In mid-October of this year, Israeli Oslo Accords architect and former member of Knesset Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Authority cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo unveiled a new peace plan negotiated over the previous two and a half years. To some, the plan, dubbed the Geneva Accord in recognition of Swiss support, embodies the best chance for peace the region has, while others ridicule it as an unofficial version of the failed Oslo Accord, since the negotiators do not represent any government. The Oslo Accord culminated in the Declaration of Principles signed by Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House in 1993. The DOP called for Israel to hand over control of Palestinian population centers in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority and for the PA to suppress Palestinian terrorists and reform itself to suit a new Palestinian state. After a three year interim period of peace, negotiations would start on permanent resolutions to many pressing issues, including Palestinian right of return, the status of Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state.

Though this agreement seemed promising - Arafat and Rabin each received the Nobel Peace Prize for their work - and by 1995 Israel had transferred control of most of the West Bank and Gaza to the PA, it did not bring peace. The Lebanese militant group Hizb Allah (army of God) and the Palestinian extremist groups Hamas (an Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement) and Islamic Jihad intensified their terror attacks on Israeli targets inside and outside of Israel, and the permanent status talks never occurred.

By the end of the'90's, the Oslo plan lay in shambles. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Arafat met at Camp David to resume negotiations, which quickly failed. On September 28, 2000, after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the temple mount in Jerusalem, Palestinian militants initiated a violent uprising against Israel. When Israel forcefully cracked down on this new Intifada (which means literally "shaking off"), it escalated into a protracted struggle. This year, the Quartet's (EU, UN, U.S. and Russia) "Road Map" to peace led to a dead end when a Hamas suicide bomber killed 23 Israelis on a Jerusalem bus.

If these initiatives, plus many earlier ones, have failed to bring peace to the region, can the Geneva Accord be any different? Can any plan be any different?

The structure of the Geneva Accord is essentially the same as that of the Oslo Accord. In both, Israel helps the Palestinians create a state in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians recognize Israel's existence and give up their claim to right of return. Some of the details on borders and of how many Palestinians may return to Israel are different, but the underlying conceptions of the solution are the same. Both agreements put off difficult topics, such as water policy and the exact status of Jerusalem, to be decided later.

Several differences, however, exist in the context of the two accords. First, whereas the Oslo Accord was an official agreement between Israel and the PA, none of the Geneva negotiators holds a position in any current government. Second, Israeli society is not ready to sacrifice its security in peace talks. The second point needs some more time information to indicate how the contexts of the two accords were different in this regard. Third, and perhaps most important, the Palestinians have become much more politically Islamic than they were ten years ago.

That none of the negotiators in the most recent agreement represent a government has led many to dismiss the Accords. The real effect, however, may be positive. Because the Palestinians have such disdain for Sharon and the Israeli government, they may actually be more likely to embrace the Accord, which Sharon despises. Israelis could begin to see it as a viable long-term plan, and may thus decide to vote Beilin or his associates into office.

During the Oslo days, many Israelis felt confident negotiations could bring peace. After hearing Arafat lie about his desire to clamp down on terrorists, however, they have lost faith in Arafat or his cronies; that is why the security-minded Ariel Sharon currently holds the position of Prime Minister. If Israelis were convinced that they could trust Arafat or any new Palestinian leader to deliver in negotiations, they would jump at the opportunity to reach a deal. Their past experiences though have shown them that they must deal cautiously.

The most disheartening factor for any new peace deal is the emergence of Islamicism in the Palestinian territories. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizb Allah are all religion-based extremist groups that carry out attacks on Israelis. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a religious, militant offshoot of Arafat's officially secular Fatah movement, shows the extent to which Islam influences political decision making. The entire uprising, in fact, has become known as the al-Aqsa Intifada to emphasize the importance of the al-Aqsa Mosque on the temple mount to the Palestinian cause.

On Sept. 28, a little more than a month ago, the Muslim world celebrated the third anniversary of the al-Aqsa Intifada. The website of al-Jazeera, the largest and most influential media outlet in the Arab world, ran a special report on the new Intifada. In this report, Azzam Tamimi, Director of London's Institute for Islamic Political Thought, explained the rationale behind the Islamicization of Palestinian politics: "in the aftermath of the 1982 expulsion of the PLO from the Lebanon... the Islamic trend started emerging as a credible alternative to the failing nationalist trend." The Palestinians, continued Tamimi, "came to learn the hard way that no ideology and no way of life could empower them to face up to the Israelis, but that of Islam."

Islamic extremist groups, in the words of historian Caesar Farah, "carry on what they deem a sacred undertaking - a holy war to regain not only a portion but the whole of Palestine - which, in their eyes, is not an Arab but rather a Muslim land." This helps explain why the Islamic theocratic regime of Iran provides Hizb Allah with $100 million per year and also funds the Palestinian militant groups. This also helps explain how loving fathers can strap on bombs to kill innocent civilians (see the New York Times article "Big Bang Theory: the Terror Industry Fields its Ultimate Weapon" from Aug. 24). For them, as the Hamas charter says, "holy war is the path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of wishes."

In confronting the Palestinians, Israel deals not only with the Palestinian nationalistic identity advocated by Rashid Khalidi, the late Edward Said, and Yaser Abed Rabbo, but also with the Islamic extremist ideologies of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran and Hizb Allah. Any peace plan must confront these groups and provide concrete measures for ending their attacks on Israelis; otherwise, there will never be peace.

The Geneva Accord cannot work now, but not because civilians negotiated its terms. It will fail because, like all previous agreements, it does not seriously address the problem of Islamic extremism. Until a Palestinian leader emerges with the ability and desire to dismantle Hamas and other groups, no peace will be reached. Israel will never succeed in wiping out militant Islam alone. As NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman '75 says, every time Israel kills one Hamas man, ten more join Hamas. Dennis Ross, former U.S. point man for Israeli-Arab negotiations explained, "If we want someone to replace Arafat, it will not be Mother Teresa or an Israeli. It will be an authentic Palestinian."

Arafat, the one man who has the ability to dismantle Hamas, has proven he lacks the desire. Rabbo and former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas lack the power. Some claim current Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia has both necessary qualities, but he has thus far proven neither. Until Qureia or another Palestinian leader proves he can and will deliver peace, the Geneva Accord, along with all other negotiated settlemtents, will lead nowhere.