Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

Main Page

Geneva Accord Full Text

Executive Summary

Negotiators

Political and Opinion Leaders

Congressional Resolution

Media Analysis

Map

From Gaza to Geneva

Haaretz
August 3, 2004

By Gadi Baltiansky

The popular assertion that "there is no one to talk to" is currently yielding the fruit relished by all those who reject dialogue: Budding anarchism can be seen in the Palestinian Authority (PA), and these buds could ripen into full-blown chaos. Ari'el Sharon's prophesy is fulfilling itself. If we don't talk to them, if we ignore them, if we hurt them, they will disappear. The potential partner to an agreement is getting weaker and weaker.

This is the time to prove that the opposite prophesy can also be self-fulfilling. We must talk to the other side before the window of opportunity closes on the two-state solution.

As we stand on the threshold of the withdrawal from Gaza, we must ask ourselves two key questions: We are getting out, but who will remain behind? We are getting out, but what are we getting into?

Israel may find that although it has withdrawn from Gaza, it remains in the same tough, painful, dangerous spot. The occupation will continue, the conflict will worsen, the despair will grow. But there is another way: to declare the withdrawal from Gaza the first stop on the road to a permanent accord. Leadership is not only about choosing between existing paths; often it calls for forging new ones. Our leadership would do well to pave the way from a partial, unilateral withdrawal to a permanent accord. From Gaza to Geneva. We can and should get out of Gaza, but in order to bring about the desired change in our society, economy, and education, we must also make our way out of the conflict.

In order to solve our existential problems, the government needs to change its mindset, even if that is tougher than juggling the pieces that make up the coalition. Up until now the method was clear: First destroy the PA and then protest its inability to deal with the lawbreakers; first ignore Prime Ministers Abu-Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and Abu-Ala (Ahmad Qurei) and then complain that there's no one to talk to. If we want to choose the right way to get out of Gaza, however, we should also consider the other side of the coin. If negotiations are launched with the Palestinian Government, perhaps its ability to confront the radical militants will improve. Perhaps the coordination of the withdrawal with Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril al-Rujub instead of with the Americans and the Egyptians will help build true cooperation toward future negotiations.

In addition to launching a dialogue with the pragmatists among the Palestinians, the government must announce that the withdrawal from Gaza is a stage in the negotiations on the permanent arrangement based on the road map. We will not destroy the settlers' homes but will hand them over as part of the future compensation we will have to give the refugees in any event. We will not perpetuate the occupation through other means but will help build the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. We will not wait for the reforms that are being demanded of the PA but will strengthen the potential reformers so that they will be able to carry them out. We will not settle for fighting terrorism but will work toward a comprehensive cease-fire. We will not wait for an international plan -- and one will surely be drawn up after the US elections -- but will present our own initiative outlining the negotiations on all the outstanding issues.

The withdrawal from Gaza -- correct and welcome as it may be -- is like aspirin: It relieves a localized pain in a certain spot. We should not resist the painkiller, but neither must we kid ourselves that it is a cure for the disease. We, Israelis and Palestinians, are ready not only to swallow the pill but also to undergo surgery. We know exactly what the outcome will be. It was outlined by Bill Clinton, at the Camp David and the Taba talks, in the Ayalon-Nusseibeh understandings, and in the Geneva Accord. The leadership that is courageous enough to get us out of Gaza must be courageous enough to admit that this alone is not enough.

If Israel withdraws from Gaza while at the same time tightening its grip on the West Bank, deepening the internal dispute, and fanning the flames of the conflict, the move will be remembered as an interesting -- though not necessarily positive -- episode. If, on the other hand, the withdrawal is seen as a marker on the road to a permanent accord, the disengagement decision will prove to be a historic move of vast significance.

The author is the director general of the Geneva Initiative and served as the Press Secretary to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.