THE GENEVA ACCORDS….The Cornerites are arguing about the Geneva Accords. Rich Lowry thinks they’re fine:

I don?t see how it?s the obligation of every citizen living in a free society to support the policy of its elected government. In fact, the beauty of free societies is that citizens can engage in PR stunts to pressure their governments to adapt policies more to their liking. Which is exactly what Beilin has done. You can disagree with the substance of it, as [Charles] Krauthammer does powerfully, but it seems a perfectly legitimate exercise . . .

Jonah Goldberg thinks he’s nuts:

Rich – I’m really kind of amazed you think there’s nothing wrong with private citizens negotiating a radically different foreign policy, especially during what amounts to a time of war. If Cynthia McKinney, Noam Chomsky and Ed Asner got together and tried to hammer out an agreement with the Taliban after 9/11 would you consider that “completely legitimate”?

Gotta go with Lowry on this one. Nobody’s negotiating with either the Taliban or Arafat here, it’s private citizens on both sides (which also makes Logan Act comparisons moot). In fact, as Lowry points out, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to pressure their respective governments, and if that’s not allowed because Israel is at war, then it’s just never allowed. After all, Israel has been in “what amounts to a time of war” for 50 years and I don’t think anyone expects it to stop anytime soon.

This has nothing to do with the substance of the Accords, of course. But I don’t see anything either wrong, illegal, unpatriotic, or treasonous about the process. It’s just good old political free speech.