Switzerland and the Geneva Accord: Undermining the Rule of Law

[DuctapeFatwa]

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly denounces Switzerland’s involvement and endorsement of the so-called “Geneva Accord.”<1> PCHR asserts that Switzerland’s support of the Geneva Accord contradicts its duties both as the depository of the Geneva Conventions<2> and as a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention).

The Geneva Accord and International Humanitarian Law

The “Geneva Accord” an unofficial “peace proposal” drafted and endorsed by a group of Palestinian leaders and Israelis, including former members of the Israeli government,<3> with the sponsorship of the Swiss Foreign Ministry, was released in October 2003 and promoted as “the realization of the permanent status peace component envisaged in…the Quartet Roadmap process.”<4> The document is intended to give a detailed and comprehensive over-view of the “compromises” that are required<5> for “reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis”<6> to occur. The Geneva Accord has been marketed as a “breakthrough” in peace negotiations. However, PCHR asserts that the document’s “recommendations” undermine the fundamental individual and collective rights of Palestinians and undermine the rule of law by circumventing Israel’s obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In direct contravention of the spirit and provisions of international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention<7>, the Geneva Accord does not require Israel to withdraw from all lands occupied since 1967, including relinquishing all land confiscated for settlement use and the removal of Jewish settlers. Furthermore, the model of the future Palestinian “state” that the Geneva Accord envisions allows for the continued violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in that it negates the fundamental right of Palestinians to self-determination and the right to self-defense<8>. The Accord further effectively rescinds the right of return of approximately 5 million Palestinian refugees by affording the government of Israel the ability to veto any and all requests from Palestinian refugees to return to his or her home in what is now the territory of Israel.<9>

http://www.pchrgaza.org/Interventions/possi.htm

[Jim Sagle]

1. Huh?

:boring:

[Darranar]

2. Interesting, but I disagree...

In direct contravention of the spirit and provisions of international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention<7>, the Geneva Accord does not require Israel to withdraw from all lands occupied since 1967, including relinquishing all land confiscated for settlement use and the removal of Jewish settlers.

This is a problem, but it is not good enough a reason to reject the Geneva Accord.

A map of the border envisioned by the Geneva Accord can be found here.

A depiction of that border as it concerns Jerusalem can be found here.

Furthermore, the model of the future Palestinian “state” that the Geneva Accord envisions allows for the continued violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in that it negates the fundamental right of Palestinians to self-determination and the right to self-defense<8>.

Not really. The Palestinian state will have the right to self-defense, and will have a security force usable for that purpose.

The Accord further effectively rescinds the right of return of approximately 5 million Palestinian refugees by affording the government of Israel the ability to veto any and all requests from Palestinian refugees to return to his or her home in what is now the territory of Israel.<9>

This is the best the palestinians are going to get. It may not be just, but there is nothing else Israel will accept.

For those interested, here is the full text of the Geneva Accord.

[Darranar]

4. Defense Characteristics of the Palestinian State

3. Defense Characteristics of the Palestinian State

i. No armed forces, other than as specified in this Agreement, will be deployed or stationed in Palestine.

ii. Palestine shall be a non-militarized state, with a strong security force. Accordingly, the limitations on the weapons that may be purchased, owned, or used by the Palestinian Security Force (PSF) or manufactured in Palestine shall be specified in Annex X. Any proposed changes to Annex X shall be considered by a trilateral committee composed of the two Parties and the MF. If no agreement is reached in the trilateral committee, the IVG may make its own recommendations.

a. No individuals or organizations in Palestine other than the PSF and the organs of the IVG, including the MF, may purchase, possess, carry or use weapons except as provided by law.

iii. The PSF shall: a. Maintain border control; b. Maintain law-and-order and perform police functions; c. Perform intelligence and security functions; d. Prevent terrorism; e. Conduct rescue and emergency missions; and f. Supplement essential community services when necessary.

iv. The MF shall monitor and verify compliance with this clause.

Link provided in post #2.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Like so many things, it depends on the goal

That first one you cite makes it a non-starter, both from the standpoint of being legally sound and also in the practical aspect of will it fly on the street.

If what is sought is a short-term photo-op kind of thing for US elections, pretty much anything you can get people to sign will do.

If the goal were a lasting and peaceful solution,) which of course, it's not, in Palestine or anywhere, because that would not be supportive of business interests) then the Geneva Accord 'ain't nothin' but shit.'

Even if the geography were ok, which it's not, in the absence of military parity, any language about Palestinian right to self-defense is meaningless. Either arm the Palestinians to the teeth, and end up with Little Twin Weapons Dumps for the US, or disarm Israel and let both be peaceful, productive countries. If Palestine is to have adequate defense of its borders, and the country next door has the arsenal Israel does, adequate defense is a lot different than if the country next door has minimal weaponry.

One of the problems with all of the various accords and agreements is that they have all started with "what Israel will accept." and have generally ignored what the Palestinian people will accept, as well as the long-term effects on the Israeli people.

I know that you and I do not agree on this, but the creation of Israel itself was a cruel trick, and was not done for the altruistic and warmfuzzy reasons enshrined in popular mythology.

Today, Israel is accepting almost a quarter of its people living without enough food, a government run by a man who belongs in the custodial care for the criminally insane wing of the Hague, and is engaged in a serious national debate about whether to be a democracy or South Africa, all to make a few rich men richer.

It would have been possible, in 1948, to negotiate a state of Israel without the Naqba, without creating a gaggle of client states, without carving up this and that and buying up the sleaziest sheiks in the desert. That was not done, however, and even if there were a genuine desire to correct the situation, it would not be easy, and both Israelis and Palestinians would have to make what sharon calls "painful concessions."

One concession that neither side should accept is being a giant prison camp with a flag on top, existing by the grace and favor of the other, or of a third party.

[Darranar]

6. In some ways, it does...

That first one you cite makes it a non-starter, both from the standpoint of being legally sound and also in the practical aspect of will it fly on the street.

As long as both parties agree on the border modifications, it is perfectly legal. The plan enjoys majority support among both peoples, and once peace is achieved few will want to end it. They will have too much to lose.

If what is sought is a short-term photo-op kind of thing for US elections, pretty much anything you can get people to sign will do.

I don't think these people were working for the US. It seems possible that they were genuinely interested in peace.

If the goal were a lasting and peaceful solution,) which of course, it's not, in Palestine or anywhere, because that would not be supportive of business interests) then the Geneva Accord 'ain't nothin' but shit.'

For the US, it's not. For the people involved, it is. How is is it "nuthin' but shit"?

Even if the geography were ok, which it's not, in the absence of military parity, any language about Palestinian right to self-defense is meaningless. Either arm the Palestinians to the teeth, and end up with Little Twin Weapons Dumps for the US, or disarm Israel and let both be peaceful, productive countries. If Palestine is to have adequate defense of its borders, and the country next door has the arsenal Israel does, adequate defense is a lot different than if the country next door has minimal weaponry.

There are plenty of nations that coexist peacefully without military parity. The US hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico in quite some time (unless you count NAFTA).

Both sides would have too much to lose in pursuing war. There is certainly no military parity right now, but the Israelis are certainly suffering greatly.

One of the problems with all of the various accords and agreements is that they have all started with "what Israel will accept." and have generally ignored what the Palestinian people will accept, as well as the long-term effects on the Israeli people.

The palestinian people will accept a two-state solution. I have seen nothing to indicate that they will not, and much to indicate that they will. The Israeli people will also accept such a solution.

The long or short term effects of war on any people is death, economic harm, and misery. The goal now should be stopping that war, and a one state solution will not do such a thing.

I know that you and I do not agree on this, but the creation of Israel itself was a cruel trick, and was not done for the altruistic and warmfuzzy reasons enshrined in popular mythology.

We do agree that the great powers were not being altruistic by supporting it. We don't agree on exactly why they did.

Today, Israel is accepting almost a quarter of its people living without enough food, a government run by a man who belongs in the custodial care for the criminally insane wing of the Hague, and is engaged in a serious national debate about whether to be a democracy or South Africa, all to make a few rich men richer.

The situation needs to end, the sooner the better. At the moment, Israel will not accept a one-state solution. Both sides will accept a two-state solution, so that should be the current goal.

It would have been possible, in 1948, to negotiate a state of Israel without the Naqba, without creating a gaggle of client states, without carving up this and that and buying up the sleaziest sheiks in the desert. That was not done, however, and even if there were a genuine desire to correct the situation, it would not be easy, and both Israelis and Palestinians would have to make what sharon calls "painful concessions."

One concession that neither side should accept is being a giant prison camp with a flag on top, existing by the grace and favor of the other, or of a third party.

We pretty much agree here.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Here is an interesting litmus test

Take this or any other agreement, and swap out Palestine and Israel.

Would Israel be willing to exist with minimal weaponry next to a nuclear Palestine?

Would Israel accept a series of cantonements with Palestine having control over whether they were allowed to have food and water?

Sometimes we get so caught up in the history and the politics that we can forget that like every other country, Israel and Palestine are both populated by = (drum roll) people!

Well, a few politicians, but they don't count. ;)

One thing that people everywhere have in common is that they want to be treated fairly.

As a side note, Mexico and the US might not be the best example to use here. The US has historically dominated Mexico economically, so it hasn't needed to occupy it militarily. In recent years, the US economy has been patting itself on the back for slyly using the poverty in Mexico to get a lot of cheap labor with no costly extras like workmen's comp or employee bennies.

Meanwhile, Spanish has become the unofficial second language of the United States, and nobody knows the real number of Latin Americans in the US, but almost everybody agrees that it's been quite a while since they went anywhere without seeing quite a few of them, and anybody who doesn't like this will re-evaluate their position on the issue as soon as that first cute beige grandchild sits on their knee and calls them "abuelito" :)

[Darranar]

8. Your point about the PSF is a legitimate one...

we will have to see what Annex X says on the topic.

The Palestinians are not going to be forced into cantons. None of the annexations are going to result in such an arrangment, unlike in other so-called "peace" offers.

Articles 12 and 13 (titled "Water" and "Economic Relations") have yet to be completed, so it is at this point unfair to say that the Accord would give Israel control over Palestine's food and water.

From the Geneva Accord:

2. Sovereignty and Inviolability

i. The Parties recognize and respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, as well as the inviolability of each others territory, including territorial waters, and airspace. They shall respect this inviolability in accordance with this Agreement, the UN Charter, and other rules of international law.

ii. The Parties recognize each other's rights in their exclusive economic zones in accordance with international law.

Again, link provided in post #2.

The goal right now, unfortunately, must be peace first, justice second. The most just peace proposal that will result in peace should be selected, and a slightly modified and completed Geneva Accord would suffice for that purpose.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Back in the 1960s in the US, at civil rights marches people used to

chant "No Justice, No Peace."

It's not just a slogan. It reflects a reality of human nature.

This is another problem I have with all of the various agreements. They all leave some very key issues to be worked out later.

I think that the best that can be hoped for from the Geneva Accord would be a cease fire, to allow both parties to work out not only a lasting agreement between themselves, but work out how each will be an independent nation.

And as long as the US is pulling the strings and stocking the arsenal, and imposing its will on its properties around the globe to secure America's oil, I can't be very optimistic about that happening.

Even a cease fire would not be supportive of US business interests.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. And I agree that on matters of law they are correct

However, I also do not believe there is going to be a perfect solution to the present conflict. For reasons stated elsewhere, Israelis are not going to give up a Jewish state that serves as a haven from persecution. The Israeli state is not going to be driven into the sea. No matter how much one may question the propriety of bringing Israel into existence, her existence is a fact that cannot be altered.

In short, the Israelis will not accept the destruction of Israel under the weight of the right of return. Accepting such a right may be the noble thing to do, but it is not going to happen. As long as it is insisted upon, there will be no solution to the conflict.

The present situation cries out for a two-state solution. There are two nations existing west of the Jordan and there should be two states, one to accommodate each nation. On one side of the Green Line, 80% of the people are Jewish; on the other side, 92% of the people are Palestinian Arabs. The Green Line, determined by the armistice of 1949, has served as a border for Israel and the Palestinian Territories, whether occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or the state of Israel itself; the Green Line should be the basis of negotiations for final borders.

The Geneva Accord is the best agreement worked out thus far. Since it is a "virtual" agreement worked out by parties acting unofficially, its present form should by no means be considered final; however, it serves as an excellent basis to begin real negotiations to end this bloody conflict.