The administration's concession will end any hope of peace in the Middle East.

[LittleBlue]

BERLIN - The Obama administration has agreed to Israel's request to remove East Jerusalem from negotiations on the impending settlement freeze.

According to both Israeli officials and Western diplomats, U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has recognized the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot announce a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem. The officials said the U.S. will not endorse new construction there, but would not demand Jerusalem publicly announce a freeze.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1110507.html

If this is true, Pres. Obama and Netanyahu have effectively ended the peace process. There can be no talks while settlements are being built. The administration knows this, so I can only assume they've given up on peace in the ME.

[Kurska]

1. Then there will be no peace, because Israel isn't going to stop building in It's capital.

Israel claims all of Jerusalem's as it's undivided capital, any position other then that is completely unacceptable to the Israeli People and would doom any Prime minister who tried to act otherwise.

[LittleBlue]

3. Oh good. I'm glad we are giving up hope of peace for the Israeli right-wing

and their ideological concerns. It always makes me happy when we cave to the right.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. International Law says East Jerusalem is Occupied Territory

ALL settlers anywhere in Occupied Territories are illegal under international law.

This is not even debatable among sane and rational people - and never has been.

The entire premise of U.N. Resolution 242 is founded on the principle of the inadmisability of the aquirement of land by force. That is why all territory occupied by Israel after June 1967 has been deemed by all international legal bodies and all credible and independent human rights orgainizations without any exceptions whatsoever as Occupied Territory. This is also not debatable among sane and rational people and never has been.

Theodore Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser notified the Israeli government of these fact way back in September of 1967:

"The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html

-------------------------


Here are just some of the many UN Security Council Resolutions affirming the recognition by the virtually the entire international community that the territories are OCCUPIED Arab land and the illegal nature of ALL settlements in occupied territory:

Resolution 252 (1968)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

267 (1969)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969)
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers

298 (1971)
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979)
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979)
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980)
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

484 (1980)
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

592 (1986)
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

================

================================
===============================

EVEN the one dissenting judge in the July 2002 case regarding the Wall -agreed that any part of the wall that was built to protect settlement is illegal. Thus any protection of the settlements or the settlers by the Israeli state is illegal under international law.

Out of 15 distinguished international jurist representing 15 different countries, 14 agreed that the wall was completely illegal and the one dissenting jurist, Judge Buergenthal representing the United States ruled that those parts of the Wall built to protect the settlements are ipso facto illegal because the settlements themselves are illegal. All 15 Judges without exception agreed that every single inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza which was Occupied after June 1967 - every single inch is Occupied Palestinian Territory.


http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2

.

[Indenturedebtor]

11. Where were these resolutions when Jordan occupied E Jerusalem and evicted/killed all the Jews?

Where were the UN resolutions and threats when pretty much every Arab nation in the ME evicted/killed all of their Jews?

You see why Israel doesn't trust the UN?

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. First of all, it was the UN that partitioned Palestine - to create the Israeli State

What about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to make room for the State of Israel?

What about the expulsion of massive numbers of Palestinian-Arabs and the intentional and systematic destruction of
the hundreds and hundreds of villages, towns, neigborhods, cemetaries, Mosques, and churchs - virtually the destruction of Arab-Palestine to make way for the Israeli state:

Let me quote former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami

from "Scars of War Wounds of Peace: the Israeli-Arab Tragedy",

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

from page 43:

" Benny Morris found no evidence to show 'that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus'. Indeed Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and the Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left. True, there were more than a few cases where local Arab commanders ordered the evacuation of villages. But these seemed to gave been tactical decisions taken under very specific military conditions..."


page 25-26

"The idea of transfer of Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For as he said, ' if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two people...."

"The idea of transfer was not the intimate dream of only the activists and militants of the Zionist movement. A mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine was no great tragedy, according to Menachem Usishkink, a leader of the General Zionist. To him the message of the Arab Revolt was that coexistence was out of the question and it was now either the Arabs or the Jews, but not both. Even Aharon Zislong, a member of the extreme Left of the Zionist Labour movements, who during the 1948 war would go on record as being scandalized by the atrocities committed against the Arab population, saw no 'moral flaw' in transfer of the Arabs...But again, Ben Gurion's voice had always a special meaning and relevance. At a Zionist meeting in June 1938 he was as explicit as he could be. 'I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral.' But he also knew that transfer would be possible only in the midst of war, not in 'normal times.' What might be impossible in such times, he said 'is possible in revolutionary times.' The problem was, then, not moral, perhaps not even political,it was a function of timing, this meant war"

from page 42:

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."

From page 44:

"The first major wave of Arab exodus in April-May 1948, essentially in the wake of the Dir Yassin massacre that was perpetrated by Lehi and Irgun with the Haganah's connivance and the unfolding of Plan D, might perhaps have taken the leadership of the Yishuv by surprise. But they undoubtedly saw an opportunity to be exploited, a phenomenon to rejoice at -- Manachem Begin wrote in his memoirs, The Revolt, that 'out of evil, however, good came-and be encouraged. 'Doesn't he have anything more important to do?' was Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948 that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoirs published in a censored passage of his memoirs published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948....Plan D, however, was a major cause for the exodus, for it was strategically driven by the notion of creating Jewish contiguity even beyond the partition lines and, therefore by the desire to have a Jewish state with the smallest number of Arabs.

The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."


__________________

this article by world renowned Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford regarding transfer:

London Review of Books, 9 June 1994.

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

"While the ethics of transfer had never troubled Ben-Gurion unduly, the growing strength of the Yishuv eventually convinced him of its practical feasibility. On 12 July 1937, for instance, Ben-Gurion confided to his diary:

The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... a Galilee free from Arab population .... We must uproot from our hearts the assumption that the thing is not possible. It can be done.

The more Ben-Gurion thought about it, the more convinced he became that "the thing" could not only be done but had to be done. On 5 October 1937, he wrote to his son with startling candor:

We must expel Arabs and take their places ... and, if we have to use force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

The letter reveals not only the extent to which partition became associated in Ben Gurion's mind with the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state but also the nature and extent of his territorial expansionism. The letter implied that the area allocated for the Jewish state by the Peel Commission will later be expanded to include the Negev and Transjordan. Like Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of Revisionist Zionism, Ben-Gurion was a territorial maximalist. Unlike Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion believed that the territorial aims of Zionism could best be advanced by means of a gradualist strategy.

When the UN voted in favour of the partition of Palestine on 29 November 1947, the struggle for Palestine entered its decisive phase. Ben-Gurion and his colleagues in the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan despite deep misgivings about the prospect of a substantial Arab minority, a fifth column as they saw it, in their midst. the Palestinians rejected the partition plan with some vehemence as illegal, immoral and impractical. By resorting to force to frustrate the UN plan, they presented Ben-Gurion with an opportunity, which he was not slow to exploit, for extending the borders of the proposed Jewish state and for reducing the number of Arabs inside it. By 7 November 1949, when the guns finally fell silent, 730,000 persons, or 80 per cent of the Arab population of Palestine, had become refugees. "

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

===================


Map showing the massive destruction of Palestinian towns after al-Nakba in 1948



Nakba's Oral History Interviews from survivors:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story572.html

-------------------

__________________


Nakba's Oral History Interviews from survivors:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/OralHistory/Interviews-Listing/Story1151.html

----


Israeli Haifa University historian Professor Ilan Pappe's lecture in Amsterdam in January 2007

--The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine--

on Windows Media Mp3 (left click to listen online or right click and click on 'save target as') to download:

http://webdisk.planet.nl/houck006/publiek/album/Lectures/Broadband/Ilan%20Pappe%201.mp3

------------------

again may I quote the great Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University

I might add Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people):

link:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html


"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behaviour and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. As early as 1919, at the Paris peace conference, Chaim Weizmann called for a Palestine "as Jewish as England is English." And Chaim Weizmann, the uncle of Israel's current President, was one of the moderates.

snip:"Zangwill's slogan about "a land without a people for a people without a land" was useful for propaganda purposes, but from the outset the leaders of the Zionist movement realized that their aim of establishing a Jewish state in a territory inhabited by an Arab community could not be achieved without inducing, by one means or another, a large number of Arabs to leave Palestine. In their public utterances the Zionist leaders avoided as far as possible any mention of transfer, but in private discussions they could be brutally frank. "


http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

.

[Indenturedebtor]

23. Even the King of Jordan presents lower figures and less conflation than these sources heh

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html

Here's some pictures for you and some propaganda from the other side... but at least it's supported with some evidence.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/

There were attrocities committed in these wars by both sides. Jews were massacred leading up to 47 in multiple events, rioting Arabs killed hundreds of men woman and children in Jerusalem in 47 for example.

If you're going to give one side's propagana credence, then you have to give credence to both.

[Uzybone]

2. defeatism is a sad state of mind

this is not even close to the end.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Odd....I see it as things progressing, as I read the rest of the article you linked:

IT reads....

Netanyahu presented a proposal on Wednesday for resolving the ongoing Israeli-American dispute over construction in the settlements. In a meeting with Mitchell, Netanyahu suggested a temporary freeze, reportedly for nine months, on construction in the West Bank, a government source said.

Netanyahu also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' reported willingness to meet with him was "a positive first step."

The Americans are slated to respond to Netanyahu's proposal at a meeting in Washington next week between Mitchell and two Israeli officials: Netanyahu's envoy, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Mike Herzog.
snip
In Israel's view, the freeze is a confidence-building measure that must be matched by reciprocal steps from the PA and Arab states.
snip
Responding to Palestinian reports that Abbas had expressed willingness to meet with him at next month's UN General Assembly session in New York, Netanyahu said that if Abbas "is behind this declaration, that would be progress. This is a positive thing, a positive first step."

Until now, Abbas has refused to meet with him unless he first imposes a total freeze on settlement construction.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1110507.html

[babylonsister]

5. What changed? From yesterday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8612491

Obama plans to bring Palestinians and Israelis face to face at UN

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. if the vast majority of settlements are not REMOVED - a two-state solution is physically impossible

Because, if the vast majority of settlements are not removed, a contiguous, viable and independent Palestinian state is a physical impossibility and the two-state solution is certainly a physical impossibility. EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THIS!!!

There are approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (*now closer to 500,000) including East Jerusalem. According to B'tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, " the built-up area of the settlements in the West Bank covers 1.7 percent of the West Bank, the settlements control 41.9 percent of the entire West Bank".*

http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp

full PDF map:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F728a69d4-12b1-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fdu

======================================


“there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one.” Instead, he said, “there will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=9&pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=22948d4799a34065&ex=1187496000&emc=eta1&oref=

======================================

[Teaser]

8. SAD CLOWN FAILURE PORN

[invictus]

9. Israel sure is greedy. Unfortunetly this parasite's lobby AIPAC dicates America's ME foreign policy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I would not go as far as saying that they "dictate" Middle East policy

after all, even the Bush Administration made it clear to Israel that the United States opposes any attack on Iran.

But, like the insurance lobby - the pro-settler lobby's influence is also way to great and is certainly an obstacle to progress.

[Indenturedebtor]

13. YES! Damn those greedy hebe's and their world domination plots!

:sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. Now come on - they did NOT say that!!

I didn't at all agree with the phrasing myself - but there are some facts

LAND GRAB:

Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

Introduction

In December 2001, a long article appeared in Ha’aretz under the headline “Five Minutes from Kfar Saba – A Look at the Ari’el Region.” The article reviewed the real estate situation in a number of “communities” adjacent to the Trans-Samaria Highway in the vicinity of Ari’el. The article included the information that most of the land on which these “communities” were established are “state-owned land,” and that “despite the security problems and the depressed state of the real estate market, the situation in these locales is not as bad as might be expected.”

The perspective from which this article was written (the real estate market) and the terminology it employs largely reflect the process of the assimilation of the settlements into the State of Israel. As a result of this process, these settlements have become just another region of the State of Israel, where houses and apartments are constructed and offered to the general public according to free-market principles of supply and demand.

This deliberate and systematic process of assimilation obscures a number of fundamental truths about the settlements: the “communities” mentioned in the article are not part of the State of Israel, but are settlements established in the West Bank − an area that has been occupied territory since 1967. The fundamental truth is that the movement of Israeli citizens to houses and apartments offered by the real estate markets in these “communities” constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The fundamental truth is that the “state-owned” land mentioned in the article was seized from Palestinian residents by illegal and unfair proceedings. The fundamental truth is that the settlements have been a continuing source of violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, among them the right to freedom of movement, property, self-determination, and improvement in their standard of living. The fundamental truth is that the growth of these settlements is fueled not only by neutral forces of supply and demand, but primarily by a sophisticated governmental system designed to encourage Israeli citizens to live in the settlements. In essence, the process of assimilation blurs the fact that the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel anywhere in the world since the dismantling of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

As part of the mechanism used to obscure these fundamental truths, the State of Israel makes a determined effort to conceal information relating to the settlements. In order to prepare this report, B’Tselem was obliged to engage in a protracted and exhaustive struggle with the Civil Administration to obtain maps marking the municipal boundaries of the settlements. This information, which is readily available in the case of local authorities within Israel, was eventually partially provided almost one year after the initial request, and only after B’Tselem threatened legal action.
The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians did not lead to the evacuation of even one settlement, and the settlements even grew substantially in area and population during this period. While at the end of 1993 (at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Principles) the population of the settlements in the West Bank (including settlements in East Jerusalem) totaled some 247,000, by the end of 2001 this figure had risen to 375,000.

The agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority entailed the transfer of certain powers to the PA; these powers apply in dozens of disconnected enclaves containing the majority of the Palestinian population. Since 2000, these enclaves, referred to as Areas A and B, have accounted for approximately forty percent of the area of the West Bank. Control of the remaining areas, including the roads providing transit between the enclaves, as well as points of departure from the West Bank, remains with Israel.

This report, which is the continuation of several reports published by B’Tselem in recent years, examines a number of aspects relating to Israeli policy toward the settlements in the West Bank and to the results of this policy in terms of human rights and international law. The report also relates to settlements in East Jerusalem that Israel established and officially annexed into Israel. Under international law, these areas are occupied territory whose status is the same as the rest of the West Bank.

This report does not relate to the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Though similar in many ways to their counterparts in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip settlements differ in several respects. For example, the legal framework in the Gaza Strip differs from that applying in the West Bank in various fields, including land laws; these differences are due to the different laws that were in effect in these areas prior to 1967.

This report comprises eight chapters.

• Chapter One presents a number of basic concepts on the principal plans implemented by the Israeli governments, the bureaucratic process of establishing new settlements, and the types of settlements.
• Chapter Two examines the status of the settlements and settlers according to international law and briefly surveys the violations of Palestinian human rights resulting from the establishment of the settlements.
• Chapter Three discusses the bureaucratic and legal apparatus used by Israel to seize control of land in the West Bank for the establishment and expansion of settlements. The chief component of this apparatus, and the main focus of the chapter, is the process of declaring and registering land as “state land.”
• Chapter Four reviews the changes in Israeli law that were adopted to annex the settlements into the State of Israel by turning them civilian enclaves within the occupied territory. This chapter also examines the structure of local government in the settlements in the context of municipal boundaries.
• Chapter Five examines the economic incentives Israel provides to settlers and settlements to encourage Israelis to move to the West Bank and to encourage those already living in the region to remain there.
• Chapter Six analyzes the planning mechanism in the West Bank applied by the Civil Administration, which is responsible for issuing building permits both in the settlements and in Palestinian communities. This mechanism plays a decisive role in the establishment and expansion of the settlements, and in limiting the development of Palestinian communities.
• Chapter Seven analyzes the map of the West Bank attached to this report. This analysis examines the layout of the settlements by area, noting some of the negative ramifications the settlements have on the human rights of the Palestinian population.
• Chapter Eight focuses in depth on the Ari’el settlement and the ramifications of its establishment on the adjacent Palestinian communities. This chapter also discusses the expected consequences of Ari’el’s expansion according to the current outline plan. "

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

[Indenturedebtor]

12. Yes because preconditions for Israel without preconditions for anyone else

is the only way to negotiate a peace. :sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. the Palestinians have already accepted completely outrageous preconditions

a long time ago - renunciation of their claim on 78% of their own homeland. - Only the Palestinians are expected to renounce the use of violence while Israel expands, expands, expands and expands thus making a viable two-state solution completely impossible.

Good Lord, the Palestinians are not even allowed to have a delegation that is not pre-approved by Israel.

[Indenturedebtor]

20. Did you know that Israel has millions of Arabs?

Do Jews have no right to live there? Does it have to be a Muslim nation? There have always been Jews there and Arabs... more Jews moved there, there were more Jews: It became a Jewish nation. The Arabs attacked. They lost. Most stayed, some left. Then they attacked again. Most stayed some left, Israel expanded.

Stop attacking, agree to peace agreements... especially where you get everything you asked for before negotiations.

Changing the definition of preconditions does not change that they are preconditions. I don't agree with any settlement in any area beyond resettling East Jerusalem, but to pretend that the previous Obama approach was somehow even-handed is disingenuous.

To somehow equate people living and farming on land that was won in defensive wars, with blowing people up is silly imo.

Both sides are doing wrong things. Israel has been willing to negotiate for ages... where is the Arab support? Even with this precondition there was no Arab support. Basically only the complete dissolution of Israel and killing all the Jews will suffice.

Supporting that ideology and screaming for blood is supporting their complete and total lack of support for peace.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. first of all 80% to 85% of Palestinians fled or were expelled when Israel was established in 1948

This figure or approximately this figure would be agreed by almost all credible and independent historians. In 1949 when the United Nations called for allowing those who would live in peace and accept the situation would be allowed to return - Israel refused. As the new Israeli state began to destroy approximatly 400 Palestinian villages, confiscate, land, houses, bank accounts and other personal possessions - block farmers from attending to their fields - even the the Truman Administration was so shocked by Israel's instransigence that they temporarily imposed sanctions hoping Israel would be more reasonable.

The 15% to 20% who left behind remained under military occupation until 1966 - approximately one fourth of them internally displaced - they could not return to their homes and most still cannot - but they were able to remain in what became Israel - although deeply discriminated against.

No Israeli political party - except the Arab parties and the Communist - accepted even the possibility of the two-state solution until well into the 1990's. It was the Palestinians who proposed the two-state solution - officially in 1988, however it was the expo facto position for a long time before that.

With the possible exception of a brief period between December 23, 2000 and January 27, 2001 - no Israeli government even entertained a compromise that could even remotely be called a viable two state-solution.

The current Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the notoriously racist Avigdor Lieberman - has completely rule out any possibility for the removal of any settlements - thus rendering the Palestinian Territories into a series of nonviable cantons - Thus making the two-state solution a physical impossibility.

from FAIR-

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Extra! July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer:

Distorting the Camp David negotiations

July/August 2002
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

By Seth Ackerman

The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).

They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.

The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area , which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

This is the statement adopted unanimously by the Arab League and endorsed by the PLO in 2002 - restating the same basic statement adopted in 1996 - but the expo facto position for at least a decade before that:

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

[xchrom]

14. kick

[boppers]

18. Give 'em a mile.

No democratic nation should ever support expansionist religious "nations". The Vatican has a mile, so should Israel, and if the Mormons want it, they can have temple square in Utah, and the muslims can have the Kabaah.

:evilgrin:

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. actually there are some workable compromises regarding Jerusalem

one of the most comprehensive is found in Article 6 of the Geneva Accord - a compromise proposed by a number of prominent Israeli and Palestinian leaders:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

Article 6 – Jerusalem

1.Religious and Cultural Significance:

i.The Parties recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual, and cultural significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In recognition of this status, the Parties reaffirm their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions and traditional practices between different denominations.

ii.The Parties shall establish an inter-faith body consisting of representatives of the three monotheistic faiths, to act as a consultative body to the Parties on matters related to the city’s religious significance and to promote inter-religious understanding and dialogue. The composition, procedures, and modalities for this body are set forth in Annex X.

2.Capital of Two States

The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

3.Sovereignty

Sovereignty in Jerusalem shall be in accordance with attached Map 2. This shall not prejudice nor be prejudiced by the arrangements set forth below.

4.Border Regime:

The border regime shall be designed according to the provisions of Article 11, and taking into account the specific needs of Jerusalem (e.g., movement of tourists and intensity of border crossing use including provisions for Jerusalemites) and the provisions of this Article.

5.al-Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount (Compound)

i.International Group

1.An International Group, composed of the IVG and other parties to be agreed upon by the Parties, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), shall hereby be established to monitor, verify, and assist in the implementation of this clause.

2.For this purpose, the International Group shall establish a Multinational Presence on the Compound, the composition, structure, mandate and functions of which are set forth in Annex X.

3.The Multinational Presence shall have specialized detachments dealing with security and conservation. The Multinational Presence shall make periodic conservation and security reports to the International Group. These reports shall be made public.

4.The Multinational Presence shall strive to immediately resolve any problems arising and may refer any unresolved disputes to the International Group that will function in accordance with Article 16.

5.The Parties may at any time request clarifications or submit complaints to the International Group which shall be promptly investigated and acted upon.

6.The International Group shall draw up rules and regulations to maintain security on and conservation of the Compound. These shall include lists of the weapons and equipment permitted on the site.

ii.Regulations Regarding the Compound

1.In view of the sanctity of the Compound, and in light of the unique religious and cultural significance of the site to the Jewish people, there shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on the Compound, unless approved by the two Parties. Procedures for regular maintenance and emergency repairs on the Compound shall be established by the IG after consultation with the Parties.

2.The state of Palestine shall be responsible for maintaining the security of the Compound and for ensuring that it will not be used for any hostile acts against Israelis or Israeli areas. The only arms permitted on the Compound shall be those carried by the Palestinian security personnel and the security detachment of the Multinational Presence.

3.In light of the universal significance of the Compound, and subject to security considerations and to the need not to disrupt religious worship or decorum on the site as determined by the Waqf, visitors shall be allowed access to the site. This shall be without any discrimination and generally be in accordance with past practice.

iii.Transfer of Authority

1.At the end of the withdrawal period stipulated in Article 5/7, the state of Palestine shall assert sovereignty over the Compound.

2.The International Group and its subsidiary organs shall continue to exist and fulfill all the functions stipulated in this Article unless otherwise agreed by the two Parties.

6.The Wailing Wall

The Wailing Wall shall be under Israeli sovereignty.

7.The Old City:

i.Significance of the Old City

1.The Parties view the Old City as one whole enjoying a unique character. The Parties agree that the preservation of this unique character together with safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the inhabitants should guide the administration of the Old City.

2.The Parties shall act in accordance with the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List regulations, in which the Old City is a registered site.

ii.IVG Role in the Old City

1.Cultural Heritage

1.The IVG shall monitor and verify the preservation of cultural heritage in the Old City in accordance with the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List rules. For this purpose, the IVG shall have free and unimpeded access to sites, documents, and information related to the performance of this function.

2.The IVG shall work in close coordination with the Old City Committee of the Jerusalem Coordination and Development Committee (JCDC), including in devising a restoration and preservation plan for the Old City.

2.Policing

1.The IVG shall establish an Old City Policing Unit (PU) to liaise with, coordinate between, and assist the Palestinian and Israeli police forces in the Old City, to defuse localized tensions and help resolve disputes, and to perform policing duties in locations specified in and according to operational procedures detailed in Annex X.

2.The PU shall periodically report to the IVG.

3.Either Party may submit complaints in relation to this clause to the IVG, which shall promptly act upon them in accordance with Article 16.


iii.Free Movement within the Old City

Movement within the Old City shall be free and unimpeded subject to the provisions of this article and rules and regulations pertaining to the various holy sites.

iv.Entry into and Exit from the Old City

1.Entry and exit points into and from the Old City will be staffed by the authorities of the state under whose sovereignty the point falls, with the presence of PU members, unless otherwise specified.

2.With a view to facilitating movement into the Old City, each Party shall take such measures at the entry points in its territory as to ensure the preservation of security in the Old City. The PU shall monitor the operation of the entry points.

3.Citizens of either Party may not exit the Old City into the territory of the other Party unless they are in possession of the relevant documentation that entitles them to. Tourists may only exit the Old City into the territory of the Party which they posses valid authorization to enter.

v.Suspension, Termination, and Expansion

1.Either Party may suspend the arrangements set forth in Article 6.7.iii in cases of emergency for one week. The extension of such suspension for longer than a week shall be pursuant to consultation with the other Party and the IVG at the Trilateral Committee established in Article 3/3.

2.This clause shall not apply to the arrangements set forth in Article 6/7/vi.

3.Three years after the transfer of authority over the Old City, the Parties shall review these arrangements. These arrangements may only be terminated by agreement of the Parties.

4.The Parties shall examine the possibility of expanding these arrangements beyond the Old City and may agree to such an expansion.

vi.Special Arrangements

1.Along the way outlined in Map X (from the Jaffa Gate to the Zion Gate) there will be permanent and guaranteed arrangements for Israelis regarding access, freedom of movement, and security, as set forth in Annex X.

1.The IVG shall be responsible for the implementation of these arrangements

2.Without prejudice to Palestinian sovereignty, Israeli administration of the Citadel will be as outlined in Annex X.

vii.Color-Coding of the Old City

A visible color-coding scheme shall be used in the Old City to denote the sovereign areas of the respective Parties.

viii.Policing

1.An agreed number of Israeli police shall constitute the Israeli Old City police detachment and shall exercise responsibility for maintaining order and day-to-day policing functions in the area under Israeli sovereignty.

2.An agreed number of Palestinian police shall constitute the Palestinian Old City police detachment and shall exercise responsibility for maintaining order and day-to-day policing functions in the area under Palestinian sovereignty.

3.All members of the respective Israeli and Palestinian Old City police detachments shall undergo special training, including joint training exercises, to be administered by the PU.

4.A special Joint Situation Room, under the direction of the PU and incorporating members of the Israeli and Palestinian Old City police detachments, shall facilitate liaison on all relevant matters of policing and security in the Old City.

ix.Arms

No person shall be allowed to carry or possess arms in the Old City, with the exception of the Police Forces provided for in this agreement. In addition, each Party may grant special written permission to carry or possess arms in areas under its sovereignty.

x.Intelligence and Security

1.The Parties shall establish intensive intelligence cooperation regarding the Old City, including the immediate sharing of threat information.

2.A trilateral committee composed of the two Parties and representatives of the United States shall be established to facilitate this cooperation.

8.Mount of Olives Cemetery:

i.The area outlined in Map X (the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives) shall be under Israeli administration; Israeli law shall apply to persons using and procedures appertaining to this area in accordance with Annex X.

1.There shall be a designated road to provide free, unlimited, and unimpeded access to the Cemetery.

2.The IVG shall monitor the implementation of this clause.

3.This arrangement may only be terminated by the agreement of both Parties.

9.Special Cemetery Arrangements

Arrangements shall be established in the two cemeteries designated in Map X (Mount Zion Cemetery and the German Colony Cemetery), to facilitate and ensure the continuation of the current burial and visitation practices, including the facilitation of access.

10.The Western Wall Tunnel.

i.The Western Wall Tunnel designated in Map X shall be under Israeli administration, including:

1.Unrestricted Israeli access and right to worship and conduct religious practices.

2.Responsibility for the preservation and maintenance of the site in accordance with this Agreement and without damaging structures above, under IVG supervision.

3.Israeli policing.

4.IVG monitoring

5.The Northern Exit of the Tunnel shall only be used for exit and may only be closed in case of emergency as stipulated in Article 6/7

ii.This arrangement may only be terminated by the agreement of both Parties.

11.Municipal Coordination

i.The two Jerusalem municipalities shall form a Jerusalem Co-ordination and Development Committee (“JCDC”) to oversee the cooperation and coordination between the Palestinian Jerusalem municipality and the Israeli Jerusalem municipality. The JCDC and its sub-committees shall be composed of an equal number of representatives from Palestine and Israel. Each side will appoint members of the JCDC and its subcommittees in accordance with its own modalities.

ii.The JCDC shall ensure that the coordination of infrastructure and services best serves the residents of Jerusalem, and shall promote the economic development of the city to the benefit of all. The JCDC will act to encourage cross-community dialogue and reconciliation.

iii.The JCDC shall have the following subcommittees:

1.A Planning and Zoning Committee: to ensure agreed planning and zoning regulations in areas designated in Annex X.

2.A Hydro Infrastructure Committee: to handle matters relating to drinking water delivery, drainage, and wastewater collection and treatment.

3.A Transport Committee: to coordinate relevant connectedness and compatibility of the two road systems and other issues pertaining to transport.

4.An Environmental Committee: to deal with environmental issues affecting the quality of life in the city, including solid waste management.

5.An Economic and Development Committee: to formulate plans for economic development in areas of joint interest, including in the areas of transportation, seam line commercial cooperation, and tourism,

6.A Police and Emergency Services Committee: to coordinate measures for the maintenance of public order and crime prevention and the provision of emergency services;

7.An Old City Committee: to plan and closely coordinate the joint provision of the relevant municipal services, and other functions stipulated in Article 6/7.

8.Other Committees as agreed in the JCDC.

12.Israeli Residency of Palestinian Jerusalemites

Palestinian Jerusalemites who currently are permanent residents of Israel shall lose this status upon the transfer of authority to Palestine of those areas in which they reside.

13.Transfer of authority

The Parties will apply in certain socio-economic spheres interim measures to ensure the agreed, expeditious, and orderly transfer of powers and obligations from Israel to Palestine. This shall be done in a manner that preserves the accumulated socio-economic rights of the residents of East Jerusalem

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

[treestar]

22. Oh the drama

Everything is an all or nothing proposition. Take that as your mantra, and you can have as much drama as you please. Life would be boring if everything weren't bottom line either/or.

[grantcart]

24. Complete nonsense - the Palestinians are not surprised that East Jerusalem

is not going to be addressed in the initial freeze.

Jerusalem settlements have always been understood to be a final settlement negotiation and not likely to be solved until other more immediate confidence building measures have been undertaken.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. They have to start somewhere and East Jerusalem isn't going to be where they start

East Jerusalem is a political issue but it's more a religious issue which means it is the most ridiculous part of this dispute and it will be the hardest to solve. I think peace is impossible under Netanyahu because he has too much invested in taking a hard line on the settlements.

That being said at this point I have to be hopeful for a miracle.