Mideast Peace and the Geneva Accord

As a strong supporter of the state of Israel, I read with interest Shlomo Avineri’s piece on the Geneva Accord, “Fatally Flawed Peace Proposal” (Opinion, Jan. 4). Avineri argues that the accord fails to resolve two issues at the heart of the conflict: Israel’s right to exist and the Palestinian refugee problem. He claims that there is no explicit Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state [in its present location]. In fact, the accord states: “The state of Palestine shall immediately recognize the state of Israel” (Article 2, Sec. 1).

Avineri also claims that the accord provides that the refugee problem be addressed under U.N. Resolution 194, which states that the refugees “shall return” and that the Palestinians do not explicitly give up the right to return. In fact, the accord states that the rights of refugees described in various resolutions “are fulfilled” under the refugee article of the accord, and that “this agreement provides for the permanent and complete resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem” (Article 7, Sec. 2 and 7). One of the things that ordinary citizens like myself need to do is read this important document because it seems that so many of the “experts” are more interested in their own agenda rather than the facts.

David Hinden

Los Angeles

*

In the light of examination, it’s clear that the Geneva proposals offer much less of an opportunity for peace than the 1993 Oslo accords or President Clinton’s peace plan in 2000.

If the Palestinian Authority’s response to those plans was unleashing a war of terror for the past three years, how will it respond when it comes time to complete the many details of a final document?

Israel is better off sticking with the “road map” peace plan rather than facing the possibility of another disaster from the same people who created the last one.

Martin Hardstark

North Hollywood