The Arab press among Israel’s neighbors this week featured limited opinion pieces and editorials regarding the Geneva Initiative (Accords) of Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abd Rabbo. A sample of such items from the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon:
The Palestinian Authority official newspapers, as noted by Itamar Marcus of the Palestinian Media Watch organization, were filled with condemnation of any compromise on the part of the Arab side. The main advantage of the Geneva Initiative, as presented in the PA press, is that it is a weapon against the elected Israeli government.
Columnist Samih Shbayb wrote in Al-Ayyam this week, “The Palestinians have a national interest in joining forces with Israeli peace advocates and enhancing their power.... The political role the Geneva document plays is its most important aspect.”
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida carried a story on December 2 describing a fatwa (religious ruling) by the PA-appointed “Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian lands”, Sheikh Ikrama Sabri, “in which he emphasizes, that accepting compensation for Palestinian land [land claimed within Israel] is equal to selling it and it is utterly forbidden under religious law.” Similarly, the newspaper also described Nabil Sha’ath, foreign affairs advisor to the PA, as reacting to the Geneva Initiative by having “emphasized that the Palestinians will never give up the right to return to their houses, and will negotiate only about the procedures of returning…” And the Chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Rafiq Al-Natshe, “emphasized that the Palestinian problem started with the refugees and will not be solved unless the refugees return to their homes. He mentioned that the sacrifices and the struggle of our people will not allow anyone to forsake nor to concede any of our people’s rights. He added: Anyone who imagines that our people want peace at the expense of its rights, is wrong and if the peace initiatives come at the expense of the right of our people, let all the peace initiatives go to hell….” [Translations from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch]
Jordan’s Al-Rai, on December 3, argued that “what is required, after the signing of the peace agreement, is the mobilization of diplomatic efforts, particularly by the US and the quadripartite committee, in a bid to pressure (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon’s government into returning to the negotiating table to implement the ‘road map.’”
In Lebanon’s As-Safir columnist Joseph Samaha predicted that the Geneva Initiative will revitalize the Israeli Left, rally the Europeans behind the Initiative, appeal to leftist Jews in the US, and awaken the Israeli Labor Party and Shinui. Samaha wrote that “it will force Sharon to go on the offensive, while restarting the political career of Yossi Beilin, who is one of the main architects behind the Initiative, and strike a cord with an Israeli public opinion desperate for salvation.”
The Lebanese columnist explained that “Beilin belongs to the left wing of the Israeli political spectrum; whereas, [Yasser] Abed Rabbo is at the heart of the Palestinian political scene, symbolized by Arafat. Hence, there is the potential of using the Geneva Initiative as propaganda weapon against Sharon.” On the other hand, Samaha warned, “the initiative poses a bigger danger to the Palestinians. It makes any Palestinian concession binding, whereas Israel can freely renounce any pledges made by Beilin.” This is especially so, the As-Safir columnist commented, “considering that Beilin might prove incapable to give the Palestinians some of their rights in some of their lands.”
The English-language Al-Ahram Weekly, published by Cairo’s central and official Al-Ahram newspaper, carried an opinion piece by Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University, which analyzes the recent flurry of peace “initiatives”, “forums” and “plans”, including that of Beilin and Abd Rabbo. “I believe,” Nafaa wrote, “that the only party that stands to benefit from the latest round of activity and manoeuvre is Sharon. The continued steadfastness of the Palestinian people and Israel's inability to halt the Palestinian Intifada by force of arms, combined with the revival of the Israeli left... will compel Sharon to budge.” However, “Sharon... would confine himself to only those tactical concessions sufficient to set into motion a type of negotiating process he could prolong forever.”
In light of this view, Nafaa recommended, “the PA should concentrate [on]... formulating a unified strategy in managing the conflict with Israel. Part of this strategy should entail the pursuit of all possible avenues for establishing channels of communication with those Israeli factions eager to topple Sharon. ...What the Palestinians need to sign is a comprehensive settlement to be implemented under the supervision of the international community; not an agreement to enter into negotiations that we know beforehand Israel wants to protract indefinitely.”
The Palestinian Authority official newspapers, as noted by Itamar Marcus of the Palestinian Media Watch organization, were filled with condemnation of any compromise on the part of the Arab side. The main advantage of the Geneva Initiative, as presented in the PA press, is that it is a weapon against the elected Israeli government.
Columnist Samih Shbayb wrote in Al-Ayyam this week, “The Palestinians have a national interest in joining forces with Israeli peace advocates and enhancing their power.... The political role the Geneva document plays is its most important aspect.”
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida carried a story on December 2 describing a fatwa (religious ruling) by the PA-appointed “Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian lands”, Sheikh Ikrama Sabri, “in which he emphasizes, that accepting compensation for Palestinian land [land claimed within Israel] is equal to selling it and it is utterly forbidden under religious law.” Similarly, the newspaper also described Nabil Sha’ath, foreign affairs advisor to the PA, as reacting to the Geneva Initiative by having “emphasized that the Palestinians will never give up the right to return to their houses, and will negotiate only about the procedures of returning…” And the Chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Rafiq Al-Natshe, “emphasized that the Palestinian problem started with the refugees and will not be solved unless the refugees return to their homes. He mentioned that the sacrifices and the struggle of our people will not allow anyone to forsake nor to concede any of our people’s rights. He added: Anyone who imagines that our people want peace at the expense of its rights, is wrong and if the peace initiatives come at the expense of the right of our people, let all the peace initiatives go to hell….” [Translations from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch]
Jordan’s Al-Rai, on December 3, argued that “what is required, after the signing of the peace agreement, is the mobilization of diplomatic efforts, particularly by the US and the quadripartite committee, in a bid to pressure (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon’s government into returning to the negotiating table to implement the ‘road map.’”
In Lebanon’s As-Safir columnist Joseph Samaha predicted that the Geneva Initiative will revitalize the Israeli Left, rally the Europeans behind the Initiative, appeal to leftist Jews in the US, and awaken the Israeli Labor Party and Shinui. Samaha wrote that “it will force Sharon to go on the offensive, while restarting the political career of Yossi Beilin, who is one of the main architects behind the Initiative, and strike a cord with an Israeli public opinion desperate for salvation.”
The Lebanese columnist explained that “Beilin belongs to the left wing of the Israeli political spectrum; whereas, [Yasser] Abed Rabbo is at the heart of the Palestinian political scene, symbolized by Arafat. Hence, there is the potential of using the Geneva Initiative as propaganda weapon against Sharon.” On the other hand, Samaha warned, “the initiative poses a bigger danger to the Palestinians. It makes any Palestinian concession binding, whereas Israel can freely renounce any pledges made by Beilin.” This is especially so, the As-Safir columnist commented, “considering that Beilin might prove incapable to give the Palestinians some of their rights in some of their lands.”
The English-language Al-Ahram Weekly, published by Cairo’s central and official Al-Ahram newspaper, carried an opinion piece by Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University, which analyzes the recent flurry of peace “initiatives”, “forums” and “plans”, including that of Beilin and Abd Rabbo. “I believe,” Nafaa wrote, “that the only party that stands to benefit from the latest round of activity and manoeuvre is Sharon. The continued steadfastness of the Palestinian people and Israel's inability to halt the Palestinian Intifada by force of arms, combined with the revival of the Israeli left... will compel Sharon to budge.” However, “Sharon... would confine himself to only those tactical concessions sufficient to set into motion a type of negotiating process he could prolong forever.”
In light of this view, Nafaa recommended, “the PA should concentrate [on]... formulating a unified strategy in managing the conflict with Israel. Part of this strategy should entail the pursuit of all possible avenues for establishing channels of communication with those Israeli factions eager to topple Sharon. ...What the Palestinians need to sign is a comprehensive settlement to be implemented under the supervision of the international community; not an agreement to enter into negotiations that we know beforehand Israel wants to protract indefinitely.”