Geneva 'Accord' Round-up

The Ass. Press finally gets the scare quotes right with this headline: Mideast Activists Launch Peace 'Accord' .

'Accord' because it has no legs. As Charles Krauthammer puts it

This is all rather peculiar: The agreement is being signed not by Israeli and Palestinian officials, but by two people with no power.

On the Palestinian side, the negotiator is former information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, who at least is said to have Yasser Arafat's ear.
The Israeli side, however, is led by Yossi Beilin, a man whose political standing in his own country is so low that he failed to make it into Parliament. After helping bring his Labor Party to ruin, Beilin abandoned it for the far left Meretz Party, which then did so badly in the last election that Beilin is now a private citizen.

There is a reason why he is one of Israel's most reviled and discredited politicians. He was the principal ideologue and architect behind the "peace" foisted on Israel in 1993. Those Oslo agreements have brought a decade of the worst terror in all Israeli history.

Now he is at it again. ... Moreover, this "peace" is entirely hallucinatory. It is written as if Oslo never happened. The Palestinian side repeats solemn pledges to recognize Israel, renounce terror, end anti-Israel incitement, etc. — all promised in Oslo.

Israeli businessman David Frankfurter says it's Time to voice a little skepticism

I have avoided commenting on the Geneva Accords because, regardless of what I think of the process, anything which has a chance of bringing peace should be encouraged.

But

The document itself goes further than any proposal to date - for both sides. I leave the Palestinian side for them to discuss - but I note that the proposal requires us to give up the sovereignty of the Temple Mount, dismantle settlements and withdraw to the indefensible 1967 borders, and rely on the promises of a new Palestinian State to limit its arms purchasing, dismantle and control its terrorist infrastructure and govern its own borders from all aspects. In short - declare defeat in the current war, and give the Palestinians everything that they have not been able to achieve by force.

Frankfurter observes that "the Swiss government seems to be a hidden financial sponsor of the process and its publication." Ah, those neutral Swiss.

Jimmy Carter, not always very good at counting votes, went to Geneva to sprinkle some Peanut Oil on the 'Accord' and declared:

"It is unlikely that we shall ever see a better foundation for peace," said Carter, after receiving a standing ovation from a packed Geneva conference hall. "The people support it. Political leaders are the obstacle to peace."

Some people support it but the political leaders who don't support it may in fact be acting on the wishes of their domestic majorities who don't.

Ha'aretz, almost as excited as Jimmy Carter, declares: Narrow gap seen between Geneva deal's supporters and detractors. In fact, the results of the Ha'aretz poll of Israelis were as follows:

Oppose the Accord: 38%
Support the Accord: 31%
No opinion/Unaware: 31%
Actually, about 22% more oppose than support, and if the undecided split like the decideds, the margin of defeat would be 55% - 45%, which is a pretty decisive rejection.

Furthermore, only 25% believe that the "final peace deal" will resemble the Geneva 'accord', while 22% believe that the "final peace deal" will be different and 32% believe that "there will be no final peace deal".

Finally, 52% of those polled believe that Sharon's performance has been "very good" or "fairly good" while 41% believe that it has been "terrible" or "fairly terrible".

If Jimmy Carter dedicates his life to promoting democracy around the world, why is he having such a good time disparaging the democratic choices of Israelis voters and their still-popular elected officials? Never mind, you don't have to answer that.

For all the Israeli rejection of the Geneva "Accord", the discussion has been civil. Among the Palestinians, on the other hand, the desperate and oppressed who view the Geneva "Accord" as an unfair compromise in that it would postpone the dream of chucking the Jews into the water, have no alternative but to express their dissent the Palestinian way:

Many in Fatah oppose the accord because it states that the Palestinians must give up their demand for large numbers of refugees to return to Israel. In return, Israel would grant the Palestinians sovereignty over the Temple Mount, except for the Western Wall.

On Sunday, some 200 demonstrators attacked negotiators on their way to the signing ceremony at the Rafah crossing shouting "traitors" at the Palestinian dignitaries.

They blocked the road near the crossing into Egypt and beat and kicked the Palestinian negotiators as they emerged from their cars. Unarmed Palestinian policemen intervened and restrained the demonstrators.

Last week gunmen from Fatah fired shots at the home of former PA minister and Arafat confidant Yasser Abbed Rabbo, who led the negotiations that led to the symbolic peace accord.

Imagine that.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 01, 2003 05:12 PM