Quotes of the Day

Last week's unofficial Geneva Accord outlining a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians sparked controversy on both sides. Hardliners accused the dealmakers of selling out their respective sides: the Israeli negotiators were accused of undermining their own government, while Palestinians decried the document's abandonment of Palestinian refugees' right of return to land inside Israel proper. The Bush Administration seems to be supporting the deal if only to pressure Israel, as Secretary of State Colin Powell met with the drafters despite complaints by Israel. What do you think? Is the plan worth U.S. support if only to restart the stalled dialogue, or is it just a hollow document that won't spur any new peaceful developments? Send us your thoughts.

Some of your responses:

Of course! This is a no-brainer. But the fools now running U.S. foreign policy will no doubt find a way to screw up this opportunity, too. The perception that U.S. policy in the Mideast is largely directed by Ariel Sharon and the Likud party of Israel is unfortunately gaining credibility.
Richard Polese
Santa Fe, N.M.

I believe that the Road Map to Peace isn't detailed enough, and therefore won't be accepted by both sides. Details are going to be decided last minute and a compromise is going to be hard to obtain. The Geneva accord is very detailed, and futhermore it is proposed by the local population. The one problem is that the populace has no power. Overall I think the Geneva accord is more likely to work if backed by a powerful country.
Jeremy R.
Palo Alto, Calif.

The United States should support the Geneva Accord. It gives an end-game which was lacking in Oslo and is lacking in the Road Map. Neither side will be happy, but compromises are not about making one side happy over the other. The United States should support it for no other reason than to jump-start the peace talks.
Frederick H. Marsh
Richmond, Va.

United States foreign policy has for too long been hostage to the whims of Ariel Sharon. He deliberately provoked the current intifada in order to press the fear buttons of the Israeli people. He is now following a course than can lead to no ultimate good for Israel. It is time for an impartial and determined effort to resolve the conflict.
Gil Carbajal
Spain

Outsiders will never be able to impose solutions unacceptable to the two parties in conflict through political or economic pressure. The Geneva Accord is stillborn and once more just wishful thinking. Wait for another 15 years for a solution as the CIA prophesied.
Alexander Grobman
Lima, Peru

Geneva is the Oslo stew hastily re-cooked: Israel delivers land and the PA supposedly delivers an intangible called peace. Under this understanding, Israel has already delivered portions of land; the PA has used every inch of that land to boost their only protected industry: explosive belts for Palestinian kids to die kiling Jewish kids. Should we order more of the same? What you see is what you get.
Eduardo Joselevich
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Nothing else has helped. The US should support the Geneva Accord even over the objectoins of Sharon and some Palestinians. If this is not going to work nothing will. We need to support Palestinians and Israelis of good will. Apparently some 70 per cent of settlers are willing to resettle and the division of Jerusalem is inevitable, sooner or later.
Oswad Werner
New Mexico

I cannot understand why the government does not accept the Geneva Accord. The United States should back the accord but should restrict itself to a non-violent process. I don't get why Jerusalem isn't made an independent and combined zone. There would be no arms allowed in Jerusalem. Before the United States of America gets involved they should take a census between an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis to see if the idea is acepted by the majority of the population.
Amee B.
Bay Area, California

Yes. This solution may have flaws but it is possible. This is the only proposed way in a long time that actually has a possibility to succeed in achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. If the two goverments were prepared to negotiate to the extend that they would reach a common agreement, they would have done so by now.
Kallina Basli
Greece

If the US supports the Geneva accord, this would create a precedent: self-appointed group can negotiate international agreements without being elected. This is a very dangerous precedent, and the U.S. should not play such games.
Leonid Mischnaewski
Germany

First let America give California back to Mexico and then we could discuss the Geneva Accord.
Alexis Shaps
California

Yes. We must support this accord. Roadmap is a failure. Let us try anything else. Geneva Accord is one of them.
Daniel Courtel
France

Give this a chance. We can predict the response of the hardliners everywhere.They are not known for compromise. The memebers of the respective govenrments may feel their authority compromised. But compromise is now what we need. A strong government can afford to support this.
Daniel Kelly
Kyoto, Japan

Certainly not. If the roles were reversed and a group of breakaway politicians, activists and academics were negotiating a peace treaty or any other treaty or accord with a foreign entity, they would be tried for treason. Only the duly-elected government and their appointed officials have this power and legal authority to do this.
Shalom Schwarz
Israel

The sponsors of the Geneva Accord need to be credited with proposing what neither the Israeli nor Palestinian hardliners want to do-make difficult compromises so that both sides can have peace. As it now stands, both governments are dominated by land-grabbing extremists who only care about what they can get rather than truly compromising on the issues.
Stephen Lai
Portland, Ore.

The Geneva Accord has some value for the endgame. The actual parties responsible in the theatre of discontent have yet to negotiate where and how the game should be played, let alone start the game itself. Supporting the Accord now is thus futile and counter productive, pre-supposing the end prematurely.
Steve Golin
Israel

Last Week's Question: Was the President's trip to Baghdad worth the security risk?