A First Look at the Geneva (Swiss) Agreement (between Israel and Palestinians)

A First Look at the Geneva (Swiss) Agreement
21:00 Oct 12, '03 / 16 Tishrei 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Senior government officials have released strong statements opposing today signing of the “Geneva/Swiss Agreement” in Amman.

According to Giora Inbar, a retired IDF brigadier-general and one of the Israelis who participated in the ceremony, the agreement brings new hope to the area. He explained that he and his colleagues see a true willingness by the PA to work towards peace with Israel. He did not offer any explanations as to the past ten years of attacks since the signing of the Oslo Agreement, including the past three years of the Oslo War.

From the signing of the Oslo Agreement on Sept. 13, 1993, until September 30, 2003, 1,191 persons were murdered in terror attacks. At the end of Sept., the army reported that during the Oslo War (3 years), there were 18,876 terror attacks, an average of 17.6 a day.

Following are some of the highlights of the agreement according to Inbar. He added that some points must still be worked out so he preferred not to get into the fine detail of the agreement until after the next planned signing ceremony in the coming weeks in Geneva.

The basis for the agreement is the [US President Bill] Clinton initiative publicized in January 2000.

 Jerusalem to be divided according to Jewish and Arab areas  The Temple Mount will be ruled by an international force  Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 border [with some modifications]  PA relinquishes all claims to a right of return  Satellite Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Maale Adumim will remain under Israeli control  The City of Ariel (Shomron) will be uprooted  Gush Etzion communities will be permitted to remain  Most Yesha communities remain under Israeli sovereignty  PA commits to combating terror & incitement as it did in Oslo

Israelis included among supporters of the document: 1) Former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shachak 2) Former Labor leader MK Amram Mitzna 3) Former Labor Knesset Speaker MK Avraham Burg 4) Former Labor Minister MK Yuli Tamir 5) MK (Meretz) Haim Oron 6) MK (Shinui) Ilan Leibowitz 7) Former MK (Labor) Dalia Rabin-Pelossof 8) Former MK (Center) Nehamia Ronen 9) Former IDF Maj.-Gen. Gideon Shefer 10) Former IDF Brig.-Gen. Giora Inbar 11) Oslo architect Ron Pundak

Some Reactions from Cabinet Ministers… ** Minister (Shinui) Eliezer Sandberg stated the agreement was signed on the blood of Oslo victims. ** Minister (NRP) Zevulun Order stated the agreement will make a future agreement with the PA more difficult. ** Minister (Likud) Silvan Shalom stated one would not expect more from the architects of Oslo, adding we still pay the “heavy price” for that agreement. He called the agreement “virtual”. ** Minister (Likud) Uzi Landau had sharp words for the actions conducted “behind the government’s back,” comparing it to negotiations by American citizens with Saddam Hussein.

More Reactions… Yesha Council officials called the agreement an extension of Oslo, which has brought bloodshed – promising peace, security, and tranquility, but resulting in the murders of over 1,000 persons.

Kiryat Arba Chief Rabbi Dov Lior on behalf of the Yesha Council of Rabbis stated that any agreement that contradicts the Torah has no validity...

Rabbi Dr. Sholom Gold, an anti-Oslo process activist and spiritual leader of Congregation Zichron Yosef (Har Nof, Jerusalem): “…Mitzna could not make peace in his own party, now he will make peace with the Palestinians? Beilin is an absolute failure! Would anyone use him to negotiate a business deal with his track record? It is nothing less that treason… undermining the sovereign government of the State of Israel.”

Who Lives Over the Green Line… Over 400,000 Israelis are living over what the international community views as the “Green Line”, the pre-June 1967 border of the state prior to the Six Day War. The Swiss Agreement provides for about 300,000 of them to remain under Israeli sovereignty.

It's not a bad starting point. On other threads, I've suggested some of the points such as trading the Muslim Quarter and Mount Moriah for the "settlement suburbs" north and south of Jerusalem. I wouldn't expect the Israelis to give up Ariel, it's too big. It and other settlement blocs could be exchanged for a rail/highway corridor between Gaza and the West Bank similar to the one that used to connect West Berlin to West Germany.

Two other issues it doesn't address adequately are Palestinian rejectionist terror attacks and Jewish access to holy places in the West Bank. To expect a demilitarized Palestinian police force to stop Hamas et al is naive at best. The Israelis alone aren't trusted by the Palestinians because of their double standard vis a vis fanatical settlers. One possible solution might be letting the Palestinian police handle day to day keeping of order, but establish a joint Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian-US anti-terrorism force.

As for Jewish access to the holy places, this can be established using large Israeli consulates adjacent to places such as Rachel's Tomb or the Cave of the Patriarchs. The latter is currently a flash point, largely because most of the settlers in the area are fanatics who want a city of 100,000 completely evacuated. In a consulate the residents would live under Israeli law, but the Palestinians could persona no grata anyone who is too fanatical or breaks the law outside the consulate.

-Eric

Eric:

I respect your honest desire for peace for Israel, a desire I share. However, there is far more wrong with the so-called Swiss agreement than you even touch on.

Second, I respectfully suggest you have been brainwashed by the media regarding settlers. Most are not fanatics. Most moved to Judea and Samaria in suburbs of Jerusalem or along the Green Line in towns that were built to make Israel secure. They moved for subsidized housing, a short commute to Jerusalem or Kfar Saba, and quality of life. This is even true in some settlements deeper in the territories, such as Ariel. The "fanatics", as you call them, are a small percentage of settlers.

Hebron is another issue. There had been a Jewish community, a large one, there for centuries until the Arabs we now call Palestinians murdered or drove them out in 1929. Tell me, if Palestinians claim their refugees have some sort of right of return, what about Jewish refugees? Also, we've seen at Joseph's Tomb how well the Palestinians respect Jewish holy sites. Some Israeli presence in Hebron to safeguard the Tomb of the Patriarchs must remain. Bill Clinton's suggestion was a 99 year lease to Israel as part of what he proposed at Camp David.

I don't believe your consulate idea could work or that a few Israelis living among Palestinians would be safe, at least not for the foreseeable future. Your ideas are pie in the sky idealism, not reality. Have you lived or even been to Israel? The territories? I take your post as incredibly well meaning but misinformed.

I respect your honest desire for peace for Israel, a desire I share. However, there is far more wrong with the so-called Swiss agreement than you even touch on.
Second, I respectfully suggest you have been brainwashed by the media regarding settlers. Most are not fanatics. Most moved to Judea and Samaria in suburbs of Jerusalem or along the Green Line in towns that were built to make Israel secure. They moved for subsidized housing, a short commute to Jerusalem or Kfar Saba, and quality of life. This is even true in some settlements deeper in the territories, such as Ariel. The "fanatics", as you call them, are a small percentage of settlers.

It sounds like this deal takes into account the "economic" settlers, the number I heard was that 300,000 of the 400,000 would end up in Israeli territory. Add in Ariel (which I would expect to happen) and we're pushing towards 90% of the current "settlers". Some of the rest, such as those in Hebron and Itamar, have about as much interest in peace as Hamas does. They will accept only one "solution"...a solution even the current Israeli government is unwilling to accept as it would make the nation an international pariah on an apartheid era South African scale

Hebron is another issue. There had been a Jewish community, a large one, there for centuries until the Arabs we now call Palestinians murdered or drove them out in 1929. Tell me, if Palestinians claim their refugees have some sort of right of return, what about Jewish refugees? Also, we've seen at Joseph's Tomb how well the Palestinians respect Jewish holy sites. Some Israeli presence in Hebron to safeguard the Tomb of the Patriarchs must remain. Bill Clinton's suggestion was a 99 year lease to Israel as part of what he proposed at Camp David.

The Palestinians have largely given up the "right of return" in this deal. That was inevitable. A Palestinian government would most likely find it neccesary to protect religious sites. Another possibility might be the suggestion Tom Clancy made in The Sum Of All Fears, a multi-religious commision, perhaps chaired by the Vatican, with oversight of all the shrines.

Hebron has been a flashpoint for nearly 100 years, but it is important to remember this. During the massacre of 1929, many Arabs risked their lives to hide and protect their Jewish neighbors. After the massacre of 1994, Israeli doctors and Israeli soldiers assisted the Muslim victims. The problem isn't neccesarily Islam, or for that matter Judaism, it is the fanatics. Any solution that marginalizes them promotes peace. Right now the Muslim fanatics are far more dangerous, but it would be a severe mistake to discount the effects of their counterparts. While the current Israeli government makes this error, by all account Shin Bet does not. They recall that it wasn't Hamas that assisinated a Prime Minister.

I don't believe your consulate idea could work or that a few Israelis living among Palestinians would be safe, at least not for the foreseeable future. Your ideas are pie in the sky idealism, not reality. Have you lived or even been to Israel? The territories? I take your post as incredibly well meaning but misinformed.

The consulate idea would be based upon longstanding international diplomatic practice. The Palestinians or whatever organization took responsibility for anti-terror activities would have to take steps to secure them, just as antagonistic nations do so today. It's part of the process of growing up and becoming a real country. They will simply have to accept it, if they want nationhood.

However, the flipside of this is that nations have the right to PNG foreign nationals whose behavior does not meet acceptable standards, even diplomats or those with consular status. The consulate idea would work for this too. The current bunch in Hebron is nationalist more than religious, and has a history of behavior completely incompatible with peaceful co-existence. The situation is analogous to Arabs in Israel. Israel treats its Arab residents well, but wouldn't allow a Hamas cell to set up in Tel Aviv.

A more sedate and religious group would be far less inflammatory. Note that suicide bombings don't often (if ever) hit religious observances.

Peace cannot be achieved with a plan that treats the Palestinians as second class denizens whose opinions are meaningless. That's why President Bush has been pushing the "roadmap". That's why this plan was worked out by both sides. It needs to consider Israeli security more, but its a good starting point, as was Barak's Taba proposal.

-Eric

You only get to 400,000 if you count Jerusalem as occupied territory. The real number is around 250,000. Also, look at this article posted today. It turns out the Palestinians have not agreed to give up on "right of return", or flooding millions of Arabs into Israel to destroy the Jewish state.

What, for a minute, makes you think a multi-religious body would work? Take a look at how well the U.N., for example, respects both sides. The Vatican and the Orthodox churches have long sided with the Palestinians. Thanks but no thanks. With all due respect to Mr. Clancy, he isn't Jewish and doesn't live in Israel.

What, for a minute, makes you think the Palestinians will respect "longstanding international diplomatic practice"? Will they respect it the way they respect Yasser Arafat's written pledge to renounce violence at Oslo? Do you know what they did at Joseph's Tomb?

If I believed for even one minute that the Palestinians would abide by a treaty if they signed it, forever end the violence, and live in peace with us--which, BTW, I do not believe for even one minute--this "agreement" amounts to cultural suicide.

For two thousand years the Jewish people prayed for "next year in Jerusalem". Not next year in Israel or in Tel Aviv or in Haifa. Only Jerusalem, the spiritual center of Judaism. That center, in turn, is centered on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. To surrender that is to be willing to give up everything it means to be Jewish. It is, the scriptures tell us, where G-d chose to dwell on earth. Even if you don't believe that literally you have to understand the importance to Judaism. Nobody would ask Muslims to surrender Mecca or Catholics to surrender the Vatican. The Temple Mount is everything those places are and more.

In 1854, under Ottoman rule, and years before the first Jewish immigration, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population. The city then was little beyond the Old City walls. Yet it is precisely this Old City that is somehow now being defined as "Arab". It is more Jewish than Arab in terms of history, culture, and importance. It was annexed to Israel in 1967 when no other captured lands were for a reason.

In the 1948-49 War of Independence my father was a soldier in the Israeli army fighting to lift the seige of Jerusalem. This treat would make what he fought for, and what all Israelis have fought and died for, virtually meaningless.

Some things are worth fighting for. Jerusalem is one of them. If that makes me a fanatic in your eyes so be it. I'd rather live with my "fanaticism" than die with your view on how Israel should do things.

Didn't Herzl write a book set in the future in which the Israelis build the Third Temple in Jerusalem but not on the Temple Mount?

If the modern "founding father" of Israel could envision such a compromise, then why can't we?

I am merely asking this as an academic question. This latest "accord" is just another bait-and-switch on the part of the Palis. Already they are claiming they didn't give up the "right of return".

It's just a game, a primitive but effective one. The Palis get the Israelis to commit themselves to an offer (every time, of course, a better one than before), then throw up their hands and say they can't do it.

Next round, the previous Israeli offer is taken as a "baseline" on which the Israelis had better improve.

But if there actually were a trustworthy partner on the other side, would you insist on the Temple Mount if that was the only sticking point left?

Mind you, it's academic. If there was anyone on the Palestinian side sincerely interested in coexistence and peace, they would kill him in a heartbeat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.