The unofficial Middle East peace plan unveiled this week in Geneva renews the hopes that, in the midst of the stalemate between Palestinians and Israelis, there remains a glimmer of hope. The fact that the Geneva Accord has been rejected immediately by both Ariel Sharon and Palestinian hard-liners must not be taken as definitive.

Geneva shows that there can be a middle ground, a route which by the bloodless sacrifice of compromise may end half a century of death and destruction. For too long there has only been a no-man’s land between Israel and the Palestinians. Two ex-US presidents, Carter and Clinton, now freed from the pressures of office, joined an impressive audience of statesmen and diplomats in Geneva to commend the plan, and Israel is upset that even US Secretary of State Colin Powell has called the document “useful”.

The 50-page document took two and a half years of secret negotiations between two teams led by former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed and former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin. It does not deserve to be consigned to the dustbin so summarily.

One hurdle that any new initiative has to overcome is the wretched fact that past peace negotiations are seen as a continuation of the war by other means. The Israelis have perfected the cynical “talk, provoke and crush” technique whereby they have drained moderate Palestinians of hope and forced them toward the extremists.

The two-state solution at the heart of the Geneva plan and pursued since Oslo is still unacceptable to many on both sides. There are Palestinians who have never reconciled themselves to the existence of Israel. Equally there are Israelis who now accept the core Zionist policy of a Greater Israel, in which there are no Palestinians. In both cases formerly moderate opinion has been seduced by the extremist position. Neither of these extreme solutions is any more acceptable than the wicked violence used by those who espouse them. But perhaps the fact that Geneva is unacceptable to extremists on both sides is a good sign.

The Palestinians simply must not give up hopes of a settlement. The emergence of this unofficial peace plan, despite the horrific violence of the last two years, is in itself testament to the doggedness and determination of all those involved in its formulation. Somehow, despite their bitter past disappointments, the Palestinians must reach out for this opportunity, however difficult it may be to believe that anything could come of any new initiative.

One day a peace deal is going to work and the violence will end. The Geneva Accord, perhaps because it comes from outside the Palestinian and Israeli administrations, could be that successful initiative. Two and a half years of sincere and hard work by men of good will deserve better than the short shrift it has been given. Both governments must look at the accord again and see if it does not hold the seeds of peace.