Geneva.
It was here, eight years ago, that the famous Geneva Plan, conceived and signed by prominent figures of Palestinian and Israeli civil society, with the support of Swiss and French citizens, was launched.
And it is here on the 22nd of November, at the same university, perhaps before the same people, that we find, as we did then, the main protagonists from the two camps, apparently steadfast despite the freeze in all negotiations.
A speech by the President of the Helvetian Confederation, Micheline Calmy-Rey, telling why, just weeks before leaving office, she wished to hold this evening of commemoration and revival.
The intervention of Yossi Beilin, Israeli instigator of the initiative, explaining once again that, in order to escape the dreadful spiral of fanatacism and hate, there is no other choice than to accept, on one side and the other, the painful sacrifice of a portion of our respective dreams.
This seconded by Rabbi Yitzhak Vaknin, leader of the religious party, Shas, and Vice Presdent of the Knesset, reminding us that the sole alternative to peace would be the transformation of Israel into a bi-national State that would renounce, by that very fact, the Jewish character that is at the heart of its conception.
And a lyric flight on the part of Yasser Abed Rabbo, Beilin's Palestinian partner, in his response to a student reproaching him for having abandoned the "right of return" for the refugees of 1948, their children and their grandchildren, and, in doing so, having sold out the sacred interests of his people. "It's just the opposite!" he exclaims. "It's quite exactly the opposite! This renunciation of an unrealistic right was, and remains, the only means of avoiding a new Nakba, in other words, a new catastrophe!"
As for me, I am trying to figure out the different ways not only to commemorate this fine initiative of 2003, but to pursue it, enrich it, and make it achieve its ends one day.
When one has done all you have done, I say, in substance, to Beilin and Rabbo, when one is at the origin of such a stroke of courage and political genius, when one is one of the authors of a plan which is the only one anyone has come up with that maintains that the co-existence of two peoples is, beyond desirable, possible -- in short, when one possesses this idea of an accord whose minute details have been worked out, there are three ways, not four, to accomplish it.
There is the Kantian path, perhaps the prophetic one: an idea, yes, a grand and magnificent idea which towers over the confused and uncertain tentatives to find a way forward. A reference, a standard, a firmly-rooted idea, or a statue of Commander of Ideas enabling us to judge, to measure, I'm tempted to say to evaluate, the efforts of politicians, their more or less sincere tentative steps, their trials and errors.
There is the apostolic or, if one prefers, democratic path: take the idea out of mothballs, propagate it, spread it, seek to make a maximum of people, in Israel, Palestine, and throughout the world, adhere to a project in which not one parcel of desert, not one olive grove, not one pebble has not been fiercely negotiated. In other terms, bring the idea down to earth and, in a long term sense, convert an increasing number of men and women of good will.
And then there is the path in which you, friends and authors of the plan, commit yourselves, if you choose to place yourselves in the hands of kings, to the role of those the history of ideas calls the Saint-Simonians. You seek the king of the Idea, the man or the woman who will be its most enlightened spokesman, and you place it in his or her hands, leaving it as a legacy and in trust, counting on that person to embody it, and thereby make it part, one day, of the letter of a treaty.
Need I add that I would opt for the combination of the three options, and that on that day, this is what I recommended?
Option n° 1 involves other meetings like this one, where we will be satisfied to be the keepers of the flame (which is quite a lot already, and even more if such meetings can be held in Tel Aviv or Ramallah).
Option n° 2 is to spread the good word, one on one, of course, but also through the media, the social networks, the Net (all these tools of propagation whose immense efficiency we observed in the opening hours of the Arab revolutions), and thus further the rising of the good wind of a spring of Peace.
Solution n° 3, finally is to seek out, convince, and perhaps persuade Gideon and Saul, the new Sadat or the new Begin, those in charge in America, Europe, and the UN who are capable of adopting the idea (and, in adopting it, making it their own, to pursue it til the day it triumphs).
We must try everything. Put everything out there. For at the crossroads of these three paths, faithful to the spirit of Geneva, we have a rendezvous with peace.
The election result in Egypt is the best answer to your question.
Minimally, Hamas is getting a boost from the rise of the islamists and salafists in the region and even the more secular/pragmatic west bank is sensing the swing towards fundamentalist Islam in the region.
What this does is give rise to hopes for one more pan arab attack on Israel with the same goal as always---the extermination of Israel.
I hope I'm wrong.
With due respect to Mr. Levy, No Sadat, Begin, Moses, Jesus, Obama or any one in the world will get any Israeli leader to accept a viable Palestinian State, no matter what they offer Israel. The Israelis got used to making a good living occupying the Palestinians, and they are not going to give it up. The Pro-Israel media is collaborating with the Republicans to get rid of Obama because Obama suggested a viable state for the Palestinians.
"When was the last time you heard on the news that atheist rebels attacked the agnostic stronghold today"
The fact is, that Israel had no major natural resources. No gold, oil, water, trees, coal nor iron, or even much cultivable land! Why would a rational, intelligent people claim an otherwise worthless strip of land unless they really believed it was their lost homeland?
In both situations it is the actor who wants to take it. The person who deflects the responsibility to a deity is either lying to themselves, or lying to someone else, when they deny the spark for their behavior is their personal desire.
It might be a desire for salvation, glory, recognition, respect or just land, but it is ultimately selfish, not divine.
Regardless, I think that solving the I/P issue directly would be infinitely easier than trying to rid the world of religion and then (wrongly) assuming that all conflicts would end.
The two most recent wars the US initiated were both religiously motivated.
Stupidity is to do exactly same thing again and again and again and again..... and expect different result next time you try.
Palestinians are not stupid. Israel wants land not peace.
Architect for Peace
Introduction to Middle East Peace
Architect for Peace - Chapter 1 - The Land
Architect for Peace - Chapter 2 - The UN Mandate
Architect for Peace - Chapter 3 - The Peace Treaty
Architect for Peace - Chapter 4 - The Right of Return
Architect for Peace - Chapter 5 - Jerusalem
Architect for Peace - Chapter 6 - The Palestinian Government
Architect for Peace - Chapter 7 - Resources and Reconstruction
What is YOUR plan?
The UN did not know what to do, so they put the idea of a Partition of Palestine into a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state" to a vote in the General Assembly. It passed and became UNGAR 181. But the ARabs violently rejected the results of the vote and swore to drive any declared Jewish state into the sea. They tried and 6,000 Jews died in the resulting war, but they failed.
The war caused some 750,000 Arabs to flee, while 145,000 chose to remain. The Arabs retaliated by pushing some 856,000 Jews out of their countries after 1948. So what is there to negotiate about? The Jews won; the Arabs lost. What is there to talk about?
I guess you missed that class.....hehehe
The course of history is long, and it bends towards justice.
No matter how I parse this statement, it makes no sense. Maybe it is a bad translation from another language. Another alternative to peace is continuing the status quo or attacking Iran or expelling all non Jews from the West Bank. If Levy and Vaknin think that the worst thing about a one state solution is that Israel will lose its "Jewish character", not that the Arabs will then exterminate the Jews at worst, or at best force them into Dhimmitude, then they are way ahead of a good many of their coreligionists. Maybe they are secretly thinking how to implement a one state solution so that the resulting country would work.
They don't just want to prevent Muslims from having a say in the Israeli state, they would percieve even a state dominated by secular Jews to be a tragedy of biblical proportions (pun intended).
Thanks god it's not true. It would so boring to live in such society.
I'm realistic!!
Diversity it's clearly the world's salt. The concept is simple and logic. If you have a space relation you will notice immediately a conflict for domination between its parts. This kind of conflict arises in every kind of space: Territorial, sentimental, educational, political, financial, commercial, etc.
It's like all human behavior draws an orbit around its very personal care instead being orbiting around humanity's wellness. As a family taking care of its members.
Maybe I'm not able to explain my point of view, but please, if you understand a minimum of what I'm writing, help me put its meaning into right words. Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately, it's not palestinians who decide their future but rather their powerful sponsors in the ME including Iran and Saudi Arabia who use them as pawns to cover their problems by scapegoating Israel.
Maybe things would get better if the Orthodox Muslims and Ultra-Orthodox Jews just got together and directed their anger against the secularists, since they share so many of the same ideals. The enemy of my enemy and all of that...
I take it back, the last thing we need is the most intolerant of each society reinforcing each other. I don't want to have to give up my shrimp chips.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/women-petition-against-back-of-bus-rule-1.211120
"The practice of segregating the sexes on public transport has raised the ire of non-observant and more modern Orthodox women increasingly faced with requests from male passengers to give up their seats in the fronts of buses. "
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/orthodox-irate-over-women-rabbis-prayer-at-western-wall-1.270935
""There were about 70 of us praying when someone from the men's section started shouting that 'a woman's voice is lewd' and that our singing was offensive," said Anat Hoffman"
http://english.themarker.com/ultra-orthodox-bar-women-from-major-jerusalem-economic-conference-1.372945
"It is yet another indicator of the dangerous escalation of the ultra-Orthodox endorsement of a sexist and racist agenda... The exclusion of women from full participation in public spaces is anathema to the concept of democratic representation."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/idf-must-fight-ultra-orthodox-extremism-1.392029
"There had already been incidents where male soldiers refused to serve under female instructors and officers, and women have been segregated at a training school's swimming pool. Another time, officer candidates left a ceremony because women were singing."