Mandatory disclosure: I am far from an expert on the history and current issues for Israelis and Palestinians. I would be glad to hear opinions on the details of this accord, but I'm more interested in how
it came about.
And how it apparently came about is that, although work that the Clinton administration did formed a starting point, we had nothing to do with it.
And that leads to a question I have about the Democratic candidates...
Isn't it true that, no matter what ideas a candidate has for potential peace between Israelis and Palestinians, he is forced to keep them to him/herself? Here's my point: recent surveys, including one done about this "virtual" accord, indicate that many Israelis would support the kind of compromises detailed in the Geneva document. Most Americans, if asked (I think) would say that both sides must compromise/back off/give a little.
Any candidate who gives voice to that, however, is going to get pounded. Howard Dean certainly found that out when he used the term "even-handed" (I didn't realize it was a buzzword, either) in describing what the US position should be at the negotiating table.
Yet isn't that exactly what the Swiss did by funding the negotiations toward the Geneva accord? And while their rational, thorough ideas (they seem that way to me) may never survive the firestorm that is raging politically in their homelands, isn't their work at least at example of what will have to be done if there is to be peace?