In Geneva, a group of Palestinian and Israeli diplomats, and retired military officers, argue the case of "giving Hamas a chance to change". Dina Ezzat listened in Retired Israeli army officer Shlomo Brom was not short on cynicism when he shrugged off the Hamas covenant reference to the destruction of Israel. "Israel certainly does not need Hamas's recognition to exist," he said with conceit. And Brom was not speaking in the name of justice by arguing that the unilateral approach the Israeli government applied in Gaza cannot work for the West Bank. Israel, Brom said, is well capable of defending its interests against any regional or other power that may entertain destructive thoughts. The retired officer added that if the Palestinians want to elect Hamas they should expect and accept to get punished since "along with democracy there should come accountability" and the Palestinians have to be "held accountable for their choices". At the same time, Brom insisted, the West Bank is not Gaza and as such Israel cannot just pull out its settlers and apply a few security arrangements. "Gaza is irrelevant to Israel" but Israel cannot afford a situation in which rockets are launched from Ramallah "as in the case of Gaza". According to Brom "there is no way of avoiding negotiations with the Palestinians" on the West Bank and the sooner the Israeli government comes to terms with this fact the better its interests will be served. Brom was addressing an audience of international diplomats and political analysts during a seminar held by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. Joining Brom as a guest speaker in the seminar that convened last week was Palestinian Ambassador to Stockholm Sami Abdel-Shafi. Both men had attempted three years ago to promote the "Geneva Initiative" as a vision for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement -- later dubbed the Geneva Accord. This accord, which surfaced towards the end of 2003 under the sponsorship of the Swiss government and the patronage of left- wing Israeli politician Yossi Beilin along with Yasser Abd Rabbo, a former cabinet minister and close advisor to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, was widely criticised across the Arab world for failing to acknowledge the true scope of the damage caused by Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, of compromising the right of return, the extent of due compensations, signing up to the demilitarisation of a future Palestinian state and allowing Israel unmistakable rights in administering key internal Palestinian affairs, including security matters. Last week, however, even this vision seemed far-fetched by the account of Abdel-Shafi and Brom. Both men, who exchanged warm greetings before the meeting but crossed swords during the seminar, agreed that the vision of the Geneva Accord has to be put on the backburner indefinitely. Both agreed that the urgent mission now is not to reach a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but to convince Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and consequently whoever is supporting him either in the Israeli community or in the White House, that pursuing the approach of unilateral disengagement and its consequent unilateral drawing of Israeli borders will harm Israel's interests, compromise the potential of any true final settlement and give more influence to Hamas -- something that most concerned parties seem keen to avoid. Brom blamed what he qualified as "five terrible and bloody years of the second Intifada" for Israeli confidence in the unilateral disengagement approach. For his part, Abdel-Shafi blamed what he insisted was "huge Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians" for the rise of Hamas during the recent elections. Abdel-Shafi criticised Israel for dubbing Arafat as "no peace partner". He also criticised Israel for overlooking, and thus undermining, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. When Israel blocks Arab financial assistance from getting through to the office of president, it is harming the image of Abbas, not Hamas, in the eyes of Palestinians under occupation, Abdel-Shafi argued. "We need to talk with Hamas" to "give Hamas the chance to change," Brom argued. "We can cautiously engage Hamas," he added. Brom insisted that Israel does not need to worry much about the Hamas-Iran link since "Hamas is independent" from both Syria and Iran, and that at the end of the day Israel could always retaliate with severity to any Iranian attack. Moreover, he added, "The Palestinians are much more dependent on Israel than on the rest of the international community." "We are willing to give up territories," and "there is no way of avoiding a negotiation process," Brom stated in a very matter- of-fact manner. For Abdel-Shafi, "Hamas is in the middle of a transformation and anybody who does not see that is blind." He added that "political negotiations can be resumed immediately with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), which is the main negotiating partner" that had already negotiated the Oslo Accords with the Israeli government three years before the PLO eliminated references to the destruction of Israel from its own covenant. However, Abdel-Shafi, Brom and a group of American and European analysts and diplomats who took part in the seminar conceded that without a push from the US, Olmert was unlikely to change his style, especially given that unilateralism seems to be widely appreciated by the Israeli public. The problem, panellists and the audience agreed, is that Washington thought that it could impose a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab -- not only Israeli-Palestinian -- conflict after changing the regime in Iraq. Given the Iraq quagmire, however, the US seems incapable of resolving the Middle East conflict. The gravest possibility now, many agreed, is that disappointed with the "Jerusalem first" and "Baghdad first" options, the White House may opt for a "Tehran first" approach. For many this approach would eliminate any movement towards a settlement, even if temporary, on the Israeli-Palestinian front.
