Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GENEVA ACCORD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Soileau who wrote (42)	12/6/2003 1:23:52 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 190

Bush “ Geneva Accord could be 'productive' to peace process “. By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters In his first direct public comments on the Geneva Accord, U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday gave a guarded reaction to the unofficial peace plan. "I think it's productive as long as they [the architects of the plan] adhere to the principles I have just outlined," the president told reporters after meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah. "And that is we must fight off terror, that there must be security, and there must be the emergence of a Palestinian state that is democratic and free." "We appreciate people discussing peace," he said. "We just want to make sure people understand that the principles to peace are clear." Bush also mentioned U.S. contacts with Israel to ensure that settlement expansion and the West Bank separation fence do not prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. "I also talked about the need for the Israelis to keep in mind that if they support a Palestinian state, which they have told me they do, that the conditions on the ground must be such for a Palestinian state to be able to emerge - and that's why we're continuing to talk to them about the illegal settlements and illegal outposts, as well as the fence." Bush also called on the new Palestinian leadership to commit itself to the war against terror. Geneva Accord architect Yossi Beilin said Thursday that it was a mistake for the Bush administration to continue its policy of refusing to deal with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in the search for an end to the latest round of Middle EAst violence. "I think that he is relevant," Beilin, referring to Arafat, said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "At the end of the day, if we want an agreement, it won't be without him, and we have to understand that." Concerning either the road map or the Geneva pact, Beilin said U.S. and Israeli attempts to work around Arafat are misguided. "Boycotting him and putting pressure on those people who met with him was, I think, the wrong way to deal with the issue because it strengthened him," Beilin said. Despite Israeli efforts to isolate Arafat, Beilin said, "He is the only one who can still give orders to his people. He became stronger than before and we still call him an irrelevant leader." Also Thursday, former President Bill Clinton released a statement in support of the Geneva Accord and a separate peace initiative by former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon and Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh. Powell confirms he will meet Geneva Accord architects U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday he would meet the Geneva Accord authors on Friday, despite Israeli misgivings. "I will be meeting with them tomorrow," Powell told a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Powell stressed that the U.S. is still committed to the road map, but added that no progress can be made on any peace plan until the Palestinians put an end to terror. Earlier Thursday, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged Washington not to go ahead with the planned meeting, calling on "friendly countries" not to interfere in domestic Israeli politics. The scheduled talks have drawn unusually sharp Israeli criticism of the United States, which has signalled impatience with Sharon's foot-dragging on a stalled international "road map" to end three years of violence. The Geneva deal, drafted by Israeli leftist opposition figures and Palestinian politicians, has been denounced by Sharon's right-wing government for agreeing that Israel share sovereignty over Jerusalem and hand over occupied land to Palestinians for a state. "It is clear only the democratically elected government of Israel has the authority to dispatch negotiators to sit with Palestinians and reach agreements," Sharon adviser Dore Gold told Reuters when asked about the upcoming talks in Washington. "It is our hope that friendly countries around the world respect the democratic choices of the people of Israel and don't get drawn into our domestic politics," he added. The architects of the Geneva deal, former justice minister Beilin and former Palestinian cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, were lobbying for U.S. support for the plan, which has emerged during a relative lull in violence. Powell said on Wednesday he had a duty to explore all peace ideas, whatever the source. Officials have also raised the possibility of a meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading advocate of Israel

To: John Soileau who wrote (42)	12/6/2003 1:48:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 190

I'll take your questions in reverse order 3. Any chance Likud would accede to this? Yes, a very good chance. Even Sharon has acceded to the creation of a Palestinian State, and there's not an Israeli alive who wouldn't jump at the chance to put it under responsible, i.e., Jordanian control. 2. Any chance the Palestinians would buy this? Unknown. They've been brainwashed into nationalism, but many are voting with their feet into Jordan, a state which has better law and order than the territories. They might buy the idea for a chance to establish Palestine in the territories AND Jordan, as Arafat tried to do in 1970. Remember, the population of Jordan is already 80% Palestinian. (It is the other 20% that provides the bedrock support for King Abdullah) Which is why 1. Any chance Jordan would be willing to take the land and citizens? is the tough question. Countries don't normally give up land claims, and King Hussein only did because he saw that getting back the territories would be like swallowing a grenade for Jordan. Never mind money, I don't know what the US or anyone could offer Jordan to convince King Abdullah that he would long survive such a takeover. For now, I think the answer is, let's see Iraq pacified and democratic, Syria thoroughly cowed, and Arafat dead and gone, then we can talk about it.