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

The Lesser Price to Pay

FORUM FAX

ISSUES UPDATE December 04, 2003            Volume 1.71 israelpolicyforum.org

An interview with an Israeli member of the Geneva Initiative delegation

David Kimche, former deputy director of the Mossad, former director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, and current president of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, was a member of the Israeli delegation that worked on the Geneva Initiative. He spoke to Israel Policy Forum last week about his experience with this group, highlighting the lessons of the project and answering the criticism that has ensued.

Regardless of how one views his perspective, Kimche and his Geneva colleagues, in reaching this agreement, have above all challenged us to be positive. Some may agree or disagree with the Geneva formula, and some are still too pessimistic to believe that any progress is possible. But perhaps the real reason for the surprisingly positive response to the Geneva project is that it has become a dictate for a change of course. That, more than its details, may be its most important contribution.

The Geneva Initiative, as Kimche describes, represents months of grueling debate over the most fundamental issues facing Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers. "We fought like tigers over every single word," said Kimche. "We knew this wasn't an actual negotiation, but we all took the process very seriously. Both sides tried to maximize their gains from every perspective."

"But by the time we did reach an agreement, both sides felt certain they got as much out of it as they could. In other words, the compromises both sides made were absolutely necessary in order to reach an agreement. If we hadn't agreed to give up what we did, there wouldn't have been an agreement. And if they hadn't given up on the right of return, there still would have been no agreement."

"The central point of this agreement for the Israelis was this question of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. We actually spent a whole morning at the Movenpick hotel on one single word, "return." Towards the end of the session, the Palestinians asked to include the word "return" in the subtitle of the article on refugees. We said, 'If you include the word return, we are going to pack our bags and go home. We're not going to accept anything that has to do with return."

"A tremendous argument ensued that lasted for hours and hours. But the end result, and really the central achievement of this exercise, was the fact that the Palestinians finally agreed to give up on the right of return. Most Israelis see this single issue as the "make it or break it" aspect of any deal. We broke it and we broke it well. We broke their determination to hold on to the concept of return, and I think that is what makes this whole agreement so hopeful for the people. Previously, Israelis have said we cannot reach peace because we will never agree to the right of return and they will never agree to give it up. But here, they gave up, and that is a lesson that any future government will take. We can reach an agreement without the right of return of refugees."

In the Limelight

Since the Geneva Initiative went public, it has gathered substantial media attention, both in Israel, the territories, and around the world. Kimche said the extraordinary Israeli media attention was somewhat of a surprise, yet understandable in light of the situation. "On one hand, the [Israeli] Prime Minister and government officials made what they should consider a huge mistake in attacking this project so strongly from the outset. That attracted attention - people were saying 'If they are saying these terrible things about it, we had better look at it more carefully.'

"But the people in Israel are fed up. They understand that the military option is a failure. The people are saying, 'the government only knows a military solution, and that's not working - so where do we go from here?' The government has nothing else on the table, so our project is getting attention."

"Also, from the Palestinian side, it was important that two top leaders of the Tanzim, the hardcore leaders of the Fatah movement, gave their complete blessing to this accord. These are people who are revered in the Palestinian street and it gives the agreement tremendous legitimacy among the people. It's also worth noting that the most recent Gallop poll on the Palestinian side said that fifty-five percent of the people support the Geneva accord."

Answering the Critics

A number of criticisms and accusations have been levied at the signers of the Geneva Initiative. Many express outrage that a group of private citizens, led by opposition groups in Parliament, engaged in negotiations with no official mandate. Others say the Initiative simply gives away too much, including specific West Bank settlements, the division of Jerusalem, and sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Kimche addressed each of these criticisms in turn.

"First, chiding us for lack of a mandate misses the point entirely. These were not negotiations; this was an educational exercise to demonstrate to the people of Israel, to the Palestinians, and to our own government, that peace is possible. There is somebody to talk to, and there is something to talk about in order to get peace. After three years of completely standing still, after hundreds of lives lost, we thought we had to demonstrate that the motto of the government - that we have no partners for peace - is a false motto.

"To those who feel we gave up too much, I can assure you that if we had not agreed to this specific formula, there would have been no agreement. After a final four-day marathon of night and day negotiations, I am absolutely positive that we gave up what was necessary. Now the price is high indeed, because we do give up a great deal to the Palestinians. But for the alternative, not having a peace agreement, the price will be much higher.

"Unless we reach an agreement to create an independent Palestinian state, we will be left with one bi-national state. Within five or six years, we, the Jews, will be a minority in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. At that point, there are two alternatives: either we create a single democratic state, in which we will be a minority under the rule of another people; or we continue to rule the country as a minority. This will ultimately lead to an apartheid state, which will be denounced by all and extend the conflict for decades. So we gave up a lot, but it's less than the price we would pay for a bi-national state."

Written by Gilead Light, Israel Policy Forum