Comments: A New Precedent with Paradigmatic Importance: The Geneva Accord

Go to article

Josh     01/23/04
Dear Phil, Thank you for your comment. I will address your points one at a time. Yes, you are correct that the Israeli people elected Sharon and your thinking highlights exactly my point. The way peace has been tried in the past is through leaders, which I believe has not been very successful. In my opinion it is time for a new approach to peacemaking, which is really what I was highlighting. The Geneva Accord is an effort to stop the violence and terror that has cascaded the situation into chaos. As I stated, which you seem to have overlooked, I see NEITHER Sharon nor Arafat doing that and I think the people who live in the societies in question have a right to try things to change the situation. As an American this is also something we hold dear -- the right to protest and create alternatives when leaders are failing. Contrary to your assertion, I believe the Geneva Accords don't confuse the situation, but rather provide an option and a voice for people to support instead of waiting for the leaders to do something. With regard to why I would endorse something that is futile, I thought I was clear that it was the development of the accord -- taking action -- that was the important point. The world need not always be a hierarchical top down place where people don't question leaders and are content to sit on their hands. Your final point is very troubling to me. Not that you are ashmed of me as a Jew, but because you feel like you have the right to determine what is best for me and every other Jew. I stand on the side of peace and I won't budge because someone tells me I should. I firmly believe that peace will only happen between Israelis and Palestinians when the two peoples become more involved and take ownership in the process. Josh Weiss

Hani Naser     01/21/04
I commend you for telling it like it is. Peace, Hani

Phil  , Toronto ON     01/21/04
Dear Mr. Weiss, I have just read your article and I am deeply disapointed and upset with your comment. First, the people of Israel democraticaly elected Ariel Sharon to be their leader and spokes-person on the world's stage. You as an American can certainly appreciate the value of an elected official. Mr. Beilin was not elected he does not speak for the majority of his people and in any other country would be considered a traitor. Mr. Abed Rabbo has a personal history of involvement in terrorism and his credibility is certainly suspect. How can you as an educated individual condonesuch activity? As an individual who is published you have a responsibility to write from an educated perspective, I think you haven't. I don't know Mr. Sharon's motives but there is a process. I don't trust Mr. Arafat but he is being dealt with on the world's stage. The Geneva accord and its authors just confuse the situation. Second, as a mediator are you not charged with attempting to find out if the people you have brought to the table are indeed individuals who can sign the deal, make the decision, be the ones responsible. Clearly these two do not have the final say. Why would you endorse something that in the end is futile? And lastly I am ashamed of you as a Jew. You have a position of power and exposure. The Geneva accord does not have the best interest of the Jew at heart. I believe that Beilin is a power hungry opportunist. Shame on you for giving him and his kind credibility. I would be interested to hear what you have to say, if you have a response. Sincerely Phil Kravetsky