MIDEAST: Geneva Plan Alive and Well, Say Authors

By Zoltán Dujisin Reprint | | Print |

Zoltán Dujisin

BUDAPEST, Oct 18 2005 (IPS) - Geneva was decisive in prompting the Gaza withdrawal, and an active media campaign could turn it into an essential guide for future bilateral developments, proponents of the alternative Geneva peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict say.

The Geneva plan was the result of an unofficial Swiss-sponsored effort by politicians, academics and civil society members from both sides of the conflict. It aimed at demonstrating that a viable agreement is not only desirable but realistic.

Apart from providing for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, the Geneva plan sets down solutions for thorny issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the repatriation of refugees. The capital would be divided between two sovereign states based on pre-1967 borders, while mass return of refugees is avoided in exchange for financial compensation.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who had been fiercely critical of the plan, acknowledged recently that his unilateral decision to withdraw from Gaza came partially as a response to the growing importance of the Geneva plan.

“Sharon felt threatened,” Yossi Beilin, head of the Israeli delegation to the Geneva initiative told IPS at a meeting on the plan in Budapest last week. “He acted so that the world would not impose it on him.”

Beilin says the Geneva plan remains effective in putting pressure on governments. “Even when the roadmap is not implemented at all, we have to find ways to push steps forward. Any vacuum will be filled by violence.”

Participants at the Budapest meeting said the roadmap set out by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is a well-intended effort but not taken seriously by any of the parties. Its vagueness and lack of detail have often led to unilateralism and the postponement of real problems, which are instead dealt with by the Geneva plan, they said.

Hardliners on both sides of the conflict have often labeled the Geneva proposals as unacceptable concessions and a betrayal of national interests.

Beilin told the Budapest conference that concessions are made only in moments of truth. “Hatred exists, but is not unbridgeable,” he said. “The red lines on the other side are never as rigid as one thinks. This was the success of the Geneva convention. It might not be the real agreement, but there is still no competition to it.”

Yasser Abed Rabbo, head of the Palestinian delegation, said the Geneva plan had filled in gaps from previous negotiations. “If we sit to negotiate tomorrow, the model of Geneva would be the only balanced solution. This is not ideology, it’s experience.”

Supporters of the plan say it enjoys a 40 percent public approval on both sides that is rising, and this could make the plan a point of reference for future efforts.

Daniel Dor, communications expert at Tel Aviv University called on “those elements who can change media patterns on both sides to cooperate” by making the Geneva proposals realistic in the eyes of the public.

“Israeli public opinion, in the last analysis, is the only force,” said Avi Primor, analyst for the Herzliya Centre in Israel. “The international community needs to support civil society and local initiatives favourable to the peace process. It’s the only way to put pressure on the Israeli government.”

Primor also accused the Palestinian side of having “never really understood how to talk to Israeli public opinion.” He said Palestinians should take the first step in convincing Israelis of their intentions.

“Israelis only care about security, and you should guarantee them that,” he said. “I know this might sound unfair, but it is effective.”

Samith Al-Abed, member of the Palestinian delegation, said such a burden could not be put on the Palestinians’ shoulders. “You are confiscating our land, destroying our buildings, and we have to preoccupy ourselves with Israeli public opinion? What about our public opinion?”

But Al-Abed said more steps ought to be taken towards making the plan official. “We need a strong European position, because we need fairness. We don’t see fairness in America.”

The United States will not support the Geneva plan, said Clayton Swisher from the Washington-based Middle East Institute. “America doesn’t want a solution drafted in a ‘left-wing’, ‘chocolate-eating’ Europe,” said Swisher. The two sides must “market not Geneva itself, but the spirit of Geneva.”