A two-pronged approach to peace
I am not disillusioned. I think the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was foolish and that an interim agreement is also undesirable. If it were up to me, I would undoubtedly prefer to reach a full peace agreement now.
By Yossi Beilin Tags: Middle East peaceAri Shavit believes that the root of all evil in the negotiations with the Palestinians is the notion that only a full peace deal is acceptable, and has noted "to my credit" that even I have abandoned this approach. (Haaretz, September 2). He is wrong.
Since its establishment, Israel has sought full peace agreements with all its neighbors. That was the path of mainstream Zionism, with the intention of ensuring that the Jewish state would not be a foreign body in the region. That was the aim of the Camp David Accords in 1978, which referred to an agreement with the Palestinians after five years of self-rule.
When I started the Oslo process, my aim was to overcome obstacles in the talks in Washington between Israel and the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation, and to agree on the parameters of an interim agreement leading to a permanent settlement within five years. I proposed to the late Yitzhak Rabin that we seize the opportunity and try to begin negotiations on a permanent settlement, but he rejected this, saying that if such negotiations failed, it would not be possible to talk about an interim agreement and we would lose out both ways.
Immediately after the signing of the Oslo Accords, I began talks with Mahmoud Abbas on a statement of principles for a peace agreement. The work was completed after two years. Then-prime minister Shimon Peres rejected the document. Benjamin Netanyahu, as prime minister, did everything in his power to avoid reaching the moment of truth of a permanent settlement.
Ehud Barak, who was elected in 1999, wanted to reach a permanent settlement, but refused an American proposal to put what was then called the Beilin-Abu Mazen Document (though it was not a signed document) on the negotiating table at Camp David. The talks with the Palestinians failed because both sides did not try hard enough to reach a permanent agreement.
After the talks on a permanent settlement did not succeed, I proposed to Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Palestinian minister of information, to maintain an informal channel to prepare a detailed proposal for a permanent settlement, and prove to the two peoples that every issue could be resolved. That is the Geneva Initiative, signed seven years ago by a group of Israeli and Palestinian notables; it became the only detailed document acceptable to a large constituency of Israelis and Palestinians.
The prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, decided on a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. This withdrawal completely contradicted the spirit of the Geneva Initiative, but I supported it nonetheless because I understood that this was what Sharon was prepared to do, and that it was preferable to leave Gaza with Sharon than wait for another prime minister. Had Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, continued down the unilateral path, I would have supported him. Happily, for me, he attempted the bigger move, but it too was a far cry from the agreements we reached in the Geneva Initiative, and the Palestinians were not enthusiastic about it.
Netanyahu was elected a second time, unfortunately. He is miles away from a peace agreement along the lines of the Clinton parameters or the Geneva Initiative. Im not sure he's prepared for an interim agreement, but to me it seems more practical than futile talks about security, the environment, water and the Jewish character of the State of Israel. That's why I propose trying the partial move.
I am not disillusioned. I think the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was foolish and that an interim agreement is also undesirable. If it were up to me, I would undoubtedly prefer to reach a full peace agreement now.
The question is whether it is preferable to wait for a prime minister who is prepared to pay the price of peace, or do the most that is possible right now. I prefer not to wait.
 |
U.S. President Barack Obama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Sept. 1, 2010 |
| Photo by: Reuters |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Bailin and his ilk want Israel to have an 'interim' peace like there is with Hezbollastan (formerly Lebanon...RIP).
Why does the author always talk about paying for peace it is an oxymoron. Furthermore, the man on the street who goes to work is expected to do his job properly. The boss doesn't want to hear excuses why the paperwork is not done properly. Yet the author suggests that we should accept half measures when it comes to our lives? Sounds like a sorry excuse for failure.
Zionist leaders want an "israeli imposed peace plan"" but they refuse an internationally imposed peace plan in which the palestinian people find at least the minimum of their rights.Now the whole world knows the obstacle for peace and the initiator of a WWIII.
As opposed to writing incitement and lies. Israel is not rounding up Palestinians, confiscating all of their belongings, putting them into forced labor camps, killing them in the cheapest way possible, extracting their teeth once their dead, then burning their bodies. But of course to people like you a day at the amusement park is also the same thing as a holocuast.
So if you don't get EVERYTHING YOU WANT, you will start WWIII. What rights do you have, exactly?? You lost all your rights by attacking the JEWISH State four times. I believe, after you get your land, you will attack the JEWISH State for a FIFTH time. Sorry, Israel isn't taking that chance. Israel DOESN'T TRUST your intentions.
I TRULY WISH THAT YOSSI WOULD ENTER THE REAL WORLD....MAYBE IF HE LIVED (AS I DID) WITH THE 5 TO 15 % OF ARABS WHO HATE JEWS AND WANT ISRAEL DESTROYED HIS VIEWS WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT.
individuals, however notable, have no right to negotiate in the name of soverign states. there can be no agreements of any kind between israel and the palestinians unless they are negotiated directly between the representatives of the two parties. the geneva initiative has caused enormous harm to the peace process. it has raised the stakes to unrealistic levels.
Beilin's kooky views have been repudiated and marginalized by the Israeli electorate. I agree, the Geneva farce was negotiated between parties who weren't evenn in power, rendering it meaningless. However, it did cause enormous harm to the peace process (whatever that means). Beilin is a self-promoter who should keep quiet, since others are now cleaning up the mess of Oslo he caused. Millions of Israelis agree.
Yossi Beilin and his team at Oslo underestimated Arafat's position but now we have a genuine player in Abu Ma'azen.Only we have another slippery leader in BB.Can he really deliver a peace deal even if he agrees one with Abu Ma'azen ? Is he really prepared to compromise on settlements abd J'lem ? BB is managing the talks and balancing his coalition to stay in power and work on the Palestinians to have their own "economic miracle" and therefore put statehood on ice.
Contrary to Beilin's arrogant belief that only the left want peace in the world, his efforts have pushed the possibilities of peace more remote as he has constantly made two major mistakes. One is that he does not hold Arabs responsible for their major mistakes that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Israelis. And two, he has not supported the fundamental reasons that Jews are connected to this land. Dr Beilin has instilled doubt in the minds of many Jews about their heritage and at the same time has given hope to Israel's enemies that Jews can be further divided from within. Thank you for nothing Mr. Beilin. Why can you not understand that you have done more than your fair share of damage?
The problem, Yossi, is convincing the Palestinians that interim has an endpoint. They have experienced Oslo, too. And the US and EU would need convincing since the US and EU pick up the tab for Oslo, not to mention the UN for UNRWA. Abbas is your best opportunity in the history of the conflict. And he's not getting any younger or any less skeptical. And you have Lieberman and Netanyahu and their credibility. That is not exactly a "trust us" formula.
Beilin talks about his own initiation of Oslo and later deals, and without mentioning Peres at all. Beilin was Peres' Deputy Foreign Minister, and convinced his boss of the good ideas. I guess Peres deserves recognition, but not really a Nobel Prize. He was not as consistent in the pursuit of peace as Beilin was, and not so creative. In fact, under Peres the Labor party got into a coalition with Shamir for six years, and these were wasted as far as peace is concerned. An earlier sin was that when Peres was Defense Minister in the 1974-77 first Rabin government, he approved of settlements and got Samaria on the ground.
Most of the countries in the world has borders determined by wars, battles. The Israel neighbours must accept that they have lost all the wars they had initiated and there is a price to pay. Palestine already exists: Jordan is Palestine.
Then Ralph, the residents of Ramallah and Jericho deserve Israeli citizenship since you claim that as Israel. Do as was done in 48. make them all citizens and live with it.
As for borders being determined by wars...think again. The US for example LEGALLY ANNEXED territory for Mexico. The Brits LEGALLY ANNEXED the Falklands. This was BEFORE the UN (1945). Territories 'acquired by war must be LEGALLY annexed, i.e., by agreement. Bilaterally. Only sovereign territories may be 'reclaimed' by war, i.e., defensive.
WHY didn't the Arabs (they weren't "Palestinians") want their State from Jordan from '48-'67. It was there for the asking, wasn't it. Same reason they never wanted a State (Camp David, all the way back). Just because you throw around resolutions doesn't make it so. Answer my question, why was there no State in the period of Jordanian control ??
1.For as long as the devil rules the earth, there can be no Peace in The Middle East or elsewhere. 2.The Devil must be destroyed by The Messiah Jesus Christ in order to set man free from bondage. 3.Talks, initiatives, dialogues, agreements, discussions and debates will never persuade The Messiah to come down from heaven. Nor will smart talks persuade The Devil to go to hell. 4.Only the divine food of Five Loaves can entice both Fish (Devil and Messiah) to confront each other in the penultimate battle of Megiddo. 5.To the delight of the hungry multitude, the Moshiachs Meal of Five Loaves and Two Fish also preemptively ends 6,000 years of waiting for a Messiah and ends 1,940 years of weeping the loss of a temple. Regards from the small boy.
You have caused so much blood and death to Jews already - get out of our lives, you horrible awful man. Just disappear already!
Nothing new, still on the pay-roll of Geneva Initiative or how the Swiss drives us to war.
Frankly, I don't know what makes "Jews" like Belin tick. The various media personalities are also a puzzle to me. I know on one level that it has do with frothing of Leftists as they go to ridiculous heights to enhance the "underdogs", even if the underdog is evil. So, perhaps, it has to do with the fascination that many have for evil-- the thrills and chills of doing something that is destructive of authority/tradition in a socially acceptable way. I just can't get it out of my head that this upside down world has less to do with a moral crisis and more to do with a fascination for evil.
if you took the heroic effort of trying to understand evil (them) and good (you) in less stark, simplistic categories. what's more likely, that the world is upside down or that you've misperceived some critical element?
which is not partial withdrawal, but similar to that which the Geneva Initiative implies - the 1967 border with minor exchanges. There's nothing really to talk about Oslo when the West Bank was settled more than double the amounts of settlements since then.
If a person was prone to believing that Israel seriously wants peace, it is hard to imagine why they would believe that of the current peace talk farce. First of all, any peace that may take place will require a massive Israeli withdrawal from the west bank. This will cause major domestic strife within Israel, the government would likely fall, and the Israeli leader would have right wing Israelis after him in a bad way. In exchange for this, Hamas, who is not part of this agreement will likely increase the number of attacks on Israel until Israel was forced to make a serious response. This peace would last less than a week, there would be bodies everywhere, and both sides would swear off peace for at least a decade. This is an obvious minimum result of the current talks, if and only if they bear fruit. This will never happen, because Israel knows what the response will be and they really want to avoid it and continue settlement expansion instead. The problem is America and the EU. In order to get them of Israels back Israel must appear to make a serious peace attempt which will be scuttled by the Palestinians. Result? best of both worlds. Israel gets full credit for making peace, collects concessions from America and the EU, and continues settlement expansion. What a deal!! Anyway, to see Yossi Beilin treat this in a serious manner makes me believe that he needed an article treating it in a serious manner so he provided that article. he can't really believe it though.
Israel can't afford Sarid andYossi Beilin. I think a wise idea wouldbe to exile the two of them together with Ahmadjacket to the same location. They can negotiate there, give interviews and conduct press-conferences while leaving Israel alone. Sounds like a good, constructive diplomatic move! Bet you, there are plenty of American foundations which would spring for a grant for each them. That'll give them some seed mone to organize while freeing up Israel's resources to deal with the problems created in the wake of their activities of the past 20+ years.
So you're position is; peace is impossible and must be avoided at all costs because Hamas is against it. Yeah - that's a great policy - for anti humans
I could read the same thing from Dennis Ross.
President Obama, the Quartet and the Arab League should put on the table a bridging solution, that everybody knows what its parameters are (more or less Geneva Initiative map). This should be a good reason for elections in Israel and PA. Hopefully the electorate will vote for parties supporting the plan. Interim solutions will bring only more settlements and more power to rejectionists on the Palestinian side.
I do think that at the current moment, Kadima will do better against Likud than it did in the elections last year.
To them, the Kotel is a pile of rocks. No thanks,
The Israeli voters banished you and your views. They led only to disaster for Israel. Yet, like Sarid, you continue to rear your head. Will you please disappear already. Your damage has been immeasurable.
I totally agree. Beilin helped Israel like a band-aid helps a cold. Nothing- Ziltch- Nada. Go home Beilin.
The Palestinians oppose an interim agreement, and they are right. They have seen in Oslo how an interim agreement is stretched longer and longer, then undermined, by the extremists on both sides. The time is right now for a pressure on Israel to complete the deal: Obama promised it to the Palestinians or to get them a unilateral state. The rest of the world is also more inclined to put sanctions on Israel, cultural and others, if Netanyahu undermines the peace talks. This means that the average Israeli will feel the consequences of failure to make peace, and will then vote Likud out of office. I will remind Beilin that he himself gained his influence following the US putting some sanctions on Shamir, getting the Israelis to throw him out and vote for Rabin. This is the time to push for peace, not to delay the day of reckoning.
Resulted in Israel refusing to engage in 'final status' negotiations while expoentially expanding Settlement construction. Interim Settlement means get screwed.
Should Israel settle for ANY deal, no matter how one-sided?? What if Abbas undermines the prace talks, by not getting EVERYTHING he wants (Arab style of negotiation)??? Should Israel agree to a suicidal deal, that places the Arab (Hamas) boot at every Israelis neck. Is that your idea of Peace??