Home

Subscribe

About The Journal

Current Issue
  Editor's Comments
  Upcoming Events
  Ongoing Activities
  World Developments
  Dialoguing
  What We Are About
  Articles
  Media Notes
  Reports/Announcements
  Funding

Past Issues

Editorial Team

Questions / Feedback

Selected Links

Articles

     It has been said that “Not the new is proclaimed but what is needed for the hour.” This aphorism fits well with the current Geneva peace initiative for the Middle East. Since 1947, there have been a host of peace-through-partition proposals for the Israeli-Palestinian lands — none of which has yet produced a real two-State structure in which Israelis and Palestinians could live in peace. The new plan, the Geneva Initiative, drafted by an Israeli and Palestinian team headed by Yossi Beilin, Minister of Justice in the last Labour-led government and Yasser Abed Rabbo, formerly the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Information, is an outstanding example of “Track Two” diplomacy — unofficial but done by people who know the possibilities and limits of holding office.

     The Geneva Initiative can be the start of a creative process toward two-State structures — a partition followed by close economic, social and cultural cooperation. The Geneva Initiative merits wide public support, for a two-State compromise can only be built “from below”. Although the “Road Map” had American, Russian, European Union and UN fairy godmothers, the map had not been drawn directly by the people involved. The Geneva Initiative — a reflection of the “spirit of Geneva’s” sense of compromise and good sense — has come out of the discussions and negotiations of Israelis and Palestinians active in public life. Thus, the Geneva Initiative represents a wide segment of public opinion as reflected in a recently published statement of principles including two-State structures drafted by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh, and signed by some 170,000 Israelis and Palestinians. The Geneva Initiative states “Recognizing that after years of living in mutual fear and insecurity, both peoples need to enter an era of peace, security and stability, entailing all necessary actions by the parties to guarantee the realization of this era.”

     Because of the current violence and tensions in the Middle East, the Geneva Initiative had to be drafted in closed sessions so that there could not be public debate during the drafting period. Now that the plan has been officially presented, analysis of the Initiative can be made both by Israelis and Palestinians and also by all who have worked for peace and justice in the Middle East. We can hope that the Geneva Initiative will provoke an enlightened debate. It is unfortunate that a few have made condescending remarks without weighing the whole plan. Whenever a compromise agreement is reached, some writers bring out of old boxes the images of Munich and Chamberlain’s umbrella, not to mention a knife in the back, but all serious political agreements are based on compromise.

     Since most of the Israelis who participated in the drafting of the Geneva Initiative come from the Israeli Left — either the Labour Party or the more left, secular Meretz, some have tried to paint the Initiative as only a political move of the Israeli Left. Such criticisms overlook the dangers of the current situation with its increasing violence and fast destruction of economic and social conditions. The Geneva Initiative is a sign of hope at a time when “the realists” see only continuing violence, destruction and death, thinking — unrealistically — that one side or the other will just give up or be driven away.

     Unlike the “Road Map” which hoped to reach agreements on some issues before going on to more difficult-to-resolve questions, such as refugees and the status of Jerusalem, the Geneva Initiative has set out in detail what would be the final two-State structures. Thus, the Geneva Initiative is an historic turning point because it sets out clearly what each side is ready to give up in order to bring an end to the conflict. The Geneva Initiative is a real possibility of moving beyond the current deadlock symbolized by the tired leadership of Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat. The Initiative holds out the possibility for new and younger leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian society to come to the fore. Such new leadership needs to be given international support so as to end the cycles of violence and counter-violence and begin an era of creative cooperation.

René Wadlow is editor of www.transnational-perspectives.org, an internet journal of world politics and social policies. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva. Since 1974, he has been an NGO representative to the United Nations, Geneva, specializing in conflict resolution, arms control, and human rights.

©2002, 2003, 2004. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute.  Opinions expressed are solely that of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editing staff, Nonviolent Change Journal, Organization Development Institute, nor of the host and website owner of CirclePoint

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.