Problems with Geneva Accords

[Bard Fan]

Mark LeVine, a left leaning assistant professor, makes a couple important points in his critique of the Geneva Accords. The refugee issue cannot be vague when trying to look for a final settlement or else it will be Oslo all over again. This issue needs to be looked at from the start of negotiations and cannot be a vague understanding.

A problematic peace plan

If Israelis, Palestinians don't heed history, their children will likely repeat it

By MARK LEVINE
Assistant professor of history at U.C. Irvine

Despite the hype of Israeli and American peaceniks, the fact is that Geneva is an extremely problematic document. To begin with, "the representative of the Palestinian people" is designated as the Palestine Liberation Organization; yet the elected representative body of Palestinian society is the Palestinian Authority, or PA, not the PLO. What right does the PLO, as opposed to the PA, have to sign a political agreement? Moreover, can either body be said to "represent" Palestinian society after years of corruption and bloody fighting?

There is little chance that the agreement will have any credibility without the participation of popular organizations such as Hamas in the final negotiations. The good news, as I discovered in recent interviews with various Hamas activists, is that the movement seems ready to cut a deal along the general parameters of the Geneva Accords. But it won't agree to be left out on the sidelines, and certainly will not allow Israel to destroy it, as is the intention of the Sharon government, without a fight.

Indeed, whoever signs it, Palestinian society will not support any agreement that terminates all claims related to the Palestinian refugee problem, as does Geneva, without a detailed discussion of the number of Palestinian refugees that Israel will allow to "return" to its territory. Yet the accords specifically leave this issue vague and up to Israel to decide unilaterally after they are signed (which Israeli supporters celebrate as a major victory). In this context, the return to the PLO as the Palestinian "representative" suggests a realization among negotiators that no democratically elected or broadly representative body of Palestinians would agree to Geneva.

Rest of Article (http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=67878&section=COMMENTARY&subsection=COMMENTARY_COLUMNS&year=2003&month=11&day=24)

[Jorge]

That the Geneva Accord is attacked by right wingers of all kinds is understandable, their criticisms are at least consistent with their long held views. The criticism of this “left leaning� Mr. Levine, on the other hand, are just a bit too much.

Quotes from post #1:

There is little chance that the agreement will have any credibility without the participation of popular organizations such as Hamas in the final negotiations. The good news, as I discovered in recent interviews with various Hamas activists, is that the movement seems ready to cut a deal along the general parameters of the Geneva Accords. But it won't agree to be left out on the sidelines, and certainly will not allow Israel to destroy it, as is the intention of the Sharon government, without a fight.

It would be great if Mr. Levine could sent his Hamas activist’s friends over here, because here Hamas militants are portraying the Geneva Accords as an �infernal machination � (and justly so according to their views). To say that the document will not have “any credibility� without popular organizations such as Hamas is, to put it mildly, preposterous in the extreme. Hamas, for the information of Mr. Levine, has repeatedly stated its opposition to the very existence of Israel and of the Jews inside it. Moreover it is bent on implementing this aim through a wave of cold bloody murders of civilians, implemented with a ferocity more fitting to beasts than to human beings.

To believe that those people seems ready to “cut a deal along the lines of the GA� cannot stem otherwise but from not having read the document of the GA and of not having read, seen or heard what Hamas militants have been up all these years.

In this context, the return to the PLO as the Palestinian "representative" suggests a realization among negotiators that no democratically elected or broadly representative body of Palestinians would agree to Geneva.
In this context, the return to the PLO as the Palestinian "representative" suggests a realization among negotiators that no democratically elected or broadly representative body of Palestinians would agree to Geneva .

That the document was written jointly with PLO members and proposes that negotiations, if held, should be with the PLO was not due to mere chance. The PLO has repeatedly stated that accepts the concept of a two-state solution, coexisting side by side along agreed borders. They have repeatedly declared that they are willing to compromise in the refugee issue. These positions are not shared by Hamas, Jihad or the other “popular organizations� that ought to attend the Geneva talks, according to Mr. Levine, for the sake of safe-guarding pristine democracy. Perhaps Mr. Levine should interview again his Hamas friends or any other Islamic fundamentalists, for that matter and ask them what do they think about democracy.

[Enuff]

Fatah officials won't attend Geneva Accord ceremony (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html)

Of course the first casualty of the Accords is the legitimacy of the Accords themselves but what I can't understand is all the hoop-la about this weeks meeting/convention in Geneva.

I'd read that there was never to be any official signing of this document at the convention, so what is/was the point? Publicity, i presume?

I'd also expect several terrorist attacks to scuttle the effort. regardless its legitimacy.

[Noam]

Originally posted by Enuff
Fatah officials won't attend Geneva Accord ceremony (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html)

Of course the first casualty of the Accords is the legitimacy of the Accords themselves but what I can't understand is all the hoop-la about this weeks meeting/convention in Geneva.

I'd read that there was never to be any official signing of this document at the convention, so what is/was the point? Publicity, i presume?

I'd also expect several terrorist attacks to scuttle the effort. regardless its legitimacy.

It is simply beyond me why people do not see the obvious? (Perhaps because our sages said : " ÃÂéï äáøëä îöåéä ÃÂìàáãáø äñîåé îï äòééï"????

There CANNOT BE ANY AGREEMENT in the Middle east as LONG AS ISLAM DOES NOT WANT TO RECOGNIZE A JEWISH, INDPENDENT (in Arab parlance that means NON-DHIMMI), Democratic Entity in its midst.

THe Palestinians are nothing but puppets of ISLAM.
No one EVER intended to give them a state prior to 1967..and NO one will allow a Palestinian State if ISrael disappeared tomorrow.
(The Palestinian are , by now, Damaged good because they have been infested by the ISRAELI DEMOCRATIC VIRUS beyond repair....they learnt about socialzed medicine, Social welfare, Majority vote, Supreme court.... bad thingis to let be in the heart of Sharia)....
Islam is using the Palestinians as cannon fodder to TIRE and ERODE the ISraeli spirit (and they are doing a CREDIBLE JOB considering the success of Fiegale Beilin... must admire his tenacity)

All the talks, camps, conversations.., are nothing but a comouflage to cover for the truth behind the scene.

This is why all the Talks collpased at the crucial moment (camp david, camp granada, camp Ramah, Taba, Sharm, Madrid, Oslo, Geneva, Disnely land and, of course....Universal Studios.)

[michael]

The problem with the Geneva Accords is a familiar one, a refrain often heard on this forum.

There is no partner for peace.

This is the usual lament on the Isralei side. However, if you look at who opposes the Accords, a rather different picture emerges.

Two US polls have found a majority (slim) of both Israelis and Palestinians support the Accords.

Amongst Palestinians, the usual suspects are violently opposed- Hamas and IJ. Several PA figures have been closely involved, Arafat has given verbal support but has refused to provide a letter of official support.

On the Israeli side, the Coalition Govt is vehemently opposed. One NRP MK demanded that the AG prosecute the Israeli citizens involved, for treason (the punishment for which, includes the death penalty). The Labor opposition is also opposed.

Putting the various groups together groups according to their position is very interesting.

For - majorties of Pal. and Israeli public, PA, Meretz(?)

Against - Israeli Govt (and Labor), Hamas, Islamic Jihad.

So a major problem for the Accords in that there is no partner for peace, none for the Palestinians that is.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael

Amongst Palestinians, the usual suspects are violently opposed- Hamas and IJ. Several PA figures have been closely involved, Arafat has given verbal support but has refused to provide a letter of official support.

...So a major problem for the Accords in that there is no partner for peace, none for the Palestinians that is.

More lies from Michael.

The fact is that PA officials have pulled out of the "Geneva Accords" on orders from Yaser Arafat.

There was also a demonstration in Gaza against the Geneva Accords, and the Palestinians' lead negotiator Mahmoud Khalifa was manhandled as he crossed the border into Egypt.

In his never-ending quest to slander Israel as not interested in peace, Michael asserts that Arafat supports the Geneva Accords. In Michael's dishonest mind somehow the refusal of the Palestinians' dictator to "officially" support the Geneva Accords in writing is a mere technicality. But the refusal of Israel's elected government to refuse to officially support the Geneva Accords is proof of ill will.

[michael]

As usual, ibrodsky doesn't have a firm grasp of the basic facts.

The Palestinian delegation have withdrawn from the ceremony. Rather than acting on orders, they have refused to attend unless Arafat provides a formal letter of support. He has refused so far.
There is strong opposition to the Accord from within Fatah.

The Palestinian delegation and negotiation team contains members such as Kadoura Fares, Cabinet Minister in the PA.

On the Israeli side there is blanket opposition at Government level. As I said, MK Shaul Yahalom requested that the Israeli Attorney General prosecute the Israeli ctizens involved in the Accord negotiation, with the possibilty of incurring the death penalty.

The problems in Gaza were the result of, as I said, the violent opposition of Hamas and IJ.

So who is most opposed to the accords? On the Pal. side - Hamas and IJ. On the Israeli side - Sharon and the Coalition Government.

In other words - the extremists.

Fortunately, the common sense of the Israeli public means that the Accord enjoys majority support.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
So who is most opposed to the accords? On the Pal. side - Hamas and IJ. On the Israeli side - Sharon and the Coalition Government.

In other words - the extremists.


Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that Yaser Arafat, Palestinian dictator for life, opposes the Geneva Accords.


From the Associated Press:

Key Palestinian Negotiators to Skip Summit
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - A U.S. envoy said Sunday he would voice concerns about a West Bank separation barrier during talks with Israeli officials, while key Palestinian negotiators of a symbolic peace accord withdrew from the launch ceremony in Switzerland.

At the last minute, the four negotiators � all members of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites)'s Fatah (news - web sites) movement � said they were skipping Monday's ceremony in Geneva after Arafat refused to give written approval for the agreement.

Their absence threatened to weaken the impact of the "Geneva Accord," which has no official standing but signaled to Israelis and Palestinians that a peace deal is still possible. The withdrawal of the Palestinians sent a message to Israelis that there may not be a reliable peace partner on the Palestinian side.

Once again, Michael pretends that the PA supports the Geneva Accords and the opposition comes just from "extremists." Never mind that the PA refuses to put its support in writing. Never mind that the PA refuses to oppose the extremists. Never mind that the PA funds terrorism and Arafat calls for "one million martyrs."

Even the Western media that reflexively shows deference to the Palestinians is scratching its head..."there may not be a reliable peace partner on the Palestinian side."

Meanwhile, Arafat's puppet is seething because Israel has erected a removable barrier that keeps mass murderers from merely walking into Israel.

By the way, Michael, let's not forget that you said Hamas engages in "legitimate resistance." Now you call them "extremists." Having trouble keeping your lies straight?

[Enuff]

It looks like arafart has given the "go ahead" to the negotiators at the geneva hoax which i interpret as a 'green light' for attacks.

woops almost forget the link

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Enuff
It looks like arafart has given the "go ahead" to the negotiators at the geneva hoax which i interpret as a 'green light' for attacks.

woops almost forget the link

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html

So now the PA does a flip-flop. However, this is Arafat's standard technique. Like Comical Ali and Islamists, he does not consider himself obligated to deal honestly with "infidels." He is betting he can cause trouble by supporting "accords" that were an end-run around an Israeli governing coalition representing the overwhelming majority of Israeli voters. He knows that no government dedicated to the rule of law (namely, Israel) is going to let private citizens conduct foreign policy.

Nor does this change the fact that until 15 minutes ago or so, the PA opposed the Geneva Accords. The Arab "extremists" who oppose the Geneva Accords enjoy broad support among the Palestinian public--and the PA has repeatedly declared they will not take action against the Hamas mass murderers. A government that refuses to bring mass murderers to justice is an accomplice to mass murder. Plus, polls conducted by Palestinians show that the vast majority of Palestinians support mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians.

[ibrodsky]

The dishonesty of the PA's move is belied by the fact that Arafat's puppet insists there can be no negotiations unless Israel stops building the security fence.

Which liar is telling the truth?

[ibrodsky]

speaking of dishonesty:


Last Wednesday every news agency in the world carried a story that a 9-year old Palestinian boy had been shot in the head and killed by the IDF, quoting “Palestinian medical sources:� Palestinian boy shot dead by Israelis in Gaza.

Today the Palestinian Authority has been forced to admit that the boy was killed by his own brother�and his father helped cover up the crime, hoping to get a martyr payoff from the terror gangs: Boy shot in Rafah by brother. (Hat tip: zulubaby.)


Palestinian Authority has admitted that IDF troops were not responsible for Thursday's killing of a 9 year-old boy on Thursday in Rafah, accusing instead his brother.

Earlier, the PA had accused Israeli troops of shooting the boy, but IDF sources say that there were no troops in the area.

The IDF has speculated that the boy's father put blame on the Israelis in order to receive funds from one of the terror organizations, such as Hamas.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Reuters, AP, and AFP to correct their scandalous willingness to believe and report the words of many-times-proven liars.

Source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[Enuff]

What’s to negotiate here anyhow? Aren’t the Israeli’s the supposed to be the ‘occupiers’ and who designated that description, the U.N. - that pillar of duplicity? In any case, the negotiation from an occupiers standpoint should be from a standpoint of strenght and simple: you’ve got ‘2’ weeks to disarm the terrorist organizations, stop the attacks or look for homes in Jordan, the Sinai or wherever some silly ass will let you in. If the attacks increase, you don’t get the 2 weeks, so have your bags packed.

But if you do as directed, maybe….just maybe…. we might talk with you about your own state if there‘s not one single attack within a year, until then ’buzz off.’

Then have the army breakout the brooms and Mr. Clean to get ready to start cleaning out the territories. Squeaky clean, real squeaky clean.

That’s the one thing that’s nice about being at the bottom of the popularity polls, what are they gunna do breakout another poll to see if they hate you more?

blah, i'm ranting again :D

[alexbmn]

Haaretz poll 31 percent of Israelis are against it. Take out Israeli Arabs and self haters and you probably will get ten percent if not less.

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that Yaser Arafat, Palestinian dictator for life, opposes the Geneva Accords.

Once again, Michael pretends that the PA supports the Geneva Accords and the opposition comes just from "extremists." Never mind that the PA refuses to put its support in writing. Never mind that the PA refuses to oppose the extremists. Never mind that the PA funds terrorism and Arafat calls for "one million martyrs."

Arafat has spoken in support of the accords but the PA has not formally endorsed them. Arafat only sent a personal letter to the ceremony which was read out. In it, he said the accord was “a brave and courageous initiative� which “opens the door to peace.�.

On the other hand Sharon has said they are “shameful,� and “pathetic".

Arafats' and the PA response is still grossly inadequate, but more promising than the Israeli Governments'.

The strength of the inititive is that it doesn't rely on Governmental level co-operation but seeks to engage support within the 2 repective publics. Despite it's shortcomings, for this reason it should be supported by anyone truly concerned about peace and justice





By the way, Michael, let's not forget that you said Hamas engages in "legitimate resistance." Now you call them "extremists." Having trouble keeping your lies straight?

No, both are correct.

Your confusion stems from a common problem - the use of the term terrorism.

It has two usages. A standard one which sets out a definition - the threat or use of violence to intimidate or coerce. This applies to whoever may act so.

The other is the propaganda term that only applies to offical enemies and can be extended to apply to any act that threatens powerful interests, whether it meets the standard definition or not.

I use the former term, so Hamas may engage in acts that are terrorism or legitmate resistance depending on the facts of the case. Either way, there is little doubt that it is an extremist organistation. In this case, the parellel between them is unusually clear - extremists reject the accords, ie. Hamas, IJ, Israeli Govt.

ibrodsky, eschewing this usage in favour of the latter, is undestandably confused.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by michael
Arafat has spoken in support of the accords but the PA has not formally endorsed them. Arafat only sent a personal letter to the ceremony which was read out. In it, he said the accord was “a brave and courageous initiative� which “opens the door to peace.�.

On the other hand Sharon has said they are “shameful,� and “pathetic".

Arafats' and the PA response is still grossly inadequate, but more promising than the Israeli Governments'.

If meaningless "words of peace" and empty promisses is the propaganda you wish to hear all day long... there are thousands of individuals on both sides willing to talk "peace" endlessly... nothing but "make love not war" ect... for years and decades with no end. Will these words carry any weight? can words change reality?

You should join such group of endless peace chatters...

No words or promises stop bombers and Arab children killers... till then... the reality will go on, undisturbed by peace chatters and void promisses or "peace" festivals. Jews like Haim Saban or Lord Michael Levi can orginize "Geneva Accords" festival every Mondays and Thursday. Tickets sales will sure sky rocket. The moive will follow (and then the cartoon seiries). Can it carry and weight? Does it has any significance? Only bla bla... entertainment for the undereducated.

Arafat may say what ever his likes. I don't believe him. Jews, Israelis and world wide don't believe Arafat. Americans don't believe Arafat. Arabs don't believe Arafat. Arafat words are of no significance. Arafat is irrelevent. We all waite till Arafat will roll over on his back with his eight legs folded on his belly and rot.

Sharon speaks the truth. Accords can not change the reality of terrorism. Arab Terrorist, like the Nazis at their time, are driven only from bloodlust. Only bullets will curb Arab terrorist passion for Jewish children blood. Once they'll finish with us, they will pick on others en mass.


[b]The strength of the inititive is that it doesn't rely on Governmental level co-operation but seeks to engage support within the 2 repective publics. Despite it's shortcomings, for this reason it should be supported by anyone truly concerned about peace and justice There is no such support. Had there was one, we would've caught more Arab terrorists. Had the Arab population wanted peace they would drive the terrorist out of their cities or at least give us the information needed to finish them off.

No words can end Arab terrorist bloodlust for Jewish children, only Jewish difiance and militry self defence.


Either way, there is little doubt that it is an extremist organistation. In this case, the parellel between them is unusually clear - extremists reject the accords, ie. Hamas, IJ, Israeli Govt. As long as Hammas or Tanzim still exists, more Jews will be murdered. As long as Jews get murdered there will be no peace. No talks and no papers have the power to stop Hammas and other terror organizations. Only bullets to their heads.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
Arafat has spoken in support of the accords but the PA has not formally endorsed them. Arafat only sent a personal letter to the ceremony which was read out. In it, he said the accord was “a brave and courageous initiative� which “opens the door to peace.�

Michael, are you really that gullible? Yaser Arafat is the Father of Modern Terrorism. He has been masterminding terrorist attacks on Israeli and American civilians since the early 1960s. When the racist Arafat walked out on the Oslo "Peace process," he ranted about how there are no Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem.

He is also a pathological liar. Arafat is an Egyptian born in Cairo, though he is fond of claiming he was born in Jerusalem and that the Mufti of Jerusalem (who spent the last three years of WW II in Berlin cheering on Hitler) was his uncle.

Yesterday, two suicide attacks against Israeli schools were foiled when the IDF arrested members of the PA "security forces" who not only admitted they were going to attack schools, but led the IDF to their bomb belts.


On the other hand Sharon has said they are “shameful,� and “pathetic".

Arafats' and the PA response is still grossly inadequate, but more promising than the Israeli Governments'.

Private citizens do not have the right to conduct foreign policy--particularly not with people who represent terrorists. Only elected government leaders have the right to conduct foreign policy.

However, this is purely a PR event. The thugs who run Palestinian society have no intentions of making peace.

Yesterday, when the "Palestinian negotiators" returned from Geneva to Gaza, they were pelted with stones and shot at. One ended up fleeing to the Israeli side.

Hmmm, seems he felt he would be safer among the IDF and/or Israeli border police.


The strength of the inititive is that it doesn't rely on Governmental level co-operation but seeks to engage support within the 2 repective publics. Despite it's shortcomings, for this reason it should be supported by anyone truly concerned about peace and justice

No, it would be supported only by people who despise democracy and representative government, or who are too ignorant to understand that private citizens conducting foreign policy undermine the Rule of Law (at least, in Israel where there is Rule of Law). In Arafatistan, it is just street theater, the surreal flipside to suicide bombing moms and toddlers at a pizza restaurant.


I use the former term, so Hamas may engage in acts that are terrorism or legitmate resistance depending on the facts of the case. Either way, there is little doubt that it is an extremist organistation. In this case, the parellel between them is unusually clear - extremists reject the accords, ie. Hamas, IJ, Israeli Govt.

A clumsy attempt to diminish the crimes of a racist, bloodthirsty group that purposely kills Israeli families.

The Israeli government was elected by the people of Israel and represents them. The fact that you have more admiration for the Palestinian Authority which has been caught red-handed financing terrorists and importing plastic explosives from fascist Iran calls into question your opposition to "extremists."

By the way, when does Arafat's term as "President" end?

[Mediocrates]

Actually michaels vain attempt to draw parallels between Hamas and (apparently) the entirety of all Israeli society and all the institutions in it is simply another attempt at backhanded de-legitimization of Israel. You can see that michael and others like him actually don't support the Geneva accord either since that would theoretically preserve the Jewish state which he is against. What we see is just another instance of supporting terrorism not because of what they think it will gain the Palestinians but more importantly what they think it will lose the Jews.

Let's remember that this entire subject has little to do with where Palestinians are living and everything to do with where Jews will be permitted to exist.

[Gilgamesh]

One of the key fundemental differences between sane people and leftic extremists is understanding of the enemy.

Leftics believe most Arabs want peace, and there is nothing worse the war.

I think NOT!

[Jorge]

Sometimes I get a bit impatient with people like ibrodski who inserts paragraphs like this (quote from his #17):

No, it would be supported only by people who despise democracy and representative government, or who are too ignorant to understand that private citizens conducting foreign policy undermine the Rule of Law (at least, in Israel where there is Rule of Law).

What entitles him to sit as a Judge and decide (impertinently in my opinion) that the supporters of the Geneva Accord “despise democracy and representative government� ? Does he not know that the signatories of the said documents include a former Chairman of the Knesset ( one of their best in the last 20 years), a number of present and former Knesset Members, who can show a long, clean and honest record of parliamentary life? If he does know, ibrodski and others like him, are treading a dangerous path: To accuse your political opponents of being wrong or unreasonable is one thing, to accuse them of being subversive, is another one altogether. If he’s not “too ignorant to understand� about undermining or eroding the Rule of Law, he should be aware that this other thing has been a favorite tool of fascism; as History teaches us, the gap between branding your political opponents as subversive and jailing them for subversion is bridged quite easily by “strong� governments.

May be the Just and Righteous Champions of Democracy in this Forum should make an effort to think more carefully before they write posts like the one quoted above.

[minusthejihad]

Whether or not you agree with his first point, you can not debate the second.

[Mediocrates]

Would a private citizen be innocent of a crime if that private citizen gave or accepted a bribe on behalf of a forieign government in order to effect some piece of legislation or attempted to send that bribe to her own government?

Not to put to sharp a point on it, isn't that what we call lobbying?