PDA

Bekijk Volledige Versie : Het akkoord van Geneve



Simon
30-11-03, 12:48
The ''Geneva Accord''
By MIFTAH
October 15, 2003


The Geneva Accords are an effort to formulate a complete final-status agreement, without Sharon's long-term interim agreements. The agreement is presented as a draft for the final phase of the “road map” peace plan, which is due to end in 2005.

The 50-page draft peace agreement was completed over the weekend in neighboring Jordan by the two delegations, which included current legislators and former cabinet members on both sides. The proposal offers highly specific solutions and calls for major compromises on the most sensitive issues that have torpedoed previous peace efforts, ranging from the status of Palestinian refugees to Israeli settlements.

No official document has yet been made public to list the agreements reached between Israeli left-wing politicians and senior Palestinian representatives. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hope to sign the "Geneva Accord" in the Swiss city on November 4, 2003, the eighth anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The following are concessions agreed to by the sides, according to media reports.

Israeli concessions

1. Israel will agree to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and will withdraw to the 1967 borders, except for certain territorial exchanges, as described below.
2. Jerusalem will be divided, with Arab (Muslim and Christian) neighborhoods of East Jerusalem becoming part of the Palestinian state.
3. Temple Mount will be under Palestinian sovereignty, however, in light of the sanctity of the site and its religious and cultural significance to the Jewish people, there will be no archaeological digs or construction without the consent of both sides. The Mount would be transferred to the Palestinians 30 months after the agreement is signed.
4. An international force stationed permanently will supervise Jerusalem's holy sites, ensuring freedom of access for visitors of all faiths. However, Jewish prayer will not be permitted on the mount.
5. The Muslim, Armenian and Christian quarters of the Old City would be Palestinian. There would be special arrangements to allow Israelis to pass through the Armenian quarter on their way to the Jewish quarter. The entire Old City would be open: the borders between the quarters would be marked, but they would not be separated by physical barriers.
6. Most of West Bank, including the settlements of Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa, all of Gaza and the Jordan Valley will be turned over to the Palestinians. Israel's withdrawal from the territories will be completed within 30 months, during which time the settlements will be dismantled, but the Israel forces will be allowed to deploy in the Jordan Valley for an additional three years.
7. Israel will transfer to Palestinians parts of the Negev adjacent to Gaza, but not including Halutza, to the Palestinians in exchange for the parts of the West Bank it will receive, including Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion.
8. Safe passage route between Gaza and West Bank will be established.

Palestinian concessions

1. Palestinians will waive "right of return" for refugees, except for a limited number of that will be allowed to settle in Israel, mainly for the purposes of reuniting families, but this will not be defined as realization of the right of return.
2. Some refugees will remain in the countries where they now live, others will be absorbed by the PA, some will be absorbed by other countries and some will receive financial compensation.
3. Western Wall and Jewish Quarter will be under Israeli sovereignty, the “holy basin” will be under international supervision.
4. Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including Pisgat Ze'ev and Ramot as well as the West Bank suburbs of Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and the historic part of Gush Etzion - but not Efrat - will remain under Israeli sovereignty. Jewish and Arab areas in East Jerusalem would be separated by physical barriers, but the two parties would consider removing them after three years.
5. The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. Their state will be demilitarized, and border crossings will be supervised by an international, but not an Israeli, force.
6. Palestinians will collect all illegal weaponry.
7. Palestinians will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and announce an end to their conflict with Israel.

Common Clauses

1. Law and order in the Old City would be maintained by a special international force that would include Israeli and Palestinian policemen.
2. Visas would be needed to cross from Israeli to Palestinian Jerusalem or vice versa. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian sections of the city would be territorially contiguous, without enclaves.
3. The agreement will replace all UN resolutions and previous agreements.

http://www.miftah.org

lennart
30-11-03, 14:24
Dit stelt echt niets voor zolang Sjaron in het zadel zit. Tenzij het Israelische volk in opstand komt, maar dat zie ik nog niet gebeuren.

Simon
30-11-03, 14:55
Geplaatst door lennart
Dit stelt echt niets voor zolang Sjaron in het zadel zit. Tenzij het Israelische volk in opstand komt, maar dat zie ik nog niet gebeuren.

Nou het stelt echt wel wat voor maar Sjaron stelt niks voor. Aan dit plan is door zeer hoog geplaatsten van beiden zijden gewerkt.

lennart
30-11-03, 15:01
Het stelt niets voor.. Sjaron is tegen, Hamas is tegen, de Al-Aqsa brigade is tegen. Die laatsten hebben zelfs al met geweld gedreigd.

Simon
30-11-03, 15:47
Geplaatst door lennart
Het stelt niets voor.. Sjaron is tegen, Hamas is tegen, de Al-Aqsa brigade is tegen. Die laatsten hebben zelfs al met geweld gedreigd.

Ja dat zullen ze bij ieder vredesakkoord doen. Er zijn nu eenmaal groeperingen die bij vrede geen belang hebben.

lennart
30-11-03, 15:47
Palestinian Protesters Confront Geneva Delegates
Sun November 30, 2003 08:05 AM ET

By Nidal al-Mughrabi
RAFAH, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Chanting "No to treason," Palestinian protesters forced Palestinians headed for a gala peace ceremony in Geneva to run a gauntlet of rage on Sunday over a symbolic accord with Israel.

Dozens of supporters of President Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, Islamic groups and radical movements scuffled with members of the 50-strong delegation as the group crossed from Gaza into Egypt to catch a plane to the Swiss city.

The protesters accused the delegates -- members of various political groups acting in a personal capacity, academics and dignitaries -- of selling out millions of Palestinian refugees who claim a right of return to what is now Israel.

Two Palestinian cabinet ministers and two members of the Palestinian parliament who negotiated the "Geneva Accords" said they would not attend Monday's ceremony because President Yasser Arafat had not formally supported the deal.

About 300 Israelis and Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including artists, intellectuals and entertainers, will be shuttled to Geneva on "peace flights."

"You should not be allowed to go to concede our right of return," one protester shouted as the crowd at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt shoved the delegates, who eventually managed to shoulder their way across the frontier.

The Geneva Accords have not won official backing by the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has denounced the deal as capitulation to violence in a three-year-old Palestinian uprising.

PRESSURE ON SHARON

In another sign of pressure in Israel for Sharon to pursue peace with the Palestinians, the Haaretz newspaper said army chief Moshe Yaalon privately voiced reservations about the prime minister's proposal for unilateral steps if negotiations failed.

Yaalon's reported comments in the liberal Israeli daily added to criticism that he and four former Israeli security chiefs leveled recently against Sharon's tough policies toward the Palestinians.

Asked about the report, an army spokesman said the military does not comment on accounts of purported private remarks.

Yossi Beilin, a leading Israeli dove who co-authored the Geneva plan, said Palestinian delegates agreed to waive the claims of millions of their people whose families became refugees in the 1948 Middle East war to return to Israel.
The text of the pact says that the number of refugees eligible to return to Israel will "be at sovereign discretion of Israel."

As part of the deal, the Israelis acceded to Palestinian demands for sovereignty over a sensitive Jerusalem holy site that Jews call the Temple Mount and Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary.

Like the U.S.-backed Middle East "road map," the plan envisages a Palestinian state but it goes further by mandating removal of most Jewish settlements, including many of the largest, and splitting Jerusalem into two capitals.

Sharon raised the possibility in public remarks on Thursday that he would take unilateral moves, including the dismantling of isolated Jewish settlements, should efforts to promote a U.S.-backed peace "road map" collapse.

Haaretz said that under the "Sharon Plan," Israel would then unilaterally draw a border for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and in less than half of the West Bank, a homeland far smaller than Palestinians envisage.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3911555&pageNumber=1

Simon
30-11-03, 15:56
Geplaatst door lennart

Haaretz said that under the "Sharon Plan," Israel would then unilaterally draw a border for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and in less than half of the West Bank, a homeland far smaller than Palestinians envisage.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3911555&pageNumber=1

Het Sjaron plan is volgens mij ook het plan wat Israel sowieso eenzijdig wil opleggen. Ze zullen er wel voor zorgen dat alle andere plannen in duigen vallen. Je hoeft dus alleen maar de verder bouwplannen voor DE muur te bekijken om een indruk te krijgen hoe de Palestijnse staat er uit gaat zien.
Webspecial over DE muur:

http://www.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml

Simon

Simon
02-12-03, 00:24
Alternatief plan voor Midden-Oosten

***************************************
GENČVE In Genčve is in aanwezigheid van
de oud-presidenten Carter en Gorbatsjov
het Akkoord van Genčve gelanceerd,het
vredesplan voor het Midden-Oosten van
gematigde Israëliërs en Palestijnen.

Het plan behelst de ontmanteling van
bijna alle joodse nederzettingen en de
deling van Jeruzalem.De Palestijnse
staat omvat vrijwel de hele Gazastrook
en de Westelijke Jordaanoever.Voor de
Palestijnse vluchtelingen is er geen
recht op terugkeer naar Israël.

De Israëlische regering en Palestijnse
radicalen wijzen het plan af.Steun komt
van de VN,de EU en 58 oud-presidenten
en premiers.Ook Washington is positief.

Barghouti
02-12-03, 13:50
Many observers of the Geneva process overlook the fact that the 1990s in Israel were primarily a period of left-Zionist rule, rather than a period
ruled by the Likud and the ultra-nationalist right. Between Rabin's election in June 1992, and Sharon's overpowering of ex-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in February 2001, there were nearly six full years of government by the Labor Party and the left-leaning Meretz Party. Contrary to the prevailing perceptions, then, it is the Zionist left -- rather than the right -- that bears the principal responsibility for the failure of the "peace process" in the 1990s. Since the Geneva accord emerged from the same Israeli school that produced the Oslo process, Beilin and his associates could have increased the political viability of their new Geneva process had they publicly admitted their failures throughout the 1990s. They did not, once again neglecting to offer the Israeli public an alternative explanation for the intifada to the standard line that the Palestinians "chose violence."

In 1993, rather than trying to convince Israelis that a new era based on
peaceful coexistence and equality was about to start, the leaders of the
Labor-Meretz coalition based their marketing strategy solely on security,
separation from the Palestinians and the continuity of Israel's colonial
supremacy. The Labor-Meretz leadership was unwilling to assume any Israeli or pre-state Zionist responsibility for over 100 years of conflict. Instead, this leadership consciously linked the conflict, both politically and rhetorically, to Palestinian "terrorism" and permanent historical
rejectionism.

By listening attentively to the prominent Israelis linked to the Geneva
process -- particularly when they speak Hebrew -- it is readily apparent
that they have not forgotten, or learned from, their self-made Oslo failure. In fact, identical behavior and marketing strategies vis-ŕ-vis Israeli public opinion are sewn into the fabric of the Geneva initiative.

"REALISM" AND "GENEROSITY"

The text of the Geneva accord has little meaning outside the political and
journalistic context within which it is being marketed to the Israeli
public. In essence, the true substance of the process is embedded in the
verbal and written exegesis that surrounds the text of the agreement. These explanatory contexts already allude to the political fiasco that appears to await the text in the near future.

An article published in the Guardian by one of the senior Israeli
participants in the Geneva process, the internationally acclaimed novelist
and commentator Amos Oz, illustrates this claim. Oz's article, headlined "We Have Done the Gruntwork of Peace," was based upon a Hebrew article he published in Israel. Oz explains that the Geneva talks differ from previous Israeli-Palestinian interactions. For example, there is no longer a discussion of "the right of refugee return," but instead of "a solution to the refugee issue." There is no longer a discussion of "return to the 1967 borders," but of "a logical map that also takes the present into account, and not just history." Innocent readers may conclude that logic is the mental property of left Zionists alone and that the Israelis, unlike the Palestinians, never based any of their national claims on history. Oz's governing message is this: in the Geneva accord, the Palestinians have finally chosen to be "realistic," and to renounce not only the right of return, but also the demand for a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

A leading guru of the Israeli Peace Now movement, Oz makes an extra effort to reiterate that Palestinian stubbornness led to the failures of Oslo and the July 2000 Camp David summit. Oz suggests that the Israeli peace camp finally succeeded in convincing the irrational Palestinians that they must accept the red lines of the Israeli left. These red lines, according to one of Oz's colleagues, represent a huge sacrifice on his part since he is "ready to relinquish no less than a part of my religious faith, inasmuch as I am prepared to agree, with a broken heart, to Palestinian sovereignty on the Temple Mount." Further on, Oz resorts to similar propagandistic symbolism, declaring that "we surrender sovereignty in parts of the Land of Israel where our hearts lie." What, then, are the chief problems of Oz, and the Israeli Geneva school that he so aptly represents, so far as Israeli public opinion is concerned?

Lacking the capacity for self-criticism, Oz reinforces Israel's
self-righteousness and confiscates from the Palestinians the position of the victim by representing himself and Israel as the true victims. He makes no attempt to comprehend the gigantic sacrifices made by his Palestinian counterparts. His prose mirrors the assumptions that underlay Barak's "generous" offer to PA leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David in July 2000.

In order to convince Israeli public opinion, the Israelis of the Geneva
process have to show -- or so they believe -- that the Israelis have "won" and that the Palestinians have "given up." The greatest defect of the Geneva accord is that the basic notion of the inalienable human and political rights of the Palestinian people is entirely ignored by Oz and his associates, as was the case in the Oslo process. Following Barak, Oz replaces the notion of rights with the notion of charity -- "if we would have offered them in 1967 what we offer them today...." When no place for rights exists, and the balance of forces so blatantly favors the illegal occupier, the standard Israeli narrative reads like this: the Palestinians gave up their destructive objective (since for Oz and the Geneva school "'return' is a code word for the destruction of Israel"), so we, the Israeli peace camp, decided to be extremely generous.

SYSTEMATIC COUNTERPRODUCTIVITY

Apart from its moral valences, the contextual "marketing" argumentation of the Israeli participants in Geneva is politically counterproductive for the goal of engendering a change in Israeli public opinion. If political and human rights do not exist and if the conflict results from an irrational Palestinian determination to eradicate Jews, what Israeli is going to believe that Palestinians may change? Furthermore, if Palestinians change only because the Israeli peace camp were tough enough in dealing with them, than why not be even tougher and force them to accept Israeli domination with no concession whatsoever?

Even political alchemists of the Geneva school's caliber cannot build trust
based on a lie: in order to harness Israeli public opinion, some of the
Geneva participants argue that, this time, the Palestinians have given up
their right of return. A simple reading of Article 7 of the accord reveals
that the Palestinian participants in the Geneva process are indeed ready to make remarkably far-reaching compromises on the rights of Palestinian refugees. However, they certainly have not gone so far as to relinquish the "right of return," as established by UN Resolution 194 passed in 1948, as such a move would ruin completely and instantaneously their legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian public.

Those who are interested in a lasting peace -- one that is as just as
possible -- between Israelis and Palestinians must therefore pose one
question: why does the Geneva school try to buy Israel public opinion by
marketing the complete opposite of what their Palestinian counterparts say to their own public opinion precisely in order to harness its support for the joint initiative? The end result of the Geneva process is guaranteed to split the difference between the Israeli and Palestinian readings, setting the stage yet again for the Israeli accusation, most likely echoed by doyens of the Geneva school themselves, that the Palestinians are liars.

Some of the more cynical Israeli participants in the Geneva process know perfectly well that there is a volatile contradiction between the
Palestinian reading of the agreement and the way that they market it to the Israeli public. These Israelis seem to believe that a misrepresentation of the Palestinian position can assist them in inducing Israelis to bring the Labor Party back to power, where it will find ways to enforce the
"agreement."

But Labor will not succeed in regaining power, because its politics are a
pale replica of the right-wing parties' beliefs. The resignation of Labor's
last candidate for prime minister, Amram Mitzna, as party chairman, coupled with the resignations of left Laborites such as Beilin and Yael Dayan toform a new social-democratic party, testify to the impossibility of serious reform of the party. In the socio-economic domain, the Labor party holds neo-liberal positions similar to those of Likud's Binyamin Netanyahu. On the Israeli-Arab conflict, Labor parliamentarians like Generals Binyamin Ben Eliezer, Efraim Sneh and Dany Yatom are probably worse than some of the Likud MKs. The question for the average Israeli voter remains unchanged: why vote for a (Labor) copy when you can vote for the (Likud) original?

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

If they are truly interested in a viable and sustainable peace for their
people, Israeli politicians will ultimately need to present a peace accord
that can earn the backing of non-elite Palestinians. To this end, Israeli
public opinion will have to develop a much more sober understanding of the socio-political dynamics underlying the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rather than focusing on this or that textual clause of the Geneva Accord, Israelis interested in reaching a just and lasting peace must immediately focus on the candid verbal and written explanations that are necessary in order to contextualize these understandings productively.

First, critical Israelis must tell the Israeli public is that the conflict
is not the result of Palestinian terrorism or fanaticism, but rather the
result of Israeli dispossession and occupation; Israel's responsibility in
the conflict must be unmasked by Israelis. Basic Palestinian human and
political rights that are denied by Israeli policies of occupation and
colonization must be addressed in any agreement intended to reach a just peace. It must be made clear to the Israeli public that the only "generous offer" within the Israeli-Palestinian arena is the readiness by some Palestinians to renounce 78 percent of their claims to their historical
homeland.

The right of return is a basic human right. The readiness of some
Palestinians to consider it the object of negotiation, while taking into
consideration the demographic worries of Israel, must be understood as
another generous Palestinian offer. Critical Israelis must ask their fellow
Israelis -- the Geneva school included -- how can they demand from the
Palestinians to renounce their right of return before Israel has recognized its mere existence?

What is needed further from critical Israelis -- and ultimately from Israeli
politicians -- is to consistently promote a positive notion of peace based
on coexistence and human equality. The notion of peace that must be
adamantly rejected, not only because of its moral bankruptcy, but because it stands no chance of working, is the notion of Oz and his Geneva associates, who understand "peace" as a means of keeping the Palestinians out of sight on the other side of a wall, and consider Palestinians to be an existential
danger.

As was the case with the 1993 Oslo agreement, in the Geneva Accords the context is far more important than the text, all the more so when Israeli public opinion is concerned.

lennart
02-12-03, 13:55
Wassen neus akkoord...

Voor de Linkse elite pseudowerkelijkheid.

Bedoeld voor Europese binnenlandse consumptie.

Simon
02-12-03, 14:21
Geplaatst door lennart
Wassen neus akkoord...

Voor de Linkse elite pseudowerkelijkheid.

Bedoeld voor Europese binnenlandse consumptie.

Nu ja van de betrokken partijen zelf valt geen initiatief te verwachten. Dus ik ben blij dat er mensen zijn die wél over een perspectief willen nadenken. En het is nogal makkelijk dat te bagataliseren.

lennart
02-12-03, 14:27
Geplaatst door Simon
Nu ja van de betrokken partijen zelf valt geen initiatief te verwachten. Dus ik ben blij dat er mensen zijn die wél over een perspectief willen nadenken. En het is nogal makkelijk dat te bagataliseren.

Als dit nep akkoord wordt gebruikt om een reden te hebben om geen druk uit te oefenen op Israel dan is het gewoon bedoeld voor binnenlandse Europese consumptie...

observer
02-12-03, 14:46
Geplaatst door Simon
Ja dat zullen ze bij ieder vredesakkoord doen. Er zijn nu eenmaal groeperingen die bij vrede geen belang hebben. ze hebben zelfs de palestijnen die gaan bedreigd deze heren willen echt geen positief nieuws

lennart
02-12-03, 16:02
Het enige waar dit akkoord voor zal zorgen is dat Sjaron de muur versneld zal aanleggen en meer geweld tegen de Palestijnen zal gebruiken.