News, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Palestinians still far from united in support of Geneva Accord
Jerusalem, right of return remain issues of contention
Refugees’ advocate: ‘I advise those who sign the agreement to rethink it,
because they still have a chance to do so before it is too late’
Walid Batrawi
Special to The Daily Star, 11/28/03
RAMALLAH: The debate among Palestinians over the
Geneva Accord has heated up days before the agreement’s architects are set
to fly to Switzerland for the official announcement of the peace proposal.
The accord was drafted by Palestinian political figures and members of the
Israeli leftist opposition, spearheaded by former Palestinian Minister
Yasser Abed Rabbo and former Israeli Minister Yossi Beilin, one of the
architects of the Oslo Accords 10 years ago.
While some Palestinians view the understandings more positively than the
“road map” peace plan, others argue that it adds to the concessions
Palestinians are giving to Israel.
Palestinian Minister of State Qadoura Faris, who played a key role in
drafting the accord, explained that “this is not an official accord unlike
what is said, we are not going to sign an agreement but rather announce
these understandings that were reached in Jordan last October.
“The main goal for us is to show to the whole world that there is a partner.
These understandings are only a model of what could turn into an agreement
between Palestinians and Israelis.”
According to Faris, the initiative “does not only express the willingness of
people on both sides to reach peace but to know what type of peace they
want, where both can co-exist.”
More importantly, Faris said he believed that “these understandings draw the
borders of a viable future Palestinian state with geographical continuity,
administrated by Palestinians … We did not invent these understandings,” he
added. “They came as a result of previous agreements and talks. We took the
positive elements of previous agreements and tried to examine the elements
that went wrong, so as to avoid them in the future.”
Speaking at a conference on the accord organized by Bir Zeit University
Institute of Law, Faris criticized the Palestinians leadership. “We are now
paying the price of the failure of the Palestinian leadership to develop its
public discourse,” he said.
“When we signed the Oslo (Accords) with Israel, our political agendas
changed by default, but we did not change our public discourse. The
Palestinian leadership is always repeating the same rhetoric as if we are
still living in the 1970s, in particular when we address the issue of
Palestinian refugees.”
However, many conference participants expressed their disapproval at how the
Geneva Accord was reached. Even those who support reaching an agreement with
the Israelis expressed their dissatisfaction.
Wafaa Salem, who works for a women’s organization in Ramallah, said: “I
totally support these understandings; however, we go to talks with the
Israeli side assuming that we are equals in duties and rights. It is not
true. We are the weak party and they can totally take advantage of our
weakness to impose their own conditions, confronting us with the option of
either taking it or leaving it.”
Advocates of the accord were confronted with angry rebuttals, particularly
from the staunch defenders of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
According to the agreement, both sides “recognize that, in the context of
two independent states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace,
an agreed resolution of the refugee problem is necessary for achieving a
just, comprehensive and lasting peace between them.
“The parties recognize that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194,
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and the articles of the Arab
Peace Initiative concerning the rights of the Palestinian refugees,
represent the basis for resolving the refugee issue.”
Based on this, Palestinian “refugees shall be entitled to compensation for
their refugee status and for loss of property. This shall not prejudice or
be prejudiced by the refugee’s permanent place of residence.”
Refugees will have the choice of either going to the newly created
Palestinian state, returning to areas in Israel being transferred to
Palestine in the land swap, moving to Israel (subject to Israel’s approval),
or staying in present host countries (subject to the sovereign discretion of
these countries).
“Priority in all the above shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee
population in Lebanon,” the accord states.
Although some Palestinians believe the agreement reached on the issue of the
refugees is fair, taking into consideration the changes that have taken
place internationally, others still see the right of return as the only
solution.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee for Refugees in the Ramallah area, Abu
Ali Miqbel described the document as “part of the chain of concessions
Palestinians are giving to Israel and a retreat from the resolutions of the
international legitimacy that will deprive millions of refugees from their
basic right the right of return.”
Miqbel said those responsible for the accord ought to revisit their ideas.
“No one is allowed to play with the destiny of others for personal political
interests. I advise those who will sign the agreement to rethink it, because
they still have a chance to do so before it is too late.”
Jerusalem is another issue of disagreement. Under the accord, both parties
“recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual and cultural
significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. In recognition of this status, the parties reaffirm
their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness and freedom of worship
in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions
and traditional practices between different denominations.”
Jerusalem, the document reads, shall be mutually recognized as the capital
of two states. As for religious sites, most notably the Al-Haram al-Sharif,
or Temple Mount, “an international group composed of the Implementation and
Verification Group (IVG), including members of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) shall establish a multinational presence on the
compound to deal with security and observation.”
Criticism of the accord is not only of political nature, but also legal.
Attorney Mahmoud Hammad questioned the “legality of these understandings, or
any agreement reached between two nonequivalent parties one with a free
hand over all aspects of Palestinians life and the other with a stolen
will.”
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python (Alquds, 1/25/03. |
 |