Geneva Agreement: Attaining National Provisions Or A Contract Of Free Submission?

Ahmad Saadat     Al-Hayat     2003/11/7

In light of the challenges that our Arabs nations are facing today, amidst the new American-Zionist imperialist interests that were elicited by the invasion of Iraq, we Arabs must reformulate the dynamism of struggle to obstruct this new kind of imperialism. In light of the heightening of tensions prompted on our people by Zionism, after Sharon came to power in Israel where he chose to empower himself by opening a front against our people leaving all options open, we Arabs must endorse our national identities by preserving our unity, legitimacy, sovereignty and safeguarding our resources.

Amidst all these exceptional circumstances that the region faces today - the invasion of Iraq that made it possible for Sharon to amplify his policies of constant aggression to attain exceptional strategic victories. This being so by solidifying the consent of reaching a political settlement based on discarding the Palestinian's right of return, and further solidifying the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Within these perpetual circumstances, augmented by the strong resistance in Palestine and Iraq there was a need for a compromise, and the "Geneva agreement" came about as a scuffmark for a political understanding dealing with the essence of the Arab Palestinian-Zionist struggle. The "Geneva agreement" was labeled as a tactical advancement on the level of negotiations, which sought to identify the core elements or principles in this struggle, and signified the essence of historical interests between our people and the Palestinians living in Palestine. The "Geneva agreement" dealt with two main issues of intrinsic national concern: the right of return, the nature of the state of Israel, in addition to the final settlement in the peace process.

While reading this document, one can simply say that this project is irresponsible, irrational, and unacceptable. It leaves no room for illicit interpretation cancellation or modification. For this is the first Palestinian document, whereby the people who signed this document gave up the provisions of international and national legitimacy paving the way for the long historical Zionist dream. Therefore this agreement presents no model for any fundamental political activity, nor does it in any way preserve our sovereignty and independence. This agreement is in no way compatible with UN Resolution 194, which guarantees the right of return of our people to their lands. The proposed suggestions at hand denied strongly the right of return, placing this right in the context of humanitarian gestures, which our enemy could cope and deal with. The abdication of this right severs to strongly intensify the international recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. This recognition not only serves as a dead end of the right of return but raises the question of what is going to happen to more than 1.25 million of our people who remained in their lands, and who sacrificed their blood to attain their identities. These people that are now facing all kinds of ethnic and racial segregation that is challenging their identify and existence.

The right of return is regarded as a core factor in the Palestinian cause and it is clearly outlined in the Un resolution 194, therefore it is in this context a national icon and a symbolic bridge between the Palestinians in Palestine and the rest of the Arab world. Relinquishing this rights means demolishing this bridge and surrendering to the Zionist imperialist program, and impeding any chance for a democratic settlement based on the facts from the long historical Arab-Zionist struggle. This resolution should not be superceded in any sense because it signifies the end of the reasons of struggle. It is natural therefore to say that renunciation of Resolution 194 will lead to a deviation from all issues of major concern. With regard to sovereignty all previous agreements were clears that under international law our people had the right for independence in their own Palestinian state, starting with the right of conducing their own foreign policy, establishing diplomatic and cultural relations with other countries, and their right for an army for self defense or to oppose any foreign intervention that might threaten the sovereignty or independence of the Palestinian state. The new "Geneva agreement" depicts the Palestinian state as a protectorate, deprived of any icons of independence.

The "Geneva agreement" dealt with the issue of border disputes without regard to Palestinian interests, and the exchange of land that was imposed by Israel was successful in attaining its goals with regard to the settlements as being major gains prior to 1967. By this Israel would have withdrawn to the territories it chooses in compliance with the agreement and not the territories it is supposed to withdrawn from. This in truth signifies the end the end of the Israeli occupation and establishes in the agenda a base for compromise and not for a final settlement for this historical dispute. Here I am obliged to ask this question: if the representatives at the "Geneva agreement" worked hard to attain a final settlement and a permanent historical reconciliation, and not just a temporary compromise why wasn't it based on fundamental facts that Israel sought to implement on the ground by force? Wasn't there an international paradigm that could be regarded to as such to achieve a radical democratic solution without the notion of giving up any rights?

Regarding the issue of Jerusalem, the Geneva agreement represents nothing but a failure on that front. Within the abdication of this strategic right, there is possibly a strategic gain for the Israeli's that is of no lesser importance. Israel is now an active partner in the new plan for the Middle East - hegemony over the Arab as a byproduct of the American invasion of Iraq, and tearing down the Palestinian resistance through the Roadmap.

Tactically the "Geneva agreement" came to reproduce the defeated trends of negotiations that proved along all these years in the negotiations of Madrid and Oslo. Whereby our cause had been used as a voting strategy in the Israeli ballots of the labor party. This tactic was used to bolster Perez's campaign, and then came Netanyahu to make things worse. The result was the wye-river agreement, which tangled further the hands of the Palestinians. In any sense this new "Geneva agreements" no guarantees for its implementation just as much as it is going to be used as a border picture in the Israeli upcoming elections.

The greatest and most intrinsic threat that has direct repercussions is the internal situation that needs remodeling based on clear-cut visions based on democratic institutions that caters the social mind of the Palestinians. The Geneva agreements represented nothing but political chaos amidst turbulent circumstances. The people who signed the "Geneva agreement" should be accountable in front of the central legislative committee. Yasser Arafat being the chair of this committee should discuss this matter with Yasser Abed Rabbo, within this context the "Geneva agreement" should be rejected.

* Mr. Saadat is Secretary General of Palestinian National Front for Liberation, currently imprisoned in Jericho.