click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​




Geneva:  A Blueprint for War

Geneva: A Blueprint for War

It would put Arafat and the Palestinian dictatorship in position to accomplish at last the goal they have never abandoned: the liquidation of Israel.

by

For a must-read, comprehensive analysis of the Geneva Accords, also read: Geneva Fantasy.

The international applause greeting the so-called Geneva Accord -- the unofficial Israeli-Palestinian "peace" agreement formally presented in Switzerland this week -- is a vivid illustration of the world's contempt for the Jewish state. It is also historically alarming. For the fervent acclaim the accord has drawn resembles nothing so much as the jubilation that greeted the Munich Accord of 1938, when Neville Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in order to placate Adolf Hitler.

It is hard to say which is more atrocious, the content of the Geneva document or the process that produced it. Its principal authors are Yasser Abed Rabbo, a longtime lackey of PLO chieftain Yasser Arafat, and Yossi Beilin, the reviled leader of Israel's appeasement lobby. Beilin -- whose far-left Meretz party was trounced so badly in the last election that he lost his seat in parliament -- has no more standing to negotiate with the PLO than Pat Buchanan has to negotiate with North Korea. Buchanan would be scorned if he ever pulled such a stunt. Beilin should be, too.

Even Ehud Barak denounced it. "It is rewarding terror," he said this week. "It will not save lives. It will lead to more deaths."

Instead, he and Rabbo have been treated like heroes. Jimmy Carter and Lech Walesa joined their Geneva ceremony, Nelson Mandela contributed video greetings, and endorsements came in from Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac. A letter of support was signed by 58 former presidents, premiers, and other foreign leaders. Secretary of State Colin Powell not only sent his own letter of encouragement, he is inviting Beilin and Rabbo to meet with him -- a calculated slap at Israel's government, which has strongly condemned the accord.

As well it should. The premise of the Geneva agreement is that Israeli surrender will bring Mideast peace. It would require Israel to relinquish land, weaken its security, and yield tangible assets to the Palestinians. In exchange, the Palestinians would pledge to stop killing Israelis. Sound familiar? It's the 1993 Oslo formula all over again: Israel trades concessions on the ground for unenforceable Arab promises of peace.

It is worth remembering that Oslo, too, was showered with acclaim. The world cheered when Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn. It welcomed the PLO's unequivocal promise to forgo its guns and bombs. "The PLO commits itself . . . to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides," Arafat had vowed in writing, "and declares that all outstanding issues… will be resolved through negotiations. . . The PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence."

For the sake of peace, Israel paid the steep price Oslo demanded. It recognized the PLO, allowed Arafat to take over Gaza and the West Bank, agreed to the creation of a Palestinian militia, and even supplied that militia with weapons. It was appeasement on a scale far beyond Chamberlain's, but Israelis convinced themselves that it was worth it if it would mean an end to Palestinian violence and bloodlust.

But the violence and bloodlust didn't end. Far from ushering in a new era of peace, Oslo launched the worst decade of terrorism in Israel's history. Successive Israeli governments desperately tried to stanch the slaughter with new and deeper concessions. But that only convinced the Palestinians that the Jews were in retreat, and that hitting them harder would yield even greater rewards.

The cycle reached its pinnacle in September 2000, when former Prime Minister Ehud Barak made his unprecedented offer at Camp David: a full-fledged Palestinian state, shared control of Jerusalem, the evacuation of nearly every Jewish settlement -- even Arab sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat's reply was the horrific wave of suicide bombings that have sent nearly 1,000 Israelis to early graves.

So what does Beilin's new "peace plan" propose? To begin with, a full-fledged Palestinian state, shared control of Jerusalem, the evacuation of nearly every Jewish settlement -- even Arab sovereignty over the Temple Mount. It is so breathtakingly delusional that Barak himself has denounced it. "It is rewarding terror," he said this week. "It will not save lives. It will lead to more deaths."

That is exactly right. All the cheering in Geneva notwithstanding, the Beilin-Rabbo plan is a blueprint not for peace but for a cataclysmic war. It would force Israel back to what the late Abba Eban called the "Auschwitz" borders of 1949. It would compel the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Jews. It would create a 23d Arab state by jeopardizing the existence of the world's lone Jewish state. It would put Arafat and the Palestinian dictatorship in position to accomplish at last the goal they have never abandoned: the liquidation of Israel.

In Geneva on Monday, Jimmy Carter lavished praise on the agreement, and suggested that if he had been re-elected in 1980, he could have pushed something like it. "Had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region," he said, "we could have moved to a final solution."

Final solution. If that is Carter's term for what Beilin and Rabbo have put forth, he speaks more truly than he knows.

For a must-read, comprehensive analysis of the Geneva Accords, also read: Geneva Fantasy.

Published: December 6, 2003


Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.

Visitor Comments: 16

(16) charlene, December 11, 2003 12:00 AM

Beverly Kurtin is on target

To recap her comments brings to mind a story I heard when I was young: A gingerbread man (cookie) was running away and he came to a river where a crocodile was basking. The crocodile assured him he would not eat him, besides there was no other way to cross without his help. Anxiously, the gingerbread man took the crocodile's offer and hopped on his back. Before reaching the opposite side, the crocodile turned on his rider, and the gingerbread man yelled, "But, you promised." The crocodile replied: If you had studied up the nature of the crocodile, you never would have talked to me nor come near me. You would have turned in the opposite direction and ran for your life. It is not for us to put our trust in man, but in HaShem alone.

(15) Anonymous, December 10, 2003 12:00 AM

Great piece

The world is extremely blind as far as the Palestinians is concerned. They are very good with lies and propaganda.
It is unbelievable why so many believe the lies and forget what have already happened in the past. The Arabs should have taken in the Palestinians just like woe absorbed the Jews that came out of the Arab land. No one wants the Palestinians even in Jordan what is most Palestinians. You do never reward terrorist by giving them land. There goal is to drive every Jew into the see and kill us all. Wake up before it is too late.

(14) Dani Miller, December 10, 2003 12:00 AM

Arab sovereignty over the Temple Mount?

Shows how far this is from the biblical roadmap. Unless the plan involves building the 3rd temple it's not going to get G-d's vote.

(13) Anonymous, December 9, 2003 12:00 AM

Where can I read the text of the Geneva Accords?

I haven’t had a chance to read the Geneva Accord document and would like to do so before forming an opinion. Is it available online somewhere?

(12) Anonymous, December 9, 2003 12:00 AM

Has It Been Suggested?

HELP!! I agree with everyone! The Palestinians are suffering. So are Israelis. How will this cycle stop? I have two questions. Could someone enlighten me?

Why couldn't the Palestinians have their own country sooner rather than later? If they continued their terrorist ways, then Israel would be able to simply declare war against a hostile state. Perhaps this would be easier?

I never see anything about Jordan giving up some of its ample land to help make the Palestinians' lives easier or more contiguous. Why not?

Toda raba in advance...

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub