Jeff Jacoby has a good op-ed on the foolish “peace negotiations” between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Geneva. Despite all the critical acclaim, the Geneva Accords aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Neither side had the right to speak for their respective peoples and the resulting document is an example of the same approach that has failed to bring peace to the region several times already.
The fact remains that as long as the Palestinian embrace violence and the idea of the destruction of Israel there can be no realistic hope of a negotiated settlement in the region. The Geneva Accords makes the same bloody mistake that the Oslo Accords did a decade ago – it creates a situation in which the only guarantee that the Palestinians will end their use of violence is their own word. Unfortunately, history has shown that that is simply not good enough. Arafat has never truly renounced terrorism, nor does he have any intention of doing so. Arafat’s career was built on terrorism, and it’s unlikely that he’d change strategies now.
The only way to create a situation that could lead to lasting peace in the region is to completely change Palestinian society. A society in which the majority of people view the Jews as subhuman and worthy only of death is not a society that can ever sustain peace. A strategy that depends on the good will of fanatics is not, nor would it ever be, a sound strategy.
Jimmy Carter’s inadvertantly chilling description of the Geneva Accords was exactly right. As Jacoby explains:
In Geneva on Monday, Jimmy Carter lavished praise on the agreement and suggested that if he had been re-elected in 1980, he could have pushed something like it. “Had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region,” he said, “we could have moved to a final solution.”
Final solution. If that is Carter’s term for what Beilin and Rabbo have put forth, he speaks more truly than he knows.
That is exactly what the entrenched terrorist element of Palestinian society wants – the extermination of all of Israel. Until this fact is accepted, any attempt at peace will have no chance at survival.
Jay,
you’re just as wrong as terrorists, but fortunately for you, you’re on the safe side of the story. Peace cannot happen if populations and governments do not decide to trust each other whatsoever. If we don’t do that, there’s always someone who has an interest in continuing the war…
Oh wait a second:
-the war is a perfect excuse for the colonisation to continue
-the war is very profitable for weapon producers (among which americans, and especially Bush’s friends are numerous)
-the death toll is largely in favor of Israelis as long as the war is still going on
-the war is the perfect excuse for building the wall
All right, now I understand better why the Geneva proposal is such a piece of crap for you, why a cease-fire is not an option, why the wave of anti-semitism is SOOOO big in europe (you hope more jews will leave Europe for Israel).
Let me tell you that only Americans buy this shit. Most people around the world (europeans jews included) are not stupid enough to fall in this stereotype: “We want peace, but first we must do the war”.
Sharon is a dictator invading a foreign country, supported by corporate driven Bush Administration.
History will judge.
Sharon is a dictator invading a foreign country.
Interesting. No mention of Arafat in your rant. Arafat is a dictator. Sharon was democratically elected. Any reasons for you calling him a dictator?
Well, there’s nothing I can say to such an argument without resorting to accusations of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.
If you honestly think that A:) Israel started this war and B:) wants it to continue then either you are arguing from ignorance or malice. I would certainly hope it is the former.
If you’d do some basic research, read the translations of the Arab press you’d understand that the vast majority of Palestinians do not want peace. They want nothing less than the complete destruction is Israel. It isn’t some great secret either – every Friday mosques throughout the Middle East call for more shahids to rise up and inflict jihad against "Jews and Crusaders". And guess what, no matter how much you want to ignore it, you’re counted in the "Crusader" camp.
50 years ago a European said that an agreement to trade land for peace would bring “peace in our time.” Seven years later 50 million were dead and Europe had been virtually levelled. At the same time millions of people chose to turn their backs on the execution of 6 million Jews because it was more convenient to blame them than to save them.
Now, when the Jewish people face another enemy who desires nothing less than their destruction, attacks them daily, and expresses the notion that the highest calling in life is to die killing Jews, Europe again chooses to live it its own fantasy world. But this time the Jews have the sheer unmitigated gall to fight back.
Well, I suppose the French selling weapons is driven out of a real humanitarian desire. I’m sure the Kurds and Halabja would be quite comforted to know that the Mirage 2000 jets that delivered the chemical weapons that killed them came from a nation that was so concerned about humanitarianism.
By the way, about that “corporate” Bush Administration – strange that you never mention the fact that your own government has more corporate scandals in a week than ours does in four years. Or have we forgotten ELF-Acquitaine, Credit Lyonnaise, and the fact that Chirac has been given the delightful nickname of “Supermenteur” by the French press?
Guess what, Sharon was elected in a free and fair election. The Israeli people chose him because they were sick of wondering if the busses the ride or the restaurants they eat in are going to be blown up by some sick fanatic.
Yes, history will judge. History will show that continental Europe twice became an accessory to anti-Semitic genocide, the first by its unwillingness to confront Nazi atrocities, and the second by ignoring the threat of Islamist violence.
Europe was an accessory to anti-Semitic genocide a hell of a lot more often than twice, but to call pro-Palestinian leanings enough to make Europe an “accessory to genocide” is ridiculous propaganda.
Jay,
Many of the Palestinian people are living below the level of subsistence. They have been kicked out of their homes with no hope of return. Many are forsaken in refugee camps. Do you blaim them for their outrage? Opressed people have few options. Anger and frustration drive them to violence. They do not have these feelings simply because they are Palestinians, they have been made to feel this way. Until the Isreali state and government come to terms with why the Palestinians are so angry, the violence will not stop. Isreal is in the position of power, with US backing, and therefore must be willing to open up negotiations and willing to bargain. You never mention the pros and cons of the talks thus far, you simply smear them as ‘not being worth the paper they’re printed on.’ The fact that there are talks at all says something. The Sharon government agrees that they can see a Palestinian state in the future, but obviously the Palestinians arn’t going to accept this proposal if the state is sill under the supreme thumb of Isreal. Also Jay, simply criticizing the policies of Isreal is IN NO WAY ANTISIMITIC! For peace to happen, it means that not one side is supremely right. There were grave injustices inflicted on the Jews through history as can now be seen inflicting Palestinians. These are Humanitarian issues which are above issues of religion, land, or race. I came to this website hoping I’d get some benefitial information on the Geveva Accords, but you rather exemplifiy the reasons why no peace is currently being made.
Pjon
You know what? I’m feeling feistily off-topic tonight, so tell ya what I’m gonna do…
…I’m gonna DEFEND Neville Chamberlain.
Don’t get me wrong, his ass should have stood up at Munich and told Hitler to take a jackboot and shove it. But before we all rush to condemn this guy, let me just ask one question: what exactly do you think Britain was doing in the interim between Munich and September 1, 1939?
I’ll bet every one of you can figure out the answer. After France did that French thing, and Germany had begun bombing England, what two things kept England from invasion? One was the RAF, which looked something like the Afghani air force in 1937 and handled the onslaught of the Luftwaffe without fear in 1940. The other thing was that the British could tell when German planes would be hitting the cities, because they had installed radar stations along the coast. By the outbreak of war, the Chain Home radar network had 18 stations operating, and knew of air attacks with enough time to sound alerts.
Moreover, by waiting for an attack on Poland as opposed to responding to the annexation of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain hoped to force the Germans to fight on the French front, maintain forces against a possible Russian attack, and garrison two countries. The Non-Agression Pact Hitler had with Stalin kind of threw the plan for a loop, but it did result in fighting Germany while some of its forces were occupied (unfortunately not the mechanized ones…bad intelligence on the part of the French).
Yeah, Chamberlain was wrong to not take a stand, but practically speaking, do you think the British would have survived a war with Germany without those crucial months?
I have been comparing the Geneva Accords to the hypthetical granting of about 3-4 states for African -American “homelands”. The paradigm is wrong: the paradigm that a religious state is viable today. We are beyond that, at least most of us are. Martin Buber’s exhortation to see each individual as a thou and not a foreigner has been the Achilles’ heel of the Zionist state.
And Herzl was a great guy, but maybe wrong in some ways: I mean he just got on the colonialist bandwagon and how many colonialist enterprises have survived that epoch? A binational state with fundamental rights guaranteed ( hey, it works OK for minorities in this country, The USA) is the solution that wiil be acceptable to Palestinians and that’s the key isn’t it,for peace.
Accompanied by a massive affirmative action program that shows that Jews considert Arabs their brothers and equals.
And no the violence won’t stop overnight, but with this evidence of goodwill, it will peter out after a while.
And no more Jewish settlers, this race for the majority is the very source f the problems.
Jews make up 66% of the population and are getting 77% of the land under the Geneva Accords, much of the best West Bank land is reserved for Jewish settlers. As such, these accords will never be accepted by the populace.
I hate to say it, but it seems Jews just don’t get it, why kids, kids are blowing themselves up, think about it for a minute without judging, what if an american kid did the same, wouldn’t we ask some profound questions…As they say,”it’s a black ( arab) thing, you wouldn’t understand” But I do believe that many Jews can understand…it’s just hrd not not to become closed-minded when you are attacked.
‘If you’d do some basic research, read the translations of the Arab press you’d understand that the vast majority of Palestinians do not want peace. They want nothing less than the complete destruction is Israel. It isn’t some great secret either – every Friday mosques throughout the Middle East call for more shahids to rise up and inflict jihad against “Jews and Crusaders”. And guess what, no matter how much you want to ignore it, you’re counted in the “Crusader” camp.’
Actually I’ve been trying to find some corroboration for this statement. Are you talking about Palestinian Press and if so, which publications? Or are you referring to Al Jazzerah or other non-Palestinian publications: Al Jazzerah is available online and it does not seem to contain the extreme types of statements you are referring to. I’d be interested where in particular you found corroboration for your statement.