The Geneva Accord (Full draft text)

[tinnypriv]

Unfortunately it is without maps as yet, so it is "hard to have a serious opinion" (to quote Chomsky). I'll reserve detailed comment until the full version is published. BTW, Ha'aretz has it split over a lot of pages. For the full text on one page which I knocked up, click here.

The Geneva Accord
Ha'aretz, 20 October 2003

The State of Israel (hereinafter "Israel") and the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereinafter "PLO"), the representative of the Palestinian people (hereinafter the "Parties"):

Reaffirming their determination to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity and security based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace and achieving historic reconciliation;

Recognizing that peace requires the transition from the logic of war and confrontation to the logic of peace and cooperation, and that acts and words characteristic of the state of war are neither appropriate nor acceptable in the era of peace;

Affirming their deep belief that the logic of peace requires compromise, and that the only viable solution is a two-state solution based on UNSC Resolution 242 and 338;

Affirming that this agreement marks the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens;

Recognizing that after years of living in mutual fear and insecurity, both peoples need to enter an era of peace, security and stability, entailing all necessary actions by the parties to guarantee the realization of this era;

...

More: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=351461&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

...

Comment: "the right of the Jewish people to statehood" is the first thing that jumped out at me. A serious and huge compromise from the Palestinian delegation IMO. Also, the settlement section looks useful, but the annex and maps are really needed.

[Darranar]

1. Very interesting...

I have a few minor quibbles with the agreement, but altogether it is a fine one.

[tinnypriv]

2. It ain't Oslo, that is for sure

Whether it goes beyond Taba is the crucial question. I don't have an answer to that.

[Darranar]

3. Though, of course...

as you said in an earlier thread, it isn't going to go anywhere.

btw, do you know anything more about plans for the Palestinian Security Forces then was stated in the document? Is the only difference between it and a true military wording (like the Japanese "defense forces" that essentially is a military) or is there an actual difference that I'm missing here? The agreement itself seemed a little vague.

I don't much like the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state, but this seems to have been a compromise of some sort.

[tinnypriv]

5. PSF is likely to be a continuation of the existing forces

i.e. Fatah, the Palestinian police, Force 17, etc all merged together.

The weapons they will be able to carry (or manufacture) are specified in annex X which is not provided. I assume that annex will say that anti-aircraft weapons, anti-tank weapons, heavy mortars etc will not be allowed.

There is no chance of this being anything like Japan in my view.

As for being a "demilitarized state", that was a compromise made long ago, and is not new to this document.

As you note, and I will repeat, it will not go anywhere unless the U.S. government changes its stance on the accord. At the moment it believes it "will not bring a solution" and therefore "does not support it" (both front page headlines in the Israeli press).

The most useful outcome of the accord in the short term IMO is to use it as a basis of discussion whenever talking about I/P. In the medium term (after the 2004 elections), it can perhaps be revived.

Certainly the fact that the US has essentially put the Roadmap into a "deep freeze" should work in the favor of people interested in peace, justice etc.

[Darranar]

9. OK...

thanks.

[The Magistrate]

4. Thank You, Mr. Priv

This seems a worthwhile framework, with many promising features. It would, indeed, be useful to see Annex X and some maps, and the section on permant place of residence for refugees displays a certain opacity that could prove troublesome. But on the whole, it seems very much in advance of anything yet put together. It will be interesting to see what sort of political support it gains, among the people of both Israel and Arab Palestine.

It is my conviction both peoples are tired of fighting, and would welcome an opportunity to stop. The first leadership to understand that the upper hand will go to whomever takes the first real, unilateral step towards peace, will win the thing, and for both peoples.

[tinnypriv]

6. "DEATH PENALTY for Accord Signers" - MK Yahalom

...

Wait, is it 1993 again? :eyes:

[Aidoneus]

31. still nothing of that in the non-Israeli press yet

except that SpaceWar piece found earlier. And before, nobody outside the Israeli and Arabic press picked up on Lieberman's suggestion to the Knesset to "totally burn Beirut and Damascus" a week or two back.

There's some colourful folks in Sharon's cabinet..

[tinnypriv]

43. Par for the course

Off the top of my head, the following stories have had ZERO mentions (according to Google) in the non-Israeli press:

1. The Jewish 'mahan'des/engineer'
2. The fact Iran proposed opening a dialogue with Israel three years ago, and Israel rejected the offer.
3. Israel's warning to Syria that her "regime is in danger".
4. The fact the IDF has drawn up additional targets in Syria.
5. Israel now becoming easily the "strongest in the Middle East" thanks to the war in Iraq.
6. Israel's plan to effectively annex Abu Dis.
7. The Bush Adminstration's plan to put the Roadkill into a "deep freeze".
8. The head of Israeli military intelligence saying that it is "better for Palestinian mothers to weep".
9. The "Jewish Underground" plot to blow up Mosques throughout Israel, and the rally in support of them in Jerusalem.

etc etc etc etc etc

BTW, I'm not sure about the Beriut and Damascus quote. I couldn't confirm it anywhere. :shrug:

[Aidoneus]

50. 2nd paragraph

I was a word or two off (rather sloppy of me for a short quote..)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=50759

[tinnypriv]

58. Nice one!

You can always rely on the Arutz Sheva boys to kick themselves in the ass. Make that No.10! :thumbsup:

I'm sure it must be because they lack the sophistication of western editors so that they just don't know what they're not supposed to publish.

:dunce:

[Gimel]

80. It couldn't be

just faith now, could it?

[tinnypriv]

84. Dear g-d I hope not

;-)

[tinnypriv]

85. Ooo, I forgot one

The chair of the Likud tabling a law in the Knesset which would outlaw co-operation with international war crime tribunals and put Gush Shalom in jail.

That was a real doozy.

I think scoop.nz picked that up though, so it wasn't completely ignored by the free press :shrug:

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Israel must be a demilitarized state also, or it ain't gonna fly

That is one non-starter.

Would the Israeli street accept a demilitarized Israel if Palestine had every weapon in the world?

Neither is it reasonable to suppose that Palestine will be content to sit defenseless next to a US arms dump.

If Israel does not want to be a demilitarized state, let the international community take up a collection and bring Palestine up to military parity with Israel.

Or let them agree on a compromise: Israel gets rid of its WMD, but keeps some tanks and planes, and Palestine gets some tanks and planes.

It would not be a bad thing for Israel to get out from under Sugar Daddy's gunpants and be an independent country.

The other big non-starter is the right of return.

No matter what you think of Abu Mazen, he was the only PA guy I have heard who has been straight up about that.

You can send off all the suits to all the European countries that you want to and draft pages and pages and volumes and volumes, the reality is that the right of return is not negotiable.

It is the law, and it applies to all refugees, Palestinians included.

No point in talking about the map till the guns and refugees are dealt with.

[Equinox]

8. One State!, DuctapeFatwa...

and both of your non-starters are rendered moot!!!!!

One State! One Solution!

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. shhhh. You know and I know that as sure as sperm conitnues to seek egg

one state is where we are going to end up eventually.

But as long as there are international laws violated, Geneva trampled, and PA kissing more western ass than the combined product lines of Fruit of the Loom and Calvin Klein, we ain't got NO states!

[Herschel]

11. Please!

Israel can never be demilitarized. What would happen to the tiny Jewish state in a sea of enemies? I think you know the answer.

[Darranar]

12. What will happen to a tiny Palestinian state...

demilitarized and next to a powerful and aggressive nation?

[Gimel]

27. As long as it has one leader

If the state of Palestine had one head of state, one police force, and no extra malitias, there would be peace. Palestine could have had support from Israel for employment and infastructure. That option seems, at least in the short term, to be ruled out by the actions of the militant groups who are NOT under the PA name (at least not publicly acknowledged).

If you are claiming that the Hamas, et al militias are going to be allowed to remain, then you'll have to account for Israel to defend it's borders. Only a wall, in conjunction with cooperation from the PA security forces, will achieve the cessation of violence.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. Both must have the wherewithal to defend their borders

see long exchange below - an identical lump of wherewithal for both sides.

Palestine needs to work on taking care of its OWN employment and infrastructure - with friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with Israel and other neighboring countries, by all means, but it is VERY important for Palestine to stand on its own two feet, and be in no way, shape or form the colony, house slave or poor relation of Israel.

Israel also needs to stand on its two feet, and liberate itself and advance from US arms warehouse to a responsible standalone country.

[The Magistrate]

39. Wherewithal To Defend Borders, Mr. Fatwa

Does not require or imply an identity of forces. In modern war, the defensive has considerable advantages over the offensive, and less force is needed to defend a border than to cross one into someone else's land.

Again, if both states foreswear territorial ambitions at the other's expense, which is certainly implied in mutual recognition of each other's legitimacy and boundaries, no more than defensive capabilities are required, though more than that capability may be present on one side or another. It is true that a state of Arab Palestine would not be the only possible enemy for Israel, to which a large number of local states already in existance proclaim undying hostility at the present day. It could well be, though, that a genuine peace with a state of Arab Palestine might end that condition: it would certainly undercut the proclaimed justification for it most cases, with the exception only of Syria.

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. Equality does

It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that the attitudes of other centuries prevail today in the Majority World.

I am aware that is the fond hope of many an old India hand, many a sheriff in small, dusty Mississippi towns, not only certain segments of European populations, that those whom they consider variously their servants, their bearers, their little brothers, or their property, will kneel in reverent recognition of European supremacy.

Such a hope is not only ill-founded, it is dangerous.

And its greatest danger is to Sahib himself.

[Sesquipedalian]

75. small states have little real ability to defend themselves anyway

at least on the militaristic level.

Political concerns are far more important than any military consideration if you aren't one of the G-8.

The fact that Israel chose another path will come back to haunt it in the same way that it came back to haunt the Prussians. When you are small you can only afford to lose once and no matter how good you are, one day you are going to lose.

[DuctapeFatwa]

77. Excellent observation, and one that those who claim to be "pro-Israel"

would do well to welcome to contemplate.

[Gimel]

81. All rules and maxims

will change one day, sooner or later.

When you are small you can only afford to lose once and no matter how good you are, one day you are going to lose.

Don't count on it. You can only afford one holocaust. It's already occured. Look to the future, as far as Israel is concerned, don't be hung-up on the past.

[DuctapeFatwa]

82. there are many people who would like to see Israel have a future

and there are those who would prefer a short term financial gain.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. I think most Israelis would rather live in a sea of friends

And one of the best ways to make friends is to be one.

The ones who prefer to live in a sea of enemies can always exercise their right of return to Europe or Australia or Alabama or wherever and make a sea of enemies there.

[The Magistrate]

15. No State Disarms, Mr. Fatwa

The Roman maxim, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war," is among the best-distilled wisdom of history.

It is my view that a state of Arab Palestine ought to be entitled to a full panoply of arms, just as every other state. It would have, as a matter of practical fact, more to fear from Jordan and Syria than Israel, providing it did not host armed bodies dedicated to attacking the latter on its soil. Also as a matter of practical fact, it is unlikely a state of Arab Palestine would be able to afford much in the way of heavy modern weaponry. Aircraft, tanks, powerful artillery and missiles, are damned expensive, and nobody hands them out gratis for ideological reasons any more. The things that could be afforded, chiefly lighter anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, are of most use in defense, not aggression.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. I offered bringing Palestine into military parity with Israel

Although as you are doubtless aware, that is not my first preference; I think the US should disarm as well, with the exception of that which is needed for actual defense from military invasion, and that would be my preference for Israel.

Many nations do just fine with that, and I do not think that it is a coincidence that those nations experience a markedly lower incidence of suicide bombings. Although to be fair, in addition to eschewing the massing of massive arms, most nations also eschew occupying others and firing missiles into residential areas, among other things.

However, as I suggested, if Israel feels that it simply cannot live without a collection of weaponry that, if they were shoes, would cause the fading cheeks of Imelda Marcos to blaze verdant as spring in Provence, then the United States, whose bounty has gifted Israel with such fine testaments to man's dedication to eliminating his fellow man, should bestow the same complement of destructive power on Palestine, missile for missile, vial for vial, nuclear warhead for nuclear warhead.

Thus you can see that I am nothing if not flexible and open to compromise even my most deeply held convictions.

[The Magistrate]

17. You Will Never See A Nation Dis-Arm, Sir

Unless forced to it by a victorious foe. It is not my habit to dream, or hope for anything it does not seem feasible to actually bring about. Being low, my expectations at least are seldom cause for disappointment. There does not seem any point to loading the place with additional firepower: after all, in a state of settled peace, neither side would actually have much use for the stuff.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. What if we disarm Israel completely, and give all the arms to Palestine?

Do you think that Israel would be willing to live defenseless cheek by jowl next to a Palestine that could order F-16s to spray missile fire into the stately lawns of residential areas of Tel Aviv?

Would the residents of Haifa like to send all its own tanks to the recycling plant, and be content with rifles and rocks with which to defend their homes from battalions of Palestinian tanks firing into crowds of Israeli children?

I also believe in being realistic.

The Palestinian people do not share the notion that they are somehow less human than Israelis, that their lives value less, that they have fewer rights.

It is not realistic to suppose that this will change.

If, and I admit it is a big IF, but IF what is desired is a true and lasting peace, an embracing on the parts of both Palestine and Israel of statehood, with all the attendant responsibilities, before any negotiations can begin, it must be understood that the starting point is that a Palestinian life is just as valuable, just as precious as an Israeli life, and that Palestine has exactly the same right to defend itself as Israel, or any other nation, does.

To put it in a more colloquial US context, Roy Wilkins done passed.

[The Magistrate]

19. The Weakness Of This, Mr. Fatwa

Is that you seem to assume relations would remain at a pitch of war between a state of Arab Palestine and Israel, as they are today. The existance of a state of Arab Palestine, and mutual recognition and normal relations between the two states, would foreclose any territorial ambitions by either at the other's expense. If the government of Arab Palestine policed its country properly, and broke up private militias that exist to attack Israel, there would be no conceivable grievance by Israel against it. There would therefore be no need for any particular fear by each of the other, and normal processes of economic integration would begin to operate towards an active state of peace, as opposed to the mere cessation of killing.

We are certainly in agreement that the lives of all people are of equal value, and that all humans are entitled to the same rights, and most certainly that Arab Palestinians and Israelis share the same common humanity as do we all. Indeed, it really does not seem to me any here, and damned few there, really feel otherwise. What may seem at times to present the illusion of such feelings is the warp induced by identification with, or even actual involvement with, one side or other of a long and bitter war. This produces a sort of tunnel vision, and a good deal of fear and hatred and contempt. Once the distorting pressure is removed, more natural feelings can rise to the fore.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. As long as one says I must have arms and you none

it is not an illusion.

Removing distorting pressure means military parity.

That can be achieved in one of 3 ways:

1) Disarm Israel completely, except for rifles, rocks, and lame-ass missiles made of bubblegum and bobby pins.

2) Inventory everything Israel has, and give Palestine the same

3) Remove everything from Israel except that which is realistically and conservatively necessary for actual defense of borders against a military invasion, and give Palestine the exact same thing, and commit both nations to a rigorous and independent monitoring program to prevent either from building just one or two lil ol somepm somepms out behind the filafel stand.

[The Magistrate]

21. No, Sir

To remove the distorting pressure requires only the relinquishment of territorial ambition, explicit in the existance of two states recognizing one another's legitimate existance, and the maintainance of order by both sufficient to prevent private bodies launching attacks from the territory of one against the other independent of state agency.

Both of these things are practicable, and actually would require very little but nerve in the leadership of both peoples.

The things you suggest, while charming as caricature, will never come to pass, and are not necessary, if the practicable measures are undertaken.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. I think that you are falling into a very understandably tempting trap

And no one can blame you, it is so ingrained, that people don't even realize it.

The days are gone where the natives will kneel meekly to Sahib if Sahib gives them many sweets and brightly colored beads.

This is not by any means a situation unique to the Levant, you will find the same situation from Bali to Botswana to Biloxi.

[The Magistrate]

24. No, Sir

You are clinging to an ideological construct, that has never had too much relevance to the ways of the world, and its attractions and romance are quite obvious.

If you are holding out in this matter for the destruction of Israel, or for something that will reverse the last eighty-odd years of history, you will be sadly disappointed by any outcome to this situation.

If your desire is for there actually to be peace in the region, that will occur when there are two sovereign states, Israel and Arab Palestine, each recognizing the legitimacy of the other, and maintaining an order sufficient to prevent private bodies attacking one from the other's territory.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. on the contrary, I am arguing for the existence of Israel

which will require the recognition that Palestine has the same rights that Israel has, including the right to self-defense.

An armed Israel and a defenseless Palestine is nothing but Raj, feudalism, colonialism, slavery, call it what you will, it has had many names over the blip of European military pre-eminence, fading now, slowly but inexorably from history's radar screen.

But names do not change things, except in the minds of the simple, and simple is something that Europeans can no longer afford to be.

[The Magistrate]

26. You Might Want To Review This Exchange, Sir

We are in agreement on the propriety of a state of Arab Palestine possessing sufficient means for self-defense, and every other right associated with state sovereignity, as well as every responsibility attendant on that status.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. I think where we disagree is on what constitutes sufficient

Sufficient in this case means whatever Israel has.

If Israel has a pea shooter and a couple of antique Yanomami blowguns, the same will be sufficient for Palestine.

If Uncle McDonnell wants to send Israel another blowgun for its birthday, Palestine gets another blowgun too.

And I would say the same if Uncle Nasrullah wants to send Palestine another pea shooter - it must also send Israel an identical pea shooter.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Doesn't even out

Since Palestinians are used as a proxy for much of the Arab world, you will never find parity. Israel feels, rightly, that it needs partiy against its enemies (plural). The Palestinian state you claim to stand for would only need some strength to make an Israeli attack unpalatable.

[DuctapeFatwa]

33. Well, I was talking about what would be needed for a peaceful solution

I understand that there are many people, on both sides, who would prefer either the current situation, or a reversal of the current situation.

My personal preference, however, is for peace and independent statehood for both nations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Arms race

So an arms race is your peaceful solution?

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. No, the opposite

Both sides having the same is not a race.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Neither will agree

So if the Palestinian state starts building up, Israel will need to build arms because it must be able to hold off ALL the Arab nations. That means the Palestinians would add arms ad infinitum.

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. I have said, both sides must submit to a rigorous monitoring process

precisely to prevent either from trying to sneak around and get one up on the other.

Again, the objective I seek is peace for both sides, not a continuation of hostilities.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. That may be true

But your way will never happen. Nor will Israel agree to monitoring.

[DuctapeFatwa]

56. I am aware that there are some on both sides who do not want peace

And there are some on both sides who do not want Israel to have a future as a peaceful, productive, independent nation.


My comments, however are not about how those people can achieve THEIR goals.

[Equinox]

14. Please yourself Herschel....

Because you're not pleasing me with your "I think you know the answer" tripe. Jewish State in a sea of enemies? Either you know that's propaganda or don't remember the Arab League's call for normalizations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal to 1967 borders.

:shrug:

[Gimel]

22. Arab League call

The initiative was scraped because it called for unconditional right of return for Palestinian descendants, and immediate implimentation without negotiations.

Today's reports: Saudi Araba seeks nuclear warheads from Pakistan. Doesn't sound like a friendly gesture.

[Equinox]

28. No....at first it called for right of return....

that was taken out of the negotiation and Sharon still rejected it.

You and your revisionism.....


Good grief....

God save Israel.....

:eyes:

[Gimel]

37. It was rejected

at the Arab League as well. Read the bottom line.

[Equinox]

45. Coming from you, who thinks Sharon wasn't responsible for Sabra/Shatilla?

LOL....


Here:

On March 28, 2002, a meeting of the Arab League in Beirut agreed on a proposal, grounded in ideas that Saudi Arabia's Prince Abdullah had been floating for several months. The Arab countries offered full normalization of relations with Israel, if Israel would withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. The proposal also dropped the Arab countries' usual demand for a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees, and instead referred to a "just solution" that could be arrived at through negotiations.

From Americans and the World

Puuuuuleeeez, Gimel...

Note: The proposal also dropped the Arab countries' usual demand for a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees, and instead referred to a "just solution" that could be arrived at through negotiations.

[Gimel]

88. Look again

The demand for right of return was in the final proposal, despite earlier withdrawal:


In his speech to the opening session, the Saudi crown prince suggested that the Arab plan be forwarded to the UN security council. The proposals are based on "normal relations and the security of Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab lands, recognition of an independent Palestinian state with noble Jerusalem as its capital and the return of the Palestinian refugees".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,675435,00.html

by the way:

The party most responsible for the Sabra/Shatilla Masacre is the party that committed the atrocities. That is the Christian Philangists.

[Gimel]

38. Grounds for negotiation

This plan, the first really home grown, should be incorporated into the current Road Map. The team that put it together intended it to be a model, not a replacement of the Road Map.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=350335&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


This accord sets in place the working groups that the Road Map lacks. Mutual recognition of the Homelands for the respective peoples is a basic point.

Disarming and making the two states "militarily equal" is not the goal. It is not a parlor room game. Israel has a highly developed munitions production capability. The PA smuggles weapons from Egypt and Iran. Israel would never send it's young people on suicide bomb attacks. That doesn't require sophisticated weapons, just psychological preparation. The only way to make peace is to insure that the use of weapons is not desirable.

[Resistance]

42. Why should

Israel send it's young on suicide bombing missions? All it has to do is order them to gear up and hop aboard a free fighter plane or free Apache attack helicopter, with a command to push and pull the levers required to slam missiles into crowds of civilians.

See, thanks to the good old U.S. of A., the IDF method of murdering innocent civilians doesn't have to be as abominable and as disastrous for the perpetrator as is the Hamas way of murdering innocent civilians.

[Gimel]

79. You are forgetting a few things

Suicide attacks would continue while Israelis continue making advanced weaponry. Baruch Goldstein was the only Israeli who came close to qualifying for a suicide attack. Animosity will continue until the majority on both sides are satisfied, and the radicals are restrained by both sides. Smuggling will continue of explosives, automatic rifles and eventualy more advanced weaponry (as per Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad). Saudi Arabia has just signed an agreement with Pakistan to aquire nuclear weapons. The progressive increase in weapons increases with the use of science. There's no turning back to more primative forms. By any means, the Palestinians will acquire more weapons.

You're not making any sense at all.

[DuctapeFatwa]

44. The best way to insure that the use of weapons is not desirable

is to insure that each side has no less and no more than the other.

Neither the current situation, nor a reversal of it, will breed peace.

If I suggested that Palestine be given nuclear warheads and cruise missiles, and that Israel be allowed only a handful of rifles and a few rocks, you would be correct to suspect that my objective was not a peaceful solution.

Making a committment to stop thinking of the other side as inferior or evil will not be easy for some on each side.

But that is in fact, the starting point for a real negotiation that leads to real peace, and a win-win situation for every Israeli and every Palestinian, especially those who, as we discuss this, are lying in bassinets discovering their toes.

[Resistance]

46. just stop, Ductape

you're making too much damn sense

[Equinox]

47. DuctapeFatwa and Resistance....

Look what I came across:

Ten reasons why Israel should join the Arab League
Moshe Hillel Eitan
On September 11, 2002, the one-year anniversary of the terror attacks in the United States, the Arab world should make a groundbreaking historic decision: offer the State of Israel associate membership in the Arab League. I present ten reasons why this step should be taken:

First, if the Arab League grants admission to the State of Israel, this action would immediately reduce tension in the Middle East and pave the way towards comprehensive peace.

As an Arab League member, Israel would be able to freely engage in direct talks with Syria, Lebanon and other Arab states. This action would transform non-action and non-recognition into solution-oriented problem solving.

The Arab League would be transformed into a progressive forum for peace.

Second, Israel, as a member of the Arab League, could help boost the economies of Arab countries by paving the way towards an Arab-Israeli Trade Agreement.

Products made in Saudi Arabia could be marketed in Tel Aviv.

Furthermore, the Middle East itself could evolve into a stable economic zone of investment in order to attract more foreign investment.

By joining the Arab League, Israel and the Arab world would effectively end the self-destructive economic boycott of Israel. Business and investment would be forever separated from political strife.

Third, this historic act would help to bring about full diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations. The exchange of dialogue at Arab League meetings would be a precursor to an exchange of ambassadors and consuls between Israel and the Arab world.

Fourth, nearly 20 percent of Israel's population is made up of Israeli Arab citizens. Accepting Israel into the Arab League would also grant acceptance to Israel's Arab population as well. Logically, the Israeli Arab is a fundamental member of the Arab world. It therefore follows that this population should have a voice in the Arab League. By granting membership to Israel as a whole, both Israeli Jews and Arabs would have a forum in which to discuss political, social, cultural and economic matters.

Fifth, Israel, as a member of the Arab League, would make possible military and security cooperation throughout the Middle East. Today the region is unfairly known as a haven for terrorists. With a greater degree of cooperation, the region could be transformed into a modern, thriving realm of peace and security.

More at MidEast Times

Comment: I thought this was rather interesting....

[Resistance]

51. Yes that is an interesting idea.

I can't think of any good reason against it

[DuctapeFatwa]

62. It makes more sense than trying to join the EU!

The Arab League is an ineffectual and useless collection of old farts.

I believe Israel has a robust enough ineffectual and useless old fart community to qualify for membership with no problem.

[The Magistrate]

64. It Is An Interesting Idea, Mr. Resistance

It is certainly a creative and novel thought, and as often happens when an old chestnut is approached from a new angle, makes a great deal of sense.

[Darranar]

65. Excellent idea...

with one tiny problem: it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. I mostly agree with you, Ms. Gimel

The Geneva Accords represent the greatest hope for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians in some time. It is noteworthy, but apropos of the time, that this agreement is the work of those currently out of power. The policies of war and repression have failed both sides. It is time for new leadership that embraces peace, democracy and hope. Let us hope that the architects of this agreement may soon officially negotiate it after being placed in power by their respective peoples.

In a small disagreement with you, Ms. Gimel, I would not bother to incorporate the Geneva Accords into the Road Map. The Road Map was designed to lead to a dead end. It did, some months ago. Let us abandon it and allow the Geneva Accords be the new beginning.

My biggest concern about the agreement is the status of Palestine as a demilitarized state. It might raise issues about the security of Palestine in the face of unknown future events and threats that could come from renewed hostilities from Israel or even from conflicts with her Arab neighbors. However, that could be the subject of future negotiations.

Otherwise, although some may not be comfortable with this feature, it provides for the cash compensation for the loss of Palestinian property in exchange for the right of return while also providing for a dismantling of Israeli settlements built beyond Israel's borders. Some may find this painful, but it is a necessary evil. Israel cannot be Jewish and allow millions of Palestinians to return; Palestine cannot be sovereign while the IDF guarantees the security of Israeli settlers in Palestine. There is simply no getting around this part of the deal. It must be struck.

Beyond that, the Geneva Accords offer the Palestinians far more sovereignty over their state than did either the Road Map or Barak's "generous offer." Palestine will have control over its transportation and communications. The people of Palestine will at last be able to move freely from town to town on any road, without fear and unencumbered by military checkpoints.

Finally, if the Geneva Accords are properly lived up to and enforced, then the people of Israel will be able to go about their daily business without fear for the first time in a long time.

This agreement is a triumph of hope over fear. It is a good beginning.

[tinnypriv]

48. Some maps

Source (two more): http://www.mideastweb.org/swissaccords.htm

[Resistance]

49. Not good enough

Israel wants ALL the land - don't you "leftist retards" get that yet?

[Equinox]

52. Very interesting....

See this of note (same site):

The "Swiss accords" are a document that was "completed" but not signed in Ramallah in October, 2003, as a draft peace settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. None of the people taking part in this document represent their governments officially. However, the Palestinian delegation included noted officials of the PLO and Fatah, including the Fatah Tanzim, and the Israeli delegation included well known opposition politicians. Therefore, the agreement represents the sentiments of a significant segment of the public on both sides, though it is not a majority view. The main breakthroughs in this agreement are the Palestinian readiness to give up the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper, and the Israeli readiness to give up the Temple Mount and the large settlements of Efrat and Ariel. It has aroused a great deal of opposition in Israel and Palestine, from both leaders and the public. A poll shows that about 32% of Israelis support the agreement, and about 50% are opposed. At this time, all information about the agreement is unofficial and no text has been released.

[Equinox]

53. Even more interesting:

It will be remembered of course that Yossi Beilin negotiated an analogous draft document with Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) in 1995 when he was working for then Israel Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. However, in the current negotations, the Israeli negotiators are all opposition figures and do not speak for the government. Since the memorandum was not negotiated by government representatives, it has only symbolic value, though ideas in this document may no doubt find their way into subsequent formal agreements. The draft agreement has been attacked by both PM Ariel Sharon and former Labor party PM Ehud Barak, though Beilin claims that Barak knew of the negotiations. Predictably, Palestininian extremists representing the Right of Return lobby, such as the BADIL group have slammed the agreement as well. Badil and Al-Awda are opposed to any compromise that would leave the state of Israel intact as a Jewish state. Likewise, other extremists have rallied round the naysayers.

The Oslo agreements should have taught us several lessons. One of them is that peace cannot be made solely by signing agreements. The agreements must reflect the sentiments of the people. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is characterized by deep fault lines and deeply entrenched positions. Israelis will not necessarily give up Jerusalem or Ariel just because Yossi Beilin signed a paper saying they would. Though such concessions may have been conceivable in 2000, it is unlikely that many Israelis would support them after several years of violence.

It is not known to what extent Palestinians will be willing to give up claims over all of Israel, and it is very unlikely that Palestinian refugees will give up right of return. The Al-Awda group was formed expressly for the purpose of preventing the Palestinian Authority from wavering on this issue. Until recently, public opinion polls had indicated that over 80% of Palestinian refugees would never give up the right to return to their homes in Israel, which they claim is guaranteed to them under UN General Assembly Resolution 194. A recent (June 2003) poll by Dr. Khalil Shikaki showed that most refugees would not really exercise that right in fact. Shikaki was subject to a campaign of intimidation and threats but stood by his findings.

The value of this agreement is that it can be both a source of ideas for the future as well as an instrument in educating the public and preparing them to make the necessary compromises on key issues. Both sides have made difficult compromises. Perhaps that is part of the rationale: leaders of each side can show their constituents that they have won real concessions. No longer can Palestinian extremists insist that right of return to Israel is a rock solid part of the Palestinian consensus, if key Fatah and PLO leaders have agreed to give it up. Israeli settler partisans can no longer insist that Efrat is part of the national consensus, since leaders well within the Zionist mainstream have agreed to give up Efrat for peace. The draft document brings us a small step closer to acceptance of a peaceful compromise by both the Palestinians and the Israelis

From: MidEast Web (Same site with Tinnypriv's maps)

[tinnypriv]

55. Analysis

I'm not sure how serious to take any of these maps, although they are certainly a useful contribution until the full ones are published.

For example, one misgiving is the fact that the third map is contradictory to the text of the author. For example (note the underlined emphasis):

Statement:

"The main breakthroughs in this agreement are the Palestinian readiness to give up the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper, and the Israeli readiness to give up the Temple Mount and the large settlements of Efrat and Ariel"

Reality:

Ariel is indeed supposed to be evacuated according to these maps. Efrat however, is not:



The map clearly shows that Efrat is in the area designated to be "annexed to Israel".

In addition, there is an IDF military base in the area which is not labelled.

The "Oranit Corridor"

The first large swathe of purple is what I'd call the "Oranit Corridor". That is the settlement is where it starts:



In this corrider there is already designated a system of Israeli Regional Settlement Jurisdiction, hence there are not many large populated Palestinian areas. My guess would be that this corridor is where a large Israeli settlement 'bloc' population will be located. It also happens to be an area of reasonably fertile land. Draw the appropriate conclusions.

Beilin-Abu Mazen revisited

There are some striking similarities to the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement. One example:

"The Parties further agree (to a) reform which shall expand the present municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and shall define the city limits of the "City of Jerusalem", to include: Abu Dis, Eyzariya, ar-Ram, Az-zaim, Ma'ale Adumim, Givat Ze'ev, Givon, and adjacent areas"

The underlined areas are indeed going to be annexed. Givat Ze'ev is already labelled, but Giv'on is the settlement next to it:



There are again unlabelled military bases in this area - two in fact, as well as an airport (Atarot), which is essentially an IDF base in all but name.

Postive aspects

Ari'el is evacuated.

Abu Dis is outside the area to be annexed to Israel, and the Municipal Boundaries of Ma'ale Aduminn have been sharply reduced, providing some measure of territorial integrity between Jerusalem, Ramallah and Jericho:



Important points

If 75% of Israeli settlers are going to remain in the West Bank, there is going to have to be room for roughly 170,000+ of them. These annexed areas on the map certainly cannot provide enough space for numbers of those size IMO.

Also, the Ma'ale Aduminn section is unfinished: there is no border between Israel/Palestine. This is the crucial question, and it is still essentially unanswered.

Finally, this is my rough estimate of the annexed areas. Nothing is given for "Samaria" or the Jordan Valley, so I've given them to the Pals (they surely won't get them). The box is the viewable map:

[Resistance]

59. So,

If the settlers won't fit,
Then the accord is il-legit?

[tinnypriv]

60. It ain't great, that's for sure

But if I were the PLO, and this was on the table, I would take it. Seriously.

Of course, it isn't too moral of me to give advice to these poor people when it is my own government and her big patron across the atlantic who are basically the ones making it impossible to get anything better than this clusterfuck agreement.

There really aren't sufficient adjectives to describe the contempt I hold for bastards like Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith, Blair, Straw, Sharon, Peres, and virtually all the freaking "Democrats". :grr:

But, my immediate concern is stopping the Palestinians from going the way of the native Americans. This agreement does that.

Also, I consider the "end of conflict" BS to be a parchment barrier. Searching for peace and justice will continue regardless of what fat-boy and his ilk try and impose on the Palestinians.

And hey, get rid of Ari'el, and maybe the loons in the rest of "Judea and Samaria" will look at that and decide to pack their shit up, get off the stolen land they're on and go back to Brooklyn and Tel Aviv.

It's worth a shot.

[The Magistrate]

63. Well Said, Mr. Priv

Whatever reservation might exist, it would be better to get a liveable settlement in place as soon as possible.

The most important thing is to deprive the "hard men" on both sides of any excuse to continue killing, and let the natural desire of people for peace and stable prosperity take over as the principal inertial force acting in the situation.

[The Magistrate]

61. This Is Considerable More Generous, Mr. Priv

Than my own inclination would be. That would be to assign to Israel only those settlement areas that link directly to Jerusalem, and possibly the hills round Latrun, as they have a great deal of military potential. The rest ought really to be foregone. Viewed coldly, it would be useful to the success of any peace if it was accompanied by the spectacle of people departing from settlements in some numbers: it would be gratifying to the feelings of the people of Arab Palestine, and give them a sense of wrongs righted that would be beneficial to long term success of a settlement.

[tinnypriv]

66. Ari'el

16,000 live there. It is the largest Jewish settlement not in a Jerusalem "suburb".

If those guys are seen packing their bags on PA TV, it will be electrifying to anybody not already an Islamist.

[Sesquipedalian]

68. They aren't leaving

members of the Israeli "peace camp" who think evacuating Ari'el is a good thing number about the same amount of Texans who think the US should give back California and Texas.

The fact that's it's necessary just makes it more sad.

[tinnypriv]

69. I'm assuming this accord will be implemented according to these maps

Which are after all, what is under discussion. :)

[Sesquipedalian]

71. it's fun to theorize..

I've been watching conversations not between rabid settlers but between the Peace Camp over just this question and it turns out a great number of the "Peace Camp" when it comes to the settler question when you come to specifics they don't dislike settler's as defined as existing outside the green line, but as living in some "outpost" somewhere or if the inhabitants are religious fanactics or not.

It's something to consider when you watch the polls on Israeli opinion on settlement is my only point.

[Sesquipedalian]

76. one more point..

If "settlement" ceases once you get a burger king and a university think about what this means in the long term. It basically means there is no "peace movement" in Israel, it means that as long as "natural growth" develops Israel will continue to expand with no political break.

[Darranar]

72. What about the land annexed by the Palestinians?

Know anything about that?

Do you think it's an attempt to make the annexations of parts the West Bank seem fair, even though it's a completely unfair trade, or is it a real exchange?

What is there?

[tinnypriv]

78. Almost zero as far as I can see

Some territory to the west of Hebron (could be half-decent arable land, I'll have to check), and a few kilometres thickening Gaza.

It is an attempt to make the unfair trade easier for the PLO to sell to the Palestinians, and not much more than that.

[Darranar]

70. That's not really true...

the Israelis would be perfectly willing to do so if the terrorist attacks stopped.

Of course, as long as the settlements are still there, the suicide bombings will continue. Hence my growing cynicism regarding this whole affair...

[Sesquipedalian]

73. Ar'iel is a city

It has a university, stores, etc..

When you ask specifically about this place you will get a wildly different reaction.

[Darranar]

74. I know...

and that doesn't change my mind.

[tinnypriv]

83. Correct

I was explaining this very point to GabysPoppy in another thread ;-)

Ari'el is quite a nice city in fact. But, if Israel can make 1,000 Pals homeless in one day, it can evacuate that number every month until Ari'el is in their hands.

[Darranar]

67. Let the settlers live in crowded conditions...

if they don't like it, they can move out.

Personally, I think all the settlements should go and the Gren Line should mark the border, except in the case of East Jerusalem which should be administered by an international force.

This agreement seems fine, though. There are a few problems, but it should work out raather well. Problems that arise can be faced as they are met.

Not that this is going anywhere.

[tinnypriv]

87. Correction

Not my mistake, but the map shown here is incorrect.

I pointed this out to Ami Isseroff in Israel at MidEastWeb and she has corrected the text. It wasn't actually her mistake either, since Ha'aretz produced these incorrect maps. :)

According to Ha'aretz Hebrew:

"Ma'aleh Adumim and the historic part of Gush Etzion - but not Efrat - will be part of Israel." (my emphasis).

Paraphrase from Akiva Eldar (author of the article accompanying these maps):

"Efrat is out".

So, the Palestinians get Efrat and Ari'el. This of course improves the agreement.

Much thanks to Ami for some of the above (she did most of the checking). :hi:

[tinnypriv]

86. Source of these maps

Sorry I incorrectly attributed them to Yediot, they're actually from Ha'aretz Hebrew:





* http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtSR.jhtml?itemNo=350153&objNo=54054&returnParam=Y

* http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/LiArtSR.jhtml?objNo=54054 (4th item down on right hand column)