Edward I. Koch
Saturday, Dec. 6, 2003

The Accord comes against the backdrop of nearly three years of almost continual bloodshed between the parties to the conflict after the Clinton-sponsored Camp David II negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat broke down in January 2001.

The Sharon government is understandably opposed to negotiations conducted by anyone not authorized to speak for the state of Israel, particularly when talks concern the security of Israel and its ultimate borders.

Charles Krauthammer, in a Daily News op-ed piece on Nov. 30, excoriated Beilin, writing of the proposal: "This is scandalous. Israel is a democracy, and this agreement was negotiated in defiance of the democratically-elected government of Israel. If a private U.S. citizen negotiates a treaty on his own, he could go to jail under the Logan Act. If an Israeli does it, he gets a pat on the back from the secretary of state."

Krauthammer believes that Oslo and the current proposal were and are an Israeli surrender: "This time, however, the Israeli surrender is so breathtaking, it makes Oslo look rational."

Krauthammer may be right in decrying certain of the terms of Beilin’s proposal, including its approach to the issue of the Palestinians’ right of return. Under the Accord, some decisions on the right of return are left, in part, in the hands of third parties.

Where Krauthammer is mistaken is in his implication that the mere existence of the Geneva Accord poses a grave danger to Israel. The Accord provides that the right of return "shall be at the sovereign discretion of Israel and will be in accordance with a number that Israel will submit to the International Commission. This number shall represent the total number of Palestinian refugees that Israel shall accept. As a basis, Israel will consider the average of the total numbers submitted by the different third countries to the International Commission."

Israel is not bound by the Accord and its particular solutions to such issues as the right of return and settlements in the disputed territories. The proffered agreement is simply there for the parties to consider in their negotiations. Until there is a final peace treaty, citizen groups and individuals living in Israel, the disputed territories or anywhere else have a right to propose solutions and seek to drum up support for their proposals. We do that all the time in the U.S. on every subject imaginable. That is the nature of democracy.

As Beilin and Rabbo pointed out in a New York Times op-ed on Dec. 1, "In the end, the Geneva Accord is only a 'virtual' agreement. The decision-makers – in the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, in Washington and elsewhere – can use it, modify it or ignore it. As private citizens, we have done about as much as anybody can do in a situation that has become totally unbearable. Now it is up to our leaders."

Beilin is an extremely able spokesman and has already persuaded a number of American activists to support his proposal. He has secured support from five U.S. senators – Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

These senators are introducing a resolution applauding the Israelis and Palestinians who are working together on peace initiatives and urging consideration by Israeli and Palestinian leaders of the proposed initiatives.

The most important advice friends of Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon, can give at this time to Sharon is that he not overplay his hand. He must remember that you can’t beat an idea without presenting an idea of your own. So, it is important that he take the initiative and offer proposals showing good faith.

Interestingly, India and Pakistan have just begun unilateral initiatives offered to build confidence on the other side, and they appear to be working.

Hell’s bells. On the Israeli-Palestinian front, I have proposed a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from all Gaza settlements, even before a final agreement on all outstanding issues. My hope is that this confidence-building measure would prompt the Palestinian Authority to respond with a confidence-building measure of its own.

My own opinion is that this Geneva Accord, which is very much like the Barak plan that was rejected by Arafat, will sooner or later become a large part of the final agreement.

When the parties finally agree on a treaty, it should be ratified by two-thirds of the Israeli and Palestinian populations, so that it cannot be rejected at a later time as having been imposed by leaders without followers.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Israel
Middle East

A product that might interest you:
FREE e-mail alerts from NewsMax.com - Click here now!