 |
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli currently living in Palo Alto, California. He taught Archaeology and Near Eastern History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and at the University of Tel Aviv during the 60s and 70s. He has a weekly radio show, "Mid-East Media Watch" at KZSU Stanford and is the director of the (IPI), a grass-roots not-for-profit organization in the San Francisco Bay area working to educate the American public and its leaders in to the history of the Arab-Israel conflict and realistic options for resolution.
|
|
|
|
By David Meir-Levi
December 9, 2003
The recently launched "Geneva Accords" have been accorded much fanfare. However, there are a number of considerations that cast doubt on the sincerity of the Palestinian side and the advisability of Israel to accept the Accords.
1.) One or both sides are hoodwinking their constituencies. The Arabic version of the Accords makes it clear that the Palestinian "Right of Return" has not been ceded, merely postponed for future re-negotiation. The Hebrew version makes it clear that Israel no longer need worry about a Palestinian "Right of Return". Which one is lying?
2.) Israel must start its withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip at once, but there is no timetable for the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terror groups and stop terrorism.
3.) Palestine is to be a non-militarized state, but there is no apparatus for the process of de-militarization and for monitoring the maintenance of a de-militarized status.
4.) The terms of de-militarization (which weapons and in what quantities the Palestinian police force can possess) have not been decided, and can be changed unilaterally by the Palestinian side.
5.) There is no apparatus to remedy Palestinian delay or refusal to de-militarize, stop terror, dismantle terror groups, and create rule of law.
6.) Future points of disputation will be taken to a panel of the U.S., UN, Russian and EU members. This panel can impose its will on either side. Since three of the four component entities of this panel have a decades-old hostility toward Israel and support for Arafat, this leaves Israel at a decided disadvantage. Why would any state surrender its sovereignty to hostile countries?
7.) Palestine can enter into pacts with any state, including radical Moslem states that seek the destruction of Israel, provided the language of such pacts not include explicit references to aggression against Israel. Would anyone suggest that we trust the Iranian Mullahs, Assad, Saudi royalty, or Arafat to keep their word?
8.) Israel is expected to compensate the almost 5,000,000 Arab descendents of the some 700,000 Arab refugees who left their homes in 1948, and their host Arab states; but no mention is made of compensation for the nearly 800,000 Jewish refugees forced from their homes in Arab countries from 1949 to 1954, most of whom were absorbed by Israel.
9.) There is nothing in the Accords that requires the Palestinian government to establish democracy, empower democratic institutions, legislate and protect civil rights, and govern by rule of law.
10.) The Temple Mount, holiest site to Jews but only third holiest to Moslems, will be under the control of the Palestinian government, with Jewish access only at Palestinian behest. Why does this Accord deny Jews unhindered access to their holiest site?
Even worse, Graham Watson, the head of the European parliamentarian delegation to the Geneva Accords, went on record earlier this week that the international force which will patrol the future borders will "...actively prevent the Israeli army from pursuit of terrorists," since that force is designed to "...protect the integrity of the Palestinian territory."
In short, Israel gives up much, and relies almost exclusively upon the Palestinian leadership's goodwill and integrity. The Palestinian Authority gives up almost nothing, while reserving the right to keep the current thugocracy in power, change the terms of the Accord, militarize, enter into aggression pacts with hostile nations, maintain terrorism under the guise of not being able to stop it, and then rely upon international "peace keepers" to hinder Israeli self-defense.
It is not too surprising that Sharon and the overwhelming majority of Israelis are opposed to the plan, while Arafat is beaming. His victory is at last within reach.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
