
realities.
The declaration is likely to steer the dialogue among
the
Palestinians into a discussion of the pros and cons of the declaration
-- as if it were the only show in town, and the only possible
settlement. And this is exactly what the signatories of the declaration
have in mind; that this is the only possible settlement, and that
anything aside from it is against peace. The declaration, therefore, is
more than just an opinion -- it turns everything else into mere
opinion. In the absence of a Palestinian political system, it is hardly
surprising that Palestinians would negotiate with Israeli members of
the opposition, in a semi-official manner, not about a programme of
struggle and solidarity, but about a hypothetical peace agreement with
no legal status. This is the same Palestinian political system in which
security officials act as spokesmen, talking constantly to the media --
despite the fact that even under dictatorships security services are
expected to remain silent, or stay out of politics, take orders from
politicians, and refrain from talking to the media. This is the same
Palestinian political system in which officials discuss the fate of
their president with leaders of other countries, sometimes in tones of
mockery.
It is hardly surprising that some Palestinians reject
the
rules of the game that the sponsors of the Geneva-Dead Sea Declaration
try to impose, attempting in their own way to enforce the rules of
other games. At a time when we are advocating a domestic Palestinian
dialogue on shared interim objectives and a common strategy for
struggle, the last thing that we need is for every person with a
political opinion to introduce his own rules of the game.
The Zionist Israeli left has not earned the status the
declaration imparts upon it. It has been given the chance to pose as a
pro-peace partner without having taken any credible stand against the
Sharon government. What have the Israeli partners in this declaration
done, aside from meeting the Palestinians in Europe? What has the
Zionist left done about the undeniable crimes of Sharon's government?
The Zionist left for the past few years supported the building of the
separation wall. It has not shown any solidarity worthy of mention with
the Palestinian people and their struggle. Those Israelis who act from
a position of solidarity with the Palestinians have opposed the wall,
and were mocked by the Zionist left.
All in all, the declaration has lowered the ceiling of
the
Arab Peace Initiative, to which it makes only a passing reference. It
also makes a mention of the roadmap, which it also undermines. In
general, it offers Arab countries wishing to lower the bar of the Arab
Peace Initiative the perfect alibi. Meanwhile, the declaration has not
resulted in a peace agreement, and seems unlikely to, even if it
initially won the support of nearly 40 per cent of Israelis, according
to polls taken immediately after its publication. Once the official
campaign started against it, Israeli public support dropped to 27 per
cent. Hence, no real breakthrough has taken place, and no such
turn-around is likely to materialise until Israeli leaders begin
supporting it.
So, what are we
left
with? We are left with a Palestinian
political force willing to give up the right of return, accept that
Israel is the state of the Jewish people, endorse the continued
existence of Israeli settlements -- but no peace agreement. This is
untenable for a nation under occupation. In the future, if one were to
speak against settlement activities and call for removing the
settlements, including Gosh Etzion, some Palestinians would
counter that Gosh Etzion should remain intact, for any Palestinian who
signed the declaration and is committed to its main points would be
likely to defend it. Yet, the abdication of the right of return and the
endorsement of the continued existence of Israeli settlements is
untenable for the Palestinian people. This is the dilemma that has now
surfaced onto the Palestinian scene, even without a peace agreement
having being reached.
A
disastrous dead end: the Geneva Accord
by Ali Abunimah
28 October 2003
Because of the Oslo
process, the basis for a viable and minimally fair
two-state solution has been completely destroyed. The Israeli "peace
camp" and the Palestinian leadership ought to have learned from the
calamities they helped bring about and changed their ways. The
so-called "Geneva Accord," an informal agreement prepared by Israelis,
led by former Labor Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and other Oslo-era
luminaries, and Palestinians close to Yasser Arafat, demonstrates a
determination to repeat the tragic errors of the past.
|
Tanya Reinhart's Israel/Palestine:
How to End the War of 1948. Find out more about the book on Amazon.com. |
Oslo allowed
Israel to double the number of colonists on occupied
Palestinian land, while the PLO transformed itself into a Palestinian
Authority whose mandate was to protect Israel from the victims of the
ongoing colonization. There is no better account of the bad faith with
which Israel's leaders approached the peace process than Tanya
Reinhart's book Israel/Palestine:
How to End the War of 1948.
It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand how
Palestinians and Israelis reached the bloody impasse they are in today.
While its creators have tried to sell the Geneva Accord as some sort of
breakthrough, it is nothing of the sort. The document recycles the
unworkable arrangements that Israel and the United States tried to
impose at Camp David in July 2000. A Palestinian "state" would be
established in the West Bank and Gaza, but without sovereignty or
control of its own borders or airspace. Israel would be permitted to
keep military forces in it forever, while the Palestinian "state" would
not be allowed to defend itself. The Palestinian state would be
occupied by a "Multinational Force" that could only be withdrawn with
Israeli agreement, and so on.
Israel would annex most of its West Bank settlements, including vast
swathes of territory in and around Jerusalem and other major cities, a
simple endorsement of most of the illegal territorial conquests Israel
made since 1967. Crucially, the document completely cancels the basic
rights of Palestinian refugees by giving Israel an absolute veto on the
return of even a single person to his or her home.
That the Geneva "negotiators," freed from any real accountability,
could not come up with anything better than they did, underscores the
utter bankruptcy of the glacial "step-by-step" approach toward a
two-state solution, while that two-state-solution has galloped away
because of Israeli colonization. The authors seem to believe that the
Palestinian people are like a donkey that will forever chase after a
carrot dangling from a stick attached to its own head. They fail to
recognize that the intifada was foremost a rejection of such
manipulation.
Should anyone feel that this presentation is overly negative, just look
at how Amram Mitzna, the "dovish" former general who led the Labor
Party to massive defeat at the last Israeli election, and one of the
authors of the document, presents it to Israelis. In an October 16 Ha'aretz
commentary, Mitzna claimed that: "For the first time in history, the
Palestinians explicitly and officially recognized the state of Israel
as the state of the Jewish people forever. They gave up the right of
return to the state of Israel and a solid, stable Jewish majority was
guaranteed. The Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter (of Jerusalem) and
David's Tower will all remain in our hands. The suffocating ring was
lifted from over Jerusalem and the entire ring of settlements around it
-- Givat Zeev, old and new Givon, Maale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Neve
Yaacov, Pisgat Zeev, French Hill, Ramot, Gilo and Armon Hanatziv will
be part of the expanded city, forever. None of the settlers in those
areas will have to leave their homes."
Since these settlements account for the largest land expropriations in
the most dense Palestinian areas, and for a majority of the Jewish
settlers in the West Bank, Mitzna is simply following the Labor Party
tradition of assuring Israelis that they can enjoy peace, international
legitimacy and the spoils of conquest all at the same time. They cannot.
Perhaps the most dishonest claim is Mitzna's assertion that the
Palestinian side in the Geneva project "was represented by an
authentic, broad Palestinian leadership that enjoys the support both
from the official Palestinian Authority leadership and from the
activist leaders at street level." Who is this "authentic" leadership?
The Palestinians who went to Geneva did so in secret, and had no
mandate whatsoever, except from themselves and the Israelis who
anointed them. They certainly do not speak for the refugees whose
fundamental rights they so blithely offered up, or for the Palestinians
whose land was stolen for colonies that will remain intact. The
Palestinian Authority, which apparently backed them, has itself lost
all legitimacy as a representive body, because it is unaccountable.
As for the Israeli delegation, one would do well to remember that the
Labor Party in opposition speaks with a different voice than Labor in
government. The former has always appeared more dovish than the latter.
As independent agents, the Israeli negotiators can renege on any
commitments they made. Yet, judging from history, the concessions they
extracted from the "authentic Palestinian leadership" will become a new
bottom line from which any future negotiations would proceed. Any new
Israeli government, even one headed by Labor, would come to the table
with ever more demands, and new facts on the ground that would have to
be accommodated.
If the Geneva authors were serious about a two-state solution, they
would recognize that if it still has a remote chance, that can only be
if Israel were at a minimum willing to withdraw every soldier and
settler, without exception, behind the lines of June 4, 1967, including
in Jerusalem, and allow the Palestinians to establish a state no less
independent and sovereign than Israel. As the Geneva document
demonstrates, not even Israel's most "dovish" figures are willing to
contemplate that. So instead, they push a hopeless and unjust formula,
claiming that this is the "only alternative" to the bloodthirsty way of
Sharon, and pretend that the Palestinian people have agreed to it.
In fact, since Israel can't or won't allow a real two-state solution,
there is an alternative -- the creation of a single, democratic state
that will allow all Israelis and Palestinians to peacefully cohabit the
entirety of their common homeland as equals. To dismiss this
possibility, and to refuse even to explore it as a serious way out of
the deepening crisis is immoral.
This article was
published in The
Daily Star in Beirut on
28 October 2003.
|
|
|
|
MER - IF you
don't get it, you just don't
get IT!
To receive MER
free
and easy
email MERList@MiddleEast.Org
with subject SUBSCRIBE
Comment on
this
article and
other MER Articles in the MER
FORUM
|