Comment: Geneva Accord - yet another valiant effort

The Geneva Accord is a valiant effort to bridge the gap between Palestinians and Israelis. Like all valiant efforts, it is bound to attract criticism: Sharon's government is attacking them as illegitimate; circumventions of the legally elected government of Israel, and therefore null and void.

Palestinian and Arab commentators have criticised the deal for its fudging of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, for maintaining a large chunk of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and for a moral insufficiency for the Palestinians' suffering.

Despite the criticisms, the accord raises the question of what is indeed possible between the two sides - and what is necessary.

The "possible" today may not be far from what is in the accord. It is what can be implemented. The right of return will result in a revolt in Israel and therefore no movement on peace at all.

The "possible" at this time appears to be for Palestinian refugees to receive a mix of moving to a Palestinian state, compensation, residency in current host countries, and a move to Israel or other participating Western countries. This step could go a long way to improve the lives of millions of long suffering people.

Ingredients

The "possible" is also that no Israeli government will rapidly uproot hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in the West Bank. These may both be ugly facts for many concerned with justice for Palestinians, but they are nevertheless what is possible today.

Doing the "necessary" in the Mideast is another matter all together. The necessary goes beyond today and points to the ingredients of durable solution. For permanent peace, it is essential for Israel to come to much greater terms with the damage it has done to the Palestinian people.

It may therefore be necessary for Israel to indeed give up more colonies in the West Bank than in the accord, and to accept, for example, a number of Palestinian refugees according to international decision, and not Israeli fiat. Only greater compromises by Israel today will assuage the Arab sense of indignity and suffering over the longer term.

What is "possible" and what is "necessary" seem clearly opposed. How can the two be reconciled?

Beyond all mythology, ideals, and complaints, there is really only one issue that both parties are fighting for: their survival as a people. If that survival is placed at the centre then some of the demands on both sides become less important.

"Peace" is indeed a process, and not an accord or a right; both sides still need to look deeper into what is necessary for their mutual survival. The Geneva Accord may be one step. They will have to be followed by another, and then another, each determined and consistent, until both sides are delivered to the promise of peace.

The writer is a former UN and Canadian diplomat, a commentator on Middle East and international affairs.