In the absence of Israeli and US commitment to peace the glimmers of hope represented by the Geneva Accord are likely to remain just that, writes Ibrahim Nafie On Monday Geneva witnessed the signing ceremony of the Geneva Accord. In stark contrast to the atmosphere in the Swiss capital tensions prevailed in Israel and the Palestinian territories where rival political forces exchanged accusations across sharp ideological dividing lines. The Geneva initiative is the product of nearly three years of unofficial negotiations between prominent political and intellectual figures from both sides. Among the Israelis were former Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin, a symbol of the moderate Israeli left who had split off from the Labour Party and formed a separate left wing movement; former Labour Party Leader General Mitzna; former Deputy-Chief of Israeli Intelligence David Kimchi, who was also one of the architects of the Copenhagen Declaration; as well as such figures as Haim Oron, Yuli Tamir, novelist Amos Oz and Likud MK Nahama Ronin. Representing the Palestinians were former Minister of Culture Yasser Abed Rabbo, Nabil Qasis, Hisham Abdel- Razeq, Mohamed Hourani and Qadoura Faris. Beginning towards the end of the Barak- led Labour government, the negotiations took as a starting point the Camp David II talks of July 2000 and the Taba talks of January 2001. After various ups and downs they finally reached an agreement that covered final status issues including Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements and national borders. Although the agreement was signed by individuals with no official status and thus has no binding force whatsoever, it was greeted with almost unanimous acclaim around the world. Regardless of the specifics, the document furnishes tangible proof that core issues at the heart of the Arab- Israeli conflict can be resolved around the negotiating table and that, contrary to claims long aired by officials of the current Likud government, there is a Palestinian peace partner to whom Israelis truly interested in peace can talk. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Geneva Accord occasioned heartfelt support from major international political figures. Of particular note was the letter signed by 58 noted politicians, hailing the Geneva document as "a glimmer of hope in one of the longest conflicts in the world". In addition, former US President Jimmy Carter lauded it as "the best plan for any prospect of peace", while EU high representative for common foreign and security policy Javier Solana described it as "a powerful example of the role the forces of civil society can play in restoring the political perspective". In addition to Carter, other former heads of state have declared their support for the document. These included former US President Clinton, former Polish President Lech Walesa and former South African President Nelson Mandela. It was also of considerable significance that former president Carter, who had mediated the Egyptian-Israeli peace negotiations and who has since remained an active advocate of peace, not only in this region but elsewhere around the globe, identified in no uncertain terms the parties he felt were at fault for aggravating the climate of conflict in the Middle East. These parties are the current Israeli government and the current US administration. True to his reputation for courage and forthrightness, the former US president condemned the separating wall under construction in the West Bank and harshly criticised the Bush administration for lending its support to this wall and to Israeli settlement construction, which have delivered lethal blows to the roadmap. He further charged that the Bush administration's unmitigated support for acts of Israeli aggression and its blindness to the plight of the Palestinian people was feeding anti-American hatred in the Arab and Muslim worlds and was fueling terrorism. I have no doubt that the overall trend of opinion in the Arab world is, at the very least, not averse to the Geneva document. After all, the document reflects the principles of international legitimacy and the relevant UN resolutions on the Middle East conflict. There is one conspicuous exception in this, which is the document's failure to appropriately address the Palestinian refugee issue and the Palestinian right to return. But, apart from this major sticking point, which has been the focus of most Arab criticism, the general feeling is that the document could serve as a viable foundation for the beginning of official negotiations over final status issues. In his recent joint press conference with the Maltese president, President Mubarak expressed the prevalent Arab sentiment: "Egypt has already approved the roadmap and is prepared to support any peace initiative." His point is that, regardless of any reservations Egypt might have on the Geneva Accord, as long as the ideas it contains can be worked into a solid and practicable initiative then Egypt will put its weight behind whatever it takes to help the Palestinians and Israelis reach a peace agreement. The PA on the whole reacted positively to the Geneva Accord. That it would not confer its explicit approval was to be expected: a number of points are still unacceptable, especially with regard to the Palestinian refugee issue. But, nor was it expected that the PA would reject an initiative that contained many positive elements that could serve as a basis for negotiations. It is significant, therefore, that national security advisor to the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Jabril Al-Rajoub, was present at the signing ceremony in Geneva, and that the president of Bethlehem University was on hand to deliver a speech on behalf of Arafat, lauding the efforts of those who participated in producing the historic document. I believe these gestures reflect a high degree of political maturity on the part of the PA, as they acknowledged both the document's symbolic moral value while simultaneously underscoring its unofficial status. If anything marred the occasion it was the reaction in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said that the Geneva Accord constitutes a threat to the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state and offered "unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians". Outrage among the extreme right was such that some leaders called for the prosecution of those Israelis who had taken part in producing the accord on the charge of treason. They were supported by the 250-member rabbinical council, headed by Rabbi Yitzhak Ovadia Yosef, son of the spiritual founder of the ultra-conservative Shas Party, which issued a decree condemning the signatories as "traitors" and declaring that all Israelis who participated in the signing ceremonies should be brought to trial on the charge of conspiracy against the state. The pronouncements of the political and religious right in Israel in response to the Geneva Accord have served to aggravate divisions and confusion within Israeli public opinion. The Sharon government has clearly failed to deliver on its promises of security and the Israeli left has come up with no alternative, having done little more than stand by and watch Sharon wreak one disaster after another while Labour leader Peres allowed himself to act as a Likud mouthpiece. The bewilderment that currently prevails in Israel is underlined by a series of recent opinion polls which indicate a decline in the popularity of Sharon but no significant rise in the popularity of Labour. Particularly telling is a recent poll on the Geneva Accord which cited 37 per cent of respondents opposed, 31 per cent in favour and a staggering 31 per cent "unsure". That is no small body of wavering opinion, and it could be made to swing one way or the other depending on events and the cogency of the logic -- or efficacy of the demagoguery -- of whoever's voice emerges above the din. But the most crucial problem at present is that which was identified by former President Carter. Israel has effectively slain the roadmap with its separating wall and ongoing settlement construction, for which breaches and violations it receives the wholehearted support of the Bush administration. What, then, can we expect from such an extremist Israeli government and its stalwart ally in Washington? The Middle East peace process has only been able to progress when there was a government in Israel that was truly desirous of and committed to peace and an administration in Washington fully dedicated to helping the contending parties reach a viable peace agreement. This latter requires that the US administration be impartial -- or at the very least less biased towards Israel. They were conditions that were in place at the time of the Likud government led by Prime Minister Begin and President Carter's Democratic administration in Washington, and the result was the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979. They were met once again in 1993, at the time of the Labour government in Israel led by Yitzhak Rabin and the Republican administration of George Bush Sr. The result was the Oslo Accords. Today, however, we have a government in Israel that has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of reaching a political settlement with the Palestinians because it imagines it can impose its own solution through force of arms and that it can start implementing its own solution by creating new realities on the ground, such as a separating wall to establish a de facto border that annexes a large swathe of the West Bank to Israel. Today, too, we have an administration in Washington that is fully prepared to back Israeli aggression. As long as these two factors remain unchanged, then it is difficult to imagine that any progress can be made on the Palestinian-Israeli track or, indeed, any other track in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
