Two weeks after the final ceremony in Geneva, there was still an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the ?Geneva Accord? can and will have a positive influence on any future peace negotiations. Unfortunately, just the opposite will be the case. When, despite their blatant violation of the Oslo Accords and anti-Israeli propaganda in schools, in the media and in mosques, the Palestinian Arabs see that the Israelis continue to propose new and more far-reaching peace agreements, it puts them under no obligation whatsoever to honour their commitments either now or in the future.
The most dangerous consequence of the ?Geneva Accord? is that this agreement will automatically serve as a basis for the Palestinians in further negotiations, just as the Barak Plan was a basis for the ?Geneva Accord?, with still more concessions on the Israeli side. As a result, the Palestinian expectations for a peace treaty with Israel are becoming more and more demanding.
How should we interpret the actions of the Swiss Foreign Ministry with regard to the ?Geneva Accord?? The initiative of the Foreign Minister, Mrs. Calmy-Rey, can certainly not be seen as "Swiss solidarity with Israel," as she put it. There is no doubt that, at least since February, the Foreign Ministry of Switzerland has, in secret negotiations, been supporting, both financially and logistically, unauthorised Israeli private initiators whose views are far removed from the Israeli political centre. At the same time, the Foreign Ministry has been knowingly forgoing any co-operation with the Israeli government, even to the point of not informing the Israelis of their intentions.
I know of no incident in the past when a non-elected prominent group has drawn up an agreement in their country?s name and a third country (Switzerland) has organised a formal ?signing-ceremony?. How would Switzerland react if, without the knowledge of the Swiss government, a Foreign Minister of another country had invited a handful of Jura separatists to his country to take part in secret negotiations over a period of time, offering financial and logistical sponsorship to thrash out a settlement deal for a new canton of Jura?
In a discussion in the Central Committee of the Organisation of Jewish Communities in Switzerland (SIG), a resolution was rejected, by a vote of 12 to 11, which welcomes any peace initiative, but demands strict observance of international codes of conduct. The focus was on the question of whether such a resolution could complicate relations between the SIG and the Swiss Foreign Ministry. Also, the fact was stressed time and again that - oddly enough - Israel failed to launch a formal protest against Switzerland. Regrettably, the executive committee of the SIG was divided on the matter of the ?Geneva Initiative?. Their President, Alfred Donath, has - like the Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid - repeatedly emphasised that Switzerland should not give diplomatic and financial support to clandestine negotiations, knowingly conducted without the endorsement of the democratically-elected Israeli government. A personal appearance by the SIG President in Geneva, requested by some, would have been tantamount to approval of the willful deceit of the State of Israel and would never ever have been accepted by other Jewish umbrella organisations.
How should one interpret the advertising campaign of some Swiss Jews who welcomed the ?Geneva Accord?? Naturally, each and every person has a right to their own opinion on any issue. But it is presumptuous to believe that Jews in Europe can have a decisive influence on the future of the State of Israel. Fundamental decisions can only be made exclusively by the citizens of Israel and its democratically-elected government.
Mention was made time and again that Yossi Beilin was formerly the Justice Minister of the State of Israel. It would have been more to the point to have emphasised that Mr. Beilin, as a result of his failure in the politics of foreign policy, was not even elected to the Israeli parliament. The ?Geneva Accord? is by no means only a symbolic initiative. It is much more so a deliberate attempt by Beilin to provide a basis for forming a new party in Israel. The other two co-initiators of the ?Geneva Accord? were also unsuccessful in democratic elections (Avram Burg against Binyamin Ben Eliezer and Amram Mitza against Ariel Sharon). In contrast, the Nobel Peace Prize holder Shimon Peres has reacted negatively to the ?Geneva Initiative?.
The question comes to mind as to how many of those who give vociferous support to the 50-page ?Geneva Accord? have actually read it. An examination of the agreement immediately clarifies the fact that it entails overwhelming sacrifices on the part of Israel, with no reciprocal concessions on the part of the Palestinians.
The "Geneva Accord" makes no mention of the necessity for the introduction of democracy in Palestinian society and does not call for the elimination of terrorist infrastructure as a pre-requisite for every peace settlement. Kadura Fares, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team, emphasised emphatically that the recognition of Israel as "Jewish State" is out of the question.
All the demands made of Israel are clearly expressed in the treaty (return to the 1967 borders, characterised by Abba Eban as "Auschwitz borders", with small land exchanges, a divided Jerusalem minus the Temple Mount, etc.). The treaty negates Israel?s historical ties to Jerusalem and once again makes any Jewish religious practices at holy sites dependant on Palestinian approval. Have we forgotten that, despite binding Arab pledges, Jews weren?t even allowed access to the Wailing Wall between 1948 and 1967? And have we also forgotten what happened to the synagogue of Jericho and to the monument to Joseph in the period since the Oslo Accords?
It was emphasised that the Palestinians had given up the right of return for refugees, but intentionally unclear wording of the treaty means that this important problem has in no way been resolved. On the contrary, reference is made to the United Nations Resolution 194 as a basis to resolve the refugee problem - a resolution that the Arabs interpret as being the basis for international acceptance of the right to return. Israel would, in regard to the refugee problem and all other unresolved matters, come under the supervision of an international commission, containing the Arab states, as well.
"If this should happen, Israel will cease to function as an independent state in important issues and will be transformed into some sort of international mandated territory," explained Dr. Shlomo Avineri, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The ?Geneva Initiative? leaves Israel without any safeguards in the event of infringement of the treaty by the Palestinians. The responsibility for Israel?s security needs rests, according to the ?Geneva Initiative?, in the hands of international forces, and, subsequently, denies the State of Israel any freedom of action. In the end effect, this means that fundamental decisions about Israel's sovereignty would be placed in the hands of an international committee; whereby, the European Union or the United Nations would be made responsible for Israel?s security. Since 1947, such committees have always tended to oppose Israel.
The peace process, initiated in Oslo and ending in a bloody terror campaign, has been actively supported by some of the Palestinian signatories. The Geneva exercise is the result of having learned absolutely nothing from the lessons of Oslo. And the question of what will happen if the dream of peace cannot be realised was not even raised, let alone answered.
Illusions are the enemy of reality, which should not be ignored, but accorded true significance in every peace settlement. What we need in the Middle East is a stable, true and lasting peace, not a theatrical peace ceremony built on illusions.
The most dangerous consequence of the ?Geneva Accord? is that this agreement will automatically serve as a basis for the Palestinians in further negotiations, just as the Barak Plan was a basis for the ?Geneva Accord?, with still more concessions on the Israeli side. As a result, the Palestinian expectations for a peace treaty with Israel are becoming more and more demanding.
How should we interpret the actions of the Swiss Foreign Ministry with regard to the ?Geneva Accord?? The initiative of the Foreign Minister, Mrs. Calmy-Rey, can certainly not be seen as "Swiss solidarity with Israel," as she put it. There is no doubt that, at least since February, the Foreign Ministry of Switzerland has, in secret negotiations, been supporting, both financially and logistically, unauthorised Israeli private initiators whose views are far removed from the Israeli political centre. At the same time, the Foreign Ministry has been knowingly forgoing any co-operation with the Israeli government, even to the point of not informing the Israelis of their intentions.
I know of no incident in the past when a non-elected prominent group has drawn up an agreement in their country?s name and a third country (Switzerland) has organised a formal ?signing-ceremony?. How would Switzerland react if, without the knowledge of the Swiss government, a Foreign Minister of another country had invited a handful of Jura separatists to his country to take part in secret negotiations over a period of time, offering financial and logistical sponsorship to thrash out a settlement deal for a new canton of Jura?
In a discussion in the Central Committee of the Organisation of Jewish Communities in Switzerland (SIG), a resolution was rejected, by a vote of 12 to 11, which welcomes any peace initiative, but demands strict observance of international codes of conduct. The focus was on the question of whether such a resolution could complicate relations between the SIG and the Swiss Foreign Ministry. Also, the fact was stressed time and again that - oddly enough - Israel failed to launch a formal protest against Switzerland. Regrettably, the executive committee of the SIG was divided on the matter of the ?Geneva Initiative?. Their President, Alfred Donath, has - like the Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid - repeatedly emphasised that Switzerland should not give diplomatic and financial support to clandestine negotiations, knowingly conducted without the endorsement of the democratically-elected Israeli government. A personal appearance by the SIG President in Geneva, requested by some, would have been tantamount to approval of the willful deceit of the State of Israel and would never ever have been accepted by other Jewish umbrella organisations.
How should one interpret the advertising campaign of some Swiss Jews who welcomed the ?Geneva Accord?? Naturally, each and every person has a right to their own opinion on any issue. But it is presumptuous to believe that Jews in Europe can have a decisive influence on the future of the State of Israel. Fundamental decisions can only be made exclusively by the citizens of Israel and its democratically-elected government.
Mention was made time and again that Yossi Beilin was formerly the Justice Minister of the State of Israel. It would have been more to the point to have emphasised that Mr. Beilin, as a result of his failure in the politics of foreign policy, was not even elected to the Israeli parliament. The ?Geneva Accord? is by no means only a symbolic initiative. It is much more so a deliberate attempt by Beilin to provide a basis for forming a new party in Israel. The other two co-initiators of the ?Geneva Accord? were also unsuccessful in democratic elections (Avram Burg against Binyamin Ben Eliezer and Amram Mitza against Ariel Sharon). In contrast, the Nobel Peace Prize holder Shimon Peres has reacted negatively to the ?Geneva Initiative?.
The question comes to mind as to how many of those who give vociferous support to the 50-page ?Geneva Accord? have actually read it. An examination of the agreement immediately clarifies the fact that it entails overwhelming sacrifices on the part of Israel, with no reciprocal concessions on the part of the Palestinians.
The "Geneva Accord" makes no mention of the necessity for the introduction of democracy in Palestinian society and does not call for the elimination of terrorist infrastructure as a pre-requisite for every peace settlement. Kadura Fares, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team, emphasised emphatically that the recognition of Israel as "Jewish State" is out of the question.
All the demands made of Israel are clearly expressed in the treaty (return to the 1967 borders, characterised by Abba Eban as "Auschwitz borders", with small land exchanges, a divided Jerusalem minus the Temple Mount, etc.). The treaty negates Israel?s historical ties to Jerusalem and once again makes any Jewish religious practices at holy sites dependant on Palestinian approval. Have we forgotten that, despite binding Arab pledges, Jews weren?t even allowed access to the Wailing Wall between 1948 and 1967? And have we also forgotten what happened to the synagogue of Jericho and to the monument to Joseph in the period since the Oslo Accords?
It was emphasised that the Palestinians had given up the right of return for refugees, but intentionally unclear wording of the treaty means that this important problem has in no way been resolved. On the contrary, reference is made to the United Nations Resolution 194 as a basis to resolve the refugee problem - a resolution that the Arabs interpret as being the basis for international acceptance of the right to return. Israel would, in regard to the refugee problem and all other unresolved matters, come under the supervision of an international commission, containing the Arab states, as well.
"If this should happen, Israel will cease to function as an independent state in important issues and will be transformed into some sort of international mandated territory," explained Dr. Shlomo Avineri, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The ?Geneva Initiative? leaves Israel without any safeguards in the event of infringement of the treaty by the Palestinians. The responsibility for Israel?s security needs rests, according to the ?Geneva Initiative?, in the hands of international forces, and, subsequently, denies the State of Israel any freedom of action. In the end effect, this means that fundamental decisions about Israel's sovereignty would be placed in the hands of an international committee; whereby, the European Union or the United Nations would be made responsible for Israel?s security. Since 1947, such committees have always tended to oppose Israel.
The peace process, initiated in Oslo and ending in a bloody terror campaign, has been actively supported by some of the Palestinian signatories. The Geneva exercise is the result of having learned absolutely nothing from the lessons of Oslo. And the question of what will happen if the dream of peace cannot be realised was not even raised, let alone answered.
Illusions are the enemy of reality, which should not be ignored, but accorded true significance in every peace settlement. What we need in the Middle East is a stable, true and lasting peace, not a theatrical peace ceremony built on illusions.