by Steven J Rosen for Foreign Policy
U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to confront Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Israeli construction activity in East Jerusalem has been greeted by a hail of praise, especially from people impatient to proceed with peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The belief seems to be that meeting this issue head-on will accelerate progress toward an agreement ending a conflict that has festered for generations. The historical record suggests a different conclusion.
The assumption that a faceoff over construction in Jerusalem will advance negotiations has not been subjected to much scrutiny. But the last two decades show that progress has occurred not when this issue was put first, but when it was finessed and left for the final status negotiations on Jerusalem.
Consider this: If, 17 years ago, U.S. President Bill Clinton or Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat had insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin freeze all settlement construction, including in Jerusalem, before Arafat would sit down with Rabin, there would have been no Oslo agreements. By Rabin's own account, in comments before the Knesset, Israel's parliament, he had to fudge the issue.
"I explained to the president of the United States," he said,"that I wouldn't forbid Jews from building privately in the area of Judea and Samaria... I am sorry that within united Jerusalem construction is not more massive."
The same year as the famous handshake on the White House lawn, 1993, the Rabin government completed the construction of more than 6,000 units in the Pisgat Zeev neighborhood of East Jerusalem, out of a total of 13,000 units that were in various stages of completion in areas of the city that had been outside Israeli lines before 1967.
So Arafat did sit down with Rabin, even while Israel's construction in Jerusalem continued. And, on Sept. 13, 1993, the Oslo peace accord was signed -- by the same Mahmoud Abbas who refuses to sit down today. And on October 14, 1994, Rabin, who built homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Altogether, Israel completed 30,000 dwelling units in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the four years of Rabin's government. Even the Jan. 9, 1995, announcement of a plan to build 15,000 additional apartments in East Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1967 borders (especially Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaacov, Gilo, and Har Homa) did not stop negotiations, which resulted in the Oslo II accord of September 28, 1995. Israeli construction continued while Abbas and Rabin signed an historic accord.
And what was the American policy toward Rabin's construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem? Mild annoyance.
On Jan. 3, 1995, the State Department spokesman said mildly, in response to the Rabin government's announcement of expanded construction, "The parties themselves... have to judge whether it presents any kind of a problem in their own dialogue. The important thing is to continue to meet." The spokesman added on Jan. 10, 1995, "We admit that settlements are a problem, but we... enjoin the parties to deal with these issues in their negotiations."
Clinton's Middle East peace advisor, Martin Indyk, told the U.S. Senate on Feb. 2, 1995, that Rabin's government had recently "given approval for something like 4,000 to 5,000 new housing units to go up in settlements around the Jerusalem area." But, he said, Clinton had decided to stay out of it. "To take action now that would in one way or another... would be very explosive in the negotiations, and frankly, would put us out of business as a facilitator of those negotiations." Had Clinton taken Obama's approach, it might well have exploded the negotiations and brought the Oslo process to a halt.
Nor was this example of construction in Jerusalem while diplomacy made progress an isolated exception. Two years after Oslo II, in January 1997, Abbas and Arafat sat down with another Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, to sign the Hebron Protocol, which provided for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from 80 percent of the very sensitive area of Hebron in the West Bank. Arafat and Abbas had no illusions that Netanyahu intended to freeze Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. In fact, Netanyahu had announced that he would proceed with the building of Har Homa, a controversial Israeli suburb conceived by Rabin. Nor, another 18 months later, did the Palestinians' fierce objections to Har Homa stop them from joining the Wye Plantation negotiations from October 15-23, 1998. These talks led to an agreement known as the Wye River Memorandum, in which Netanyahu, under considerable pressure from President Clinton, agreed to pull the Israel Defense Forces out of an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. This move was fiercely opposed by Netanyahu's right flank, and it led to his downfall in January 1999 when the hard-liners in his coalition defected.
Had Clinton demanded Netanyahu freeze construction in Jerusalem and Arafat made it a precondition for negotiations, neither the Hebron nor Wye agreements would have been signed.
The Labor government that was elected in the wake of Netanyahu's ouster continued the pattern of building in Jerusalem while moving forward in negotiations with the Palestinians. At the Camp David Summit (July 11-25, 2000), then Prime Minister Ehud Barak went past Israel's past "red lines" and the Palestinians most of the West Bank and a capital in Jerusalem, along with land swaps. But, at the same time that he was taking these unprecedented steps, Barak was accelerating the construction of Har Homa and other Jerusalem communities across the pre-1967 line. While the talks accelerated, Barak also moved ahead with the Ras al-Amud neighborhood on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. President Clinton said he " would have preferred that this decision was not taken." But Clinton added that the United States "cannot prevent Israel from building in Har-Homa." Haim Ramon, Rabin's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said "I would like to make it clear that the government has no intention of stopping the building at Har Homa."
Here again, had Clinton taken Obama's position and issued an ultimatum demanding that all construction in Jerusalem stop, and had Arafat made that American demand a precondition to begin negotiations, the Camp David Summit of 2000 and the Taba talks in January 2001 would not have occurred.
The next Israeli government, headed by retired general Ariel Sharon, did not seek any breakthroughs in negotiations with the Palestinians. But Sharon ordered the most dramatic territorial concession in Israel's history since 1967: the withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers from every square inch of Gaza along with the abandonment of 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, in the "unilateral disengagement" of August-December 2005. Sharon pulled 8,000 Israeli settlers from their homes against fierce opposition from his right flank.
President George W. Bush played a key role in making Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza possible by softening U.S. policy on the settlement issue. To offset the concession that Sharon was making, and counter opposition to it from Israel's right, he wrote a letter to Sharon on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." One implication of the letter was that the United States would treat Israeli construction in communities that all parties knew will remain part of Israel in any future two-state agreement, like the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, differently from settlement activity on controversial areas in the interior of the West Bank.
Elliott Abrams, the White House advisor who negotiated the Bush administration's compromises on the natural growth of settlement, explained the significance of the step Bush took last June in the Wall Street Journal: "There were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.... The prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation... the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza.... There was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to... confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the 'Greater Israel' position.... He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze."
There were expressions of unhappiness by Palestinian leaders and European diplomats about the Bush policy of giving a green light to limited construction in Jerusalem and certain settlement blocs. But the Bush administration defended it as a realistic policy that moved the peace process forward.
Four months after the disengagement from Gaza, on Jan. 4, 2006, Sharon went into a coma. His deputy, Ehud Olmert, became prime minister. Olmert sought a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. Following the Annapolis Summit in November 2007, Abbas, who had taken over as president of the Palestinian Authority and head of the PLO after Arafat's death in November 2004, agreed to begin intensive negotiations with Olmert. While Abbas expressed his unhappiness with continued Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the settlement blocs, he did not make cancelation of these projects a precondition for talks. In fact, Olmert said, "It was clear from day one to Abbas... that construction would continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in Bush's 2004 letter.... Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Zeev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem... areas [that] will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement."
These negotiations produced significant results: on Sept. 16, 2008, Olmert offered Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, partition of Jerusalem, and a land swap. Abbas's deputy Saeb Erekat boasted to a Jordanian newspaper that he and Abbas had achieved considerable progress with the Olmert government between the November 2007 Annapolis talks and the end of 2008 in as many as 288 negotiation sessions by 12 committees -- all while Israeli construction continued.
The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including Abbas did not make it a precondition either. For 19 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through the Olmert/Abbas negotiations that ended in 2008, negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and the Olmert offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem.
Today, for the first time in 19 years, we have an aministration unable to produce Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Abbas is following Obama's lead in demanding an unprecedented precondition that Israel cannot satisfy. This is the same Abbas who negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers -- Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu (in his first term), Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, without the precondition that he now demands of Netanyahu. We have a crisis. Netanyahu is doing something that every past Israeli prime minister of the left and right has done, but Obama is doing something that past American leaders considered unwise. It is the U.S. behavior that has changed.
At this moment, Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu about construction in Jerusalem wins wide praise. Whether Obama's policy will still look good in six months, when people realize he has mired the negotiations in quicksand, remains to be seen.
Obama would do better to take the advice of his own Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, who wisely told PBS host Charlie Rose, "For the Israelis, what they're building in is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is, let's get into negotiations, let's deal with the issues and come up with a solution to all of them including Jerusalem.... The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in or construction in East Jerusalem.... There are disputed legal issues.... And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the aspirations of both societies."
Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.
See the original article in Foreign Policy
See this and more articles at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label East Jerusalem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label East Jerusalem. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Former Israel Deputy Defense Minister: Israel Will Attack Iran by November
by Ken Timmerman at NewsMax
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
PA Holds Diplomatic Event In Jerusalem: Norwegians Deny Meeting With Senior Officials
by Samuel Sokol
Last Monday, Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Store held official diplomatic talks with Palestinian Authority minister for Jerusalem Ahmed A-Rawidi and Rafik Husseini, chief of staff to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
The meeting was the first that the Palestinian Authority has held in Israel's capital for almost a decade.
Then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon closed down the PA's Jerusalem headquarters, located in the Orient House, in 2001 as a response to the Second Intifada. Since then, it has been Israeli policy to prevent PA events and institutions from operating in the eastern half of the city.
Recently the European Union and the Russian Federation have requested that Israel reopen the Orient house.
When asked by Israel's Channel 10 regarding the reopening of the Orient House, during a joint press conference with Store last Sunday, Foreign Minister Lieberman stated that "there will be no more gestures. There is simply no room to talk about opening Orient House, freezing the construction in Jerusalem or any additional gestures. Now is the time for a gesture from the Palestinians."
Dr. Aaron Lerner, the director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis), told the Five Towns Jewish Times that the Palestine Liberation Organization, and by extension the PLO run Palestinian Authority, is banned by Israeli law from engaging in official activities within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
According to Lerner, the laws banning the PLO from operating in Jerusalem were not amended following the Oslo accords, "nor did Israel enter into any written understanding with the PLO as a result of Oslo that abrogated that law," he said.
When asked if they were aware that official meetings with Palestinian Authority figures are forbidden within Jerusalem, the Norwegian Embassy misleadingly stated that the their country’s ambassador was not present at the Augusta Victoria hospital and referred to a press release from the foreign ministry stating that the minister visited east Jerusalem, without any mention of Rafik Husseini, effectively denied that the meeting took place.
Further queries only resulted in Annika Evensen, the embassy’s first secretary, saying that she had “nothing to add to what is in the press release.”
According to Norwegian journalist Vidar Norberg, Store was welcomed to the hospital by Husseini, who compared Israeli policies to those of Apartheid South Africa and called for an international boycott of Israel goods.
Store held a press conference with the PA dignitary, complete with a podium and Norwegian and Palestinian Authority flags. Speaking to reporters, with the Gush Etzion city of Maaleh Adumim behind him, the foreign minister announced that Mahmoud Abbas’ goal is a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the Middle East conflict.
However, Abbas stands accused of inciting terrorism by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Palestinian Authority president was quoted in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on January 17th defending his government’s decision to name a square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist guilty of 37 counts of murder.
“Norway considers the Israeli presence in East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law, as does the entire international community,” Store said
LEGAL BASIS FOR CLOSING PALESTINIAN OFFICES IN JERUSALEM
Aaron Lerner 5 August,1996
The following is an English translation provided by the Foreign Ministry of
the law which serves as the legal basis for the closing of Palestinian
offices in Jerusalem.
LAW IMPLEMENTING THE AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA
(RESTRICTION ON ACTIVITY) 1994
Purpose of the Law: 1. The purpose of this law is to ensure compliance with
the undertaking of the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereinafter "the
PLO") concerning the restriction on the activity of the Palestinian
Authority to the areas of Gaza and Jericho in accordance with the Agreement
and to prevent activity of a political or governmental nature or other
similar activity within the area of the State of Israel which does not
accord with respect for the sovereignty of the State of Israel by the
Palestinian Authority or the PLO, without the agreement of the State of
Israel.
Definitions:
2. "meeting" - includes a march, assembly or congress; "the Agreement" -
the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area signed at Cairo
between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on 4
May, 1994. "the Palestinian Authority" and "the areas of Gaza and
ericho" - as defined in the Emergency Regulations (Judea and Samaria and
the Gaza Strip - Jurisdiction over Offences and Legal Assistance) 1967;
"Representative Mission" - includes any institution, office or branch.
Restriction on the Palestinian Authority:
3.(a) The Palestinian Authority shall not open or operate a representative
mission, and shall not hold a meeting, in the area of the State of Israel
unless written permission for this has been given by the State of Israel or
by someone authorized by it to do so;
(b) The Minister of Police may, by means of an order, prohibit the opening
or operation of a representative mission of the Palestinian Authority,
order its closure, or prevent the holding of a meeting, if permission has
not been obtained in accordance with sub-paragraph (a).
(c) Orders referred to in sub-paragraph (b) shall be served, insofar as
possible, on the owner of the premises, or the occupier, or the organizers,
or whoever it seems to the Minister of Police is responsible for the
activity which is the subject of the order;
Where it is not possible to serve the order as aforesaid, the Minister of
Police shall give instructions for its publication in a manner which he
shall establish; A notice concerning the giving of the order shall be
published in the Official Gazette.
Restriction on the activity of the PLO:
4.(a) The Government may, by means of an order, the activity prohibit the
opening or the operation of a representative mission of the PLO, order its
closure, or prevent the holding of a meeting on behalf of the PLO or under
its auspices within the area of the State of Israel.
(b) The provisions of paragraph 3(c) above shall apply, with the necessary
changes, to an order referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above.
Duration of order:
5. The duration of a closure order issued pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4
shall not exceed 6 months and may be extended from time to time for an
additional period which shall not exceed 6 months at any one time.
Ancillary authorities:
6. For the purpose of executing orders pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4, the
Israel Police shall have all the authorities given to it by any law,
including the authority to enter into any place, to remove from there any
person, to close the place, to disperse any meeting, and to take any action
necessary to ensure the execution of the order and to use reasonable force
for this purpose.
For the purpose of this paragraph, "the Palestinian Authority" includes any
person acting on its behalf or under its auspices or using its name.
Restriction on licensing:
7.Where an order has been issued pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4, prohibiting
the opening of or operation of a representative mission, the license
required for such activity shall not be granted under any law.
Validity and entry into force:
8.(a) This Law shall enter into force on 1 January 1995.
(b) This law shall continue in force for the period of the continuance in
force of the Emergency Regulations (Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip -
Jurisdiction over Offences and Legal Assistance) 1967, as extended by the
Law implementing the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area
(Judicial Powers and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Legislative Amendments)
1994.
View the original publication in the 5 Towns Jewish Times
View this story at www.israelbehindthenews.com
Last Monday, Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Store held official diplomatic talks with Palestinian Authority minister for Jerusalem Ahmed A-Rawidi and Rafik Husseini, chief of staff to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
The meeting was the first that the Palestinian Authority has held in Israel's capital for almost a decade.
Then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon closed down the PA's Jerusalem headquarters, located in the Orient House, in 2001 as a response to the Second Intifada. Since then, it has been Israeli policy to prevent PA events and institutions from operating in the eastern half of the city.
Recently the European Union and the Russian Federation have requested that Israel reopen the Orient house.
When asked by Israel's Channel 10 regarding the reopening of the Orient House, during a joint press conference with Store last Sunday, Foreign Minister Lieberman stated that "there will be no more gestures. There is simply no room to talk about opening Orient House, freezing the construction in Jerusalem or any additional gestures. Now is the time for a gesture from the Palestinians."
Dr. Aaron Lerner, the director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis), told the Five Towns Jewish Times that the Palestine Liberation Organization, and by extension the PLO run Palestinian Authority, is banned by Israeli law from engaging in official activities within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
According to Lerner, the laws banning the PLO from operating in Jerusalem were not amended following the Oslo accords, "nor did Israel enter into any written understanding with the PLO as a result of Oslo that abrogated that law," he said.
When asked if they were aware that official meetings with Palestinian Authority figures are forbidden within Jerusalem, the Norwegian Embassy misleadingly stated that the their country’s ambassador was not present at the Augusta Victoria hospital and referred to a press release from the foreign ministry stating that the minister visited east Jerusalem, without any mention of Rafik Husseini, effectively denied that the meeting took place.
Further queries only resulted in Annika Evensen, the embassy’s first secretary, saying that she had “nothing to add to what is in the press release.”
According to Norwegian journalist Vidar Norberg, Store was welcomed to the hospital by Husseini, who compared Israeli policies to those of Apartheid South Africa and called for an international boycott of Israel goods.
Store held a press conference with the PA dignitary, complete with a podium and Norwegian and Palestinian Authority flags. Speaking to reporters, with the Gush Etzion city of Maaleh Adumim behind him, the foreign minister announced that Mahmoud Abbas’ goal is a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the Middle East conflict.
However, Abbas stands accused of inciting terrorism by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Palestinian Authority president was quoted in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on January 17th defending his government’s decision to name a square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist guilty of 37 counts of murder.
“Norway considers the Israeli presence in East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law, as does the entire international community,” Store said
LEGAL BASIS FOR CLOSING PALESTINIAN OFFICES IN JERUSALEM
Aaron Lerner 5 August,1996
The following is an English translation provided by the Foreign Ministry of
the law which serves as the legal basis for the closing of Palestinian
offices in Jerusalem.
LAW IMPLEMENTING THE AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA
(RESTRICTION ON ACTIVITY) 1994
Purpose of the Law: 1. The purpose of this law is to ensure compliance with
the undertaking of the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereinafter "the
PLO") concerning the restriction on the activity of the Palestinian
Authority to the areas of Gaza and Jericho in accordance with the Agreement
and to prevent activity of a political or governmental nature or other
similar activity within the area of the State of Israel which does not
accord with respect for the sovereignty of the State of Israel by the
Palestinian Authority or the PLO, without the agreement of the State of
Israel.
Definitions:
2. "meeting" - includes a march, assembly or congress; "the Agreement" -
the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area signed at Cairo
between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on 4
May, 1994. "the Palestinian Authority" and "the areas of Gaza and
ericho" - as defined in the Emergency Regulations (Judea and Samaria and
the Gaza Strip - Jurisdiction over Offences and Legal Assistance) 1967;
"Representative Mission" - includes any institution, office or branch.
Restriction on the Palestinian Authority:
3.(a) The Palestinian Authority shall not open or operate a representative
mission, and shall not hold a meeting, in the area of the State of Israel
unless written permission for this has been given by the State of Israel or
by someone authorized by it to do so;
(b) The Minister of Police may, by means of an order, prohibit the opening
or operation of a representative mission of the Palestinian Authority,
order its closure, or prevent the holding of a meeting, if permission has
not been obtained in accordance with sub-paragraph (a).
(c) Orders referred to in sub-paragraph (b) shall be served, insofar as
possible, on the owner of the premises, or the occupier, or the organizers,
or whoever it seems to the Minister of Police is responsible for the
activity which is the subject of the order;
Where it is not possible to serve the order as aforesaid, the Minister of
Police shall give instructions for its publication in a manner which he
shall establish; A notice concerning the giving of the order shall be
published in the Official Gazette.
Restriction on the activity of the PLO:
4.(a) The Government may, by means of an order, the activity prohibit the
opening or the operation of a representative mission of the PLO, order its
closure, or prevent the holding of a meeting on behalf of the PLO or under
its auspices within the area of the State of Israel.
(b) The provisions of paragraph 3(c) above shall apply, with the necessary
changes, to an order referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above.
Duration of order:
5. The duration of a closure order issued pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4
shall not exceed 6 months and may be extended from time to time for an
additional period which shall not exceed 6 months at any one time.
Ancillary authorities:
6. For the purpose of executing orders pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 4, the
Israel Police shall have all the authorities given to it by any law,
including the authority to enter into any place, to remove from there any
person, to close the place, to disperse any meeting, and to take any action
necessary to ensure the execution of the order and to use reasonable force
for this purpose.
For the purpose of this paragraph, "the Palestinian Authority" includes any
person acting on its behalf or under its auspices or using its name.
Restriction on licensing:
7.Where an order has been issued pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4, prohibiting
the opening of or operation of a representative mission, the license
required for such activity shall not be granted under any law.
Validity and entry into force:
8.(a) This Law shall enter into force on 1 January 1995.
(b) This law shall continue in force for the period of the continuance in
force of the Emergency Regulations (Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip -
Jurisdiction over Offences and Legal Assistance) 1967, as extended by the
Law implementing the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area
(Judicial Powers and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Legislative Amendments)
1994.
View the original publication in the 5 Towns Jewish Times
View this story at www.israelbehindthenews.com
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
by David Bedein
Even after meeting on Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his view that peace negotiations with Israel should not begin until Israel meets his demands, including a complete halt to all construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
A high-ranking Israeli government source said “the Palestinians want an American guarantee on the matter of Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“President Mubarak told me that Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations,” Mr. Abbas said yesterday right after the conclusion of his meeting with the Egyptian president in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was also attended by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Director of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.
The meeting took place just a few days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s meeting with President Mubarak, which was meant to put pressure on the Palestinians to begin negotiations with Israel.
In the course of the meeting with the Palestinian leader, Mubarak reviewed the subjects that had come up in his meeting with Netanyahu, but Abbas was not impressed.
“We don’t want to pass judgment on proposals that at the moment are still vague,” he said. “We have no objection in principle to negotiations or to meetings. We are not posing conditions, but we’ve said over and over and are still saying - when the construction in the settlements stops and there is recognition of international principles, we will be willing to renew the negotiations.”
Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that the American administration had drawn up a new plan, in which the Palestinian state is to be established within two years.
Egyptian officials Suleiman and Aboul Gheit have traveled to the United States to meet with American and British officials to discuss these proposals. Mr. Zaki said that the plan will include a presentation of Israeli and Palestinian guarantees.
At this stage, the goal of Egypt, the U.S. and of Israel is to hold a summit early next month at which the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be launched under the sponsorship of Egypt and with the participation of the U.S. and Jordan. After yesterday’s meeting, Abbas rejected this scenario, but the top political echelon in Israel has not lost its optimism.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is involved behind the scenes in restarting the negotiations, said last night, “the goal is to shorten the foreplay, to shorten the corridor quickly and to move quickly onto the path of negotiations at the end of which there will be an agreement based on two states for two peoples.”
In contrast, a person projecting a clear lack of optimism is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who met this week with Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. Mr. Lieberman told Blair that it would be impossible to reach agreement on the permanent borders within nine months and a full agreement within two years. “This is not a realistic goal, and therefore what we have to do is to begin direct talks without committing to and sanctifying a date,” he said.
See the original at The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
Even after meeting on Monday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is sticking to his view that peace negotiations with Israel should not begin until Israel meets his demands, including a complete halt to all construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
A high-ranking Israeli government source said “the Palestinians want an American guarantee on the matter of Jerusalem and the refugees.”
“President Mubarak told me that Jerusalem must be part of the negotiations,” Mr. Abbas said yesterday right after the conclusion of his meeting with the Egyptian president in Sharm el-Sheikh, which was also attended by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Director of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.
The meeting took place just a few days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer’s meeting with President Mubarak, which was meant to put pressure on the Palestinians to begin negotiations with Israel.
In the course of the meeting with the Palestinian leader, Mubarak reviewed the subjects that had come up in his meeting with Netanyahu, but Abbas was not impressed.
“We don’t want to pass judgment on proposals that at the moment are still vague,” he said. “We have no objection in principle to negotiations or to meetings. We are not posing conditions, but we’ve said over and over and are still saying - when the construction in the settlements stops and there is recognition of international principles, we will be willing to renew the negotiations.”
Hossam Zaki, a spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, confirmed yesterday that the American administration had drawn up a new plan, in which the Palestinian state is to be established within two years.
Egyptian officials Suleiman and Aboul Gheit have traveled to the United States to meet with American and British officials to discuss these proposals. Mr. Zaki said that the plan will include a presentation of Israeli and Palestinian guarantees.
At this stage, the goal of Egypt, the U.S. and of Israel is to hold a summit early next month at which the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be launched under the sponsorship of Egypt and with the participation of the U.S. and Jordan. After yesterday’s meeting, Abbas rejected this scenario, but the top political echelon in Israel has not lost its optimism.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is involved behind the scenes in restarting the negotiations, said last night, “the goal is to shorten the foreplay, to shorten the corridor quickly and to move quickly onto the path of negotiations at the end of which there will be an agreement based on two states for two peoples.”
In contrast, a person projecting a clear lack of optimism is Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who met this week with Quartet envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. Mr. Lieberman told Blair that it would be impossible to reach agreement on the permanent borders within nine months and a full agreement within two years. “This is not a realistic goal, and therefore what we have to do is to begin direct talks without committing to and sanctifying a date,” he said.
See the original at The Philadelphia Bulletin: Abbas Refuses to Negotiate with Israel
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Secrets of Beit Hanina: Salam Fayyad’s residence and former Hebrew University land
by Rhonda Spivak
In exploring East Jerusalem recently, I come upon a house watched over by a tall Palestinian security guard dressed in black, who would only say that he was guarding the house of someone ‘very important.’
It turns out that the house belongs to none other than Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who travels from there to his office in Ramallah everyday. Fayyad’s wife is a resident of Jerusalem. According to Ha’ aretz, neighbors reported that Fayyad has been living there full time only since last year after becoming the PA’s Prime Minister.
I contacted Danny Ben-Simon, director of the Israeli government press office to ask him whether Fayyad’s living in Beit Hanina undermines Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. He responded, “It is quite understood within the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, that there are going to be small ironies and this is one of them....in negotiations, everyone has opening positions. We [the Israelis] have our opening positions. We don’t expect all of our opening positions are ones that will be finally agreed upon...”
When contacted, Kadima Knesset member, Otniel Schneller, an orthodox Jew, said, “When there will be negotiations over Jerusalem...if [Beit Hanina] becomes a Palestinian state, then Fayyad will continue to live there, and if not, he can live under Israeli sovereignty and be the Prime Minister of a Palestinian state. On our side [Israel’s], there is no apartheid.”
Prior to 1948, many Jews owned property in Beit Hanina. As Aryeh King, director of the Israel Land Fund, said, “Hundreds of dunams of land in Beit Hanina belonged to Shmuel Salant, the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, and when the Jordanians had control over it [between 1948-1967], they built on it. Since ‘67, the land has been controlled by the Israeli government, and it has let Arabs build homes on it, many without permits...Today there is only one apartment building with Jews living in Beit Hanina”
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Mount Scopus once also owned land in Beit Hanina. But, in 2004, Hebrew University sold almost 96 dunams (24 acres) of land in Beit Hanina and the neighboring Shuafat to a Palestinian company owned by a Palestinian bank.
Schneller added that the fact that Fayyad lives in Beit Hanina, and Hebrew University sold its land there, “may in fact influence the final status of Beit Hanina.”
Schneller, who is a former secretary general of the Yesha Council of Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria, also said, “Beit Hanina is not part of the heart of Jewish historical Jerusalem.” Theoretically, he noted, one day it could become part of Al Quds, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
“Over Beit Hanina, I am willing to compromise,” Shneller said.
Schneller differentiated between Beit Hanina and neighborhoods in the holy basin, such as the Old City, and Sheikk Jarrah. “The neighborhoods in the holy basin must always be under Israeli sovereignty, even if there are special municipal and other jurisdictional arrangements made for Arabs living in the holy basin,” he said.
However, Schneller doesn’t see any chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians in the near future as “Israel will insist on sovereignty over the holy basin in Jerusalem,” and, additionally, there are legitimate concerns “that a Palestinian state would become a terrorist state.”
In an interview, Robert Ilatov, Knesset member for Israel Beiteinu, said it was a mistake for Hebrew University to sell its land in Beit Hanina to Palestinians, not Jews. “We have made a lot of mistakes around Hebrew University. We should have been building all around it.”
He added, “the fact that Israel lets Salam Fayyad live in Beit Hanina only shows how liberal we Israelis are.”
Of course, if Beit Hanina ever fell under Palestinian sovereignty and became a terrorist base, the Hebrew University would become just like Sderot.
View the article at Israel Behind the News
In exploring East Jerusalem recently, I come upon a house watched over by a tall Palestinian security guard dressed in black, who would only say that he was guarding the house of someone ‘very important.’
It turns out that the house belongs to none other than Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who travels from there to his office in Ramallah everyday. Fayyad’s wife is a resident of Jerusalem. According to Ha’ aretz, neighbors reported that Fayyad has been living there full time only since last year after becoming the PA’s Prime Minister.
I contacted Danny Ben-Simon, director of the Israeli government press office to ask him whether Fayyad’s living in Beit Hanina undermines Israel’s claim of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. He responded, “It is quite understood within the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, that there are going to be small ironies and this is one of them....in negotiations, everyone has opening positions. We [the Israelis] have our opening positions. We don’t expect all of our opening positions are ones that will be finally agreed upon...”
When contacted, Kadima Knesset member, Otniel Schneller, an orthodox Jew, said, “When there will be negotiations over Jerusalem...if [Beit Hanina] becomes a Palestinian state, then Fayyad will continue to live there, and if not, he can live under Israeli sovereignty and be the Prime Minister of a Palestinian state. On our side [Israel’s], there is no apartheid.”
Prior to 1948, many Jews owned property in Beit Hanina. As Aryeh King, director of the Israel Land Fund, said, “Hundreds of dunams of land in Beit Hanina belonged to Shmuel Salant, the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, and when the Jordanians had control over it [between 1948-1967], they built on it. Since ‘67, the land has been controlled by the Israeli government, and it has let Arabs build homes on it, many without permits...Today there is only one apartment building with Jews living in Beit Hanina”
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem on Mount Scopus once also owned land in Beit Hanina. But, in 2004, Hebrew University sold almost 96 dunams (24 acres) of land in Beit Hanina and the neighboring Shuafat to a Palestinian company owned by a Palestinian bank.
Schneller added that the fact that Fayyad lives in Beit Hanina, and Hebrew University sold its land there, “may in fact influence the final status of Beit Hanina.”
Schneller, who is a former secretary general of the Yesha Council of Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria, also said, “Beit Hanina is not part of the heart of Jewish historical Jerusalem.” Theoretically, he noted, one day it could become part of Al Quds, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
“Over Beit Hanina, I am willing to compromise,” Shneller said.
Schneller differentiated between Beit Hanina and neighborhoods in the holy basin, such as the Old City, and Sheikk Jarrah. “The neighborhoods in the holy basin must always be under Israeli sovereignty, even if there are special municipal and other jurisdictional arrangements made for Arabs living in the holy basin,” he said.
However, Schneller doesn’t see any chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians in the near future as “Israel will insist on sovereignty over the holy basin in Jerusalem,” and, additionally, there are legitimate concerns “that a Palestinian state would become a terrorist state.”
In an interview, Robert Ilatov, Knesset member for Israel Beiteinu, said it was a mistake for Hebrew University to sell its land in Beit Hanina to Palestinians, not Jews. “We have made a lot of mistakes around Hebrew University. We should have been building all around it.”
He added, “the fact that Israel lets Salam Fayyad live in Beit Hanina only shows how liberal we Israelis are.”
Of course, if Beit Hanina ever fell under Palestinian sovereignty and became a terrorist base, the Hebrew University would become just like Sderot.
View the article at Israel Behind the News
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image
Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image
by David Bedein
Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayad's plan for a Palestinian State was received with adulation and praise at the United Nations this past week in New York. Indeed, throughout the month of August, 2009, Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad met with more than fifty members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives and made a fine impression on each and every one of them, from both sides of the aisle.
In press conferences held by almost democratic and republican congress people after meeting the American educated Fayad, the consistent impression that they conveyed was that Mr. Fayad represented a "moderate voice of leadership" for a future Palestinian state that could live alongside the state of Israel.
A group of Israeli peace groups received and distributed the English version of a position paper for a future Palestinian state that Mr. Fayad submitted this week to the UN, The EU, The American government and the Russian government
However, Fayad's paper "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State: Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009" would seem to belie Fayad's image as a "moderate voice of leadership" available on the net at HERE.
The preface to Fayad's paper introduces a Palestinian state that will strive for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital".
Yet Fayad's 38 page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace.
Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem" will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state - not East Jerusalem.
In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning "east" Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Fayad repeats - ten times - that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. Fayad leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palstininian stat will " Protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state", because Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem is our people's religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem"
Fayad goes on to claim that Jerusalem "is under threat" and that " the occupying authority is implementing a systematic plan to alter the city's landmarks and its geographical and demographic character in order to forcibly create facts on the ground, ultimately separating it from its Palestinian surroundings and eradicating its Arab Palestinian heritage".
Fayad further claims that "Palestinian life in Jerusalem is under daily attack through systematic violations perpetrated by the occupation regime" and that "It is the right and the duty of all Palestinians to protect their land, reject the occupation and defy its measures", adding that the Palestinian state "bears special responsibility for nurturing our people's ability to persevere and protect their homeland".
Fayad ads that the Palstinian government will maintain its "unreserved commitment to defending the Arab character and status of Jerusalem.... The Government will continue to do all that is possible to achieve this goal. The Government will work with all organizations to preserve the landmarks of Jerusalem and its Arab Palestinian heritage, develop the city, and secure its contiguity with its Palestinian surroundings".
Fayad frames Jerusalem as an illegal settlement, postulating that "the occupying authority is pursuing its intensive settlement policy in and around Jerusalem...The occupation regime has shut down our national institutions, neglected the development of Palestinian life, continued to demolish and evacuate Palestinian homes, and restricted access to sacred Christian and Islamic sites"
Fayad goes so far as to present a practical plan to Arabize Jerusalem:
Maintaining Jerusalem as a top priority on the Government's agenda and·" highlighting its predicament in the media. Launching a programs to promote the steadfastness of Jerusalemites, including: Strengthen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, providing financial support to help them deliver services to citizens".
Fayad reassures his readers that a future Palestinian state would not be satisfied with Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza as the national home for Palestinians, and says that the Palestinian government will continue to advocate for "Palestinian refugees in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in particular", which mandates that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a right to return to the homes and villages that Palestinians left during the 1948 war and its aftermath.
Fayad reminds Palestinians that "the refugee issue will remain under the jurisdiction of the PLO, through its Department of Refugees' Affairs...in a manner that does not exempt the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from its responsibilities"
In the view of Fayad, UNRWA will therefore continue to confine Palestinian refugees a their descendents to the indignity of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return".
Meanwhile, Fayad expresses full support for Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder, saying that "the state also has an enduring obligation to care and provide for the martyrs, prisoners, orphans and all those harmed in the Palestinian struggle for independence".
Fayad simply cannot understand why Palestinians convicted of capital crimes should be jailed.
Fayad proclaims that "the continued detention of thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention camps in violation of international law and basic human rights, is of great concern to all Palestinians" and declares that "Securing the freedom of all these heroic prisoners is an utmost Palestinian priority and it is a fundamental duty all Palestinians feel to honor their great sacrifices and end their suffering" and demands the "freedom of all Palestinian detainees and prisoners and will continue to strive to secure their liberty".
Fayad also asserts that the PLO and have signed "all provisions of agreements signed with Israel", yet forgets to mention that the PLO never ratified the signed agreements with Israel.
On October 6, 1993, PLO chairman Arafat could not get a quorum for the PLO executive to ratify the Oslo accords that Arafat had signed with Rabin on the White House lawn.
On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council would not cancel the PLO covenant and has never ratified the PLO covenant, despite the PLO commitment to do so as an integral part of the Oslo accord. The PLO Covenant has yet to be cancelled.
Fayad's view of justice is well articulated in this piece when he states that "All Palestinians are equal before the law".
Anyone who is not a Palestinian is therefore not equal
Fayad declares that the Palestinian State will be an Islamic state and "Promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari'a education as derived from the science of the Holy Qur'an and Prophet's heritage".
In sum, Fayad concludes with a demand for a Palestinian state in the next two years, along the parameters that he has outlined, with an Palestinian state that will have all of Jerusalem as its capital, in an Islamic Sharia state that will campaign for all convicts to be freed, for all refugees to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.
A voice of moderation?
It would be interesting to know if the peace groups that distributed Fayad's working paper ever bothered to read it.
View the Original Link: Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image
by David Bedein
Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayad's plan for a Palestinian State was received with adulation and praise at the United Nations this past week in New York. Indeed, throughout the month of August, 2009, Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad met with more than fifty members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives and made a fine impression on each and every one of them, from both sides of the aisle.
In press conferences held by almost democratic and republican congress people after meeting the American educated Fayad, the consistent impression that they conveyed was that Mr. Fayad represented a "moderate voice of leadership" for a future Palestinian state that could live alongside the state of Israel.
A group of Israeli peace groups received and distributed the English version of a position paper for a future Palestinian state that Mr. Fayad submitted this week to the UN, The EU, The American government and the Russian government
However, Fayad's paper "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State: Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009" would seem to belie Fayad's image as a "moderate voice of leadership" available on the net at HERE.
The preface to Fayad's paper introduces a Palestinian state that will strive for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital".
Yet Fayad's 38 page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace.
Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem" will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state - not East Jerusalem.
In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning "east" Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Fayad repeats - ten times - that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. Fayad leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palstininian stat will " Protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state", because Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem is our people's religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem"
Fayad goes on to claim that Jerusalem "is under threat" and that " the occupying authority is implementing a systematic plan to alter the city's landmarks and its geographical and demographic character in order to forcibly create facts on the ground, ultimately separating it from its Palestinian surroundings and eradicating its Arab Palestinian heritage".
Fayad further claims that "Palestinian life in Jerusalem is under daily attack through systematic violations perpetrated by the occupation regime" and that "It is the right and the duty of all Palestinians to protect their land, reject the occupation and defy its measures", adding that the Palestinian state "bears special responsibility for nurturing our people's ability to persevere and protect their homeland".
Fayad ads that the Palstinian government will maintain its "unreserved commitment to defending the Arab character and status of Jerusalem.... The Government will continue to do all that is possible to achieve this goal. The Government will work with all organizations to preserve the landmarks of Jerusalem and its Arab Palestinian heritage, develop the city, and secure its contiguity with its Palestinian surroundings".
Fayad frames Jerusalem as an illegal settlement, postulating that "the occupying authority is pursuing its intensive settlement policy in and around Jerusalem...The occupation regime has shut down our national institutions, neglected the development of Palestinian life, continued to demolish and evacuate Palestinian homes, and restricted access to sacred Christian and Islamic sites"
Fayad goes so far as to present a practical plan to Arabize Jerusalem:
Maintaining Jerusalem as a top priority on the Government's agenda and·" highlighting its predicament in the media. Launching a programs to promote the steadfastness of Jerusalemites, including: Strengthen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, providing financial support to help them deliver services to citizens".
Fayad reassures his readers that a future Palestinian state would not be satisfied with Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza as the national home for Palestinians, and says that the Palestinian government will continue to advocate for "Palestinian refugees in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in particular", which mandates that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a right to return to the homes and villages that Palestinians left during the 1948 war and its aftermath.
Fayad reminds Palestinians that "the refugee issue will remain under the jurisdiction of the PLO, through its Department of Refugees' Affairs...in a manner that does not exempt the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from its responsibilities"
In the view of Fayad, UNRWA will therefore continue to confine Palestinian refugees a their descendents to the indignity of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return".
Meanwhile, Fayad expresses full support for Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder, saying that "the state also has an enduring obligation to care and provide for the martyrs, prisoners, orphans and all those harmed in the Palestinian struggle for independence".
Fayad simply cannot understand why Palestinians convicted of capital crimes should be jailed.
Fayad proclaims that "the continued detention of thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention camps in violation of international law and basic human rights, is of great concern to all Palestinians" and declares that "Securing the freedom of all these heroic prisoners is an utmost Palestinian priority and it is a fundamental duty all Palestinians feel to honor their great sacrifices and end their suffering" and demands the "freedom of all Palestinian detainees and prisoners and will continue to strive to secure their liberty".
Fayad also asserts that the PLO and have signed "all provisions of agreements signed with Israel", yet forgets to mention that the PLO never ratified the signed agreements with Israel.
On October 6, 1993, PLO chairman Arafat could not get a quorum for the PLO executive to ratify the Oslo accords that Arafat had signed with Rabin on the White House lawn.
On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council would not cancel the PLO covenant and has never ratified the PLO covenant, despite the PLO commitment to do so as an integral part of the Oslo accord. The PLO Covenant has yet to be cancelled.
Fayad's view of justice is well articulated in this piece when he states that "All Palestinians are equal before the law".
Anyone who is not a Palestinian is therefore not equal
Fayad declares that the Palestinian State will be an Islamic state and "Promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari'a education as derived from the science of the Holy Qur'an and Prophet's heritage".
In sum, Fayad concludes with a demand for a Palestinian state in the next two years, along the parameters that he has outlined, with an Palestinian state that will have all of Jerusalem as its capital, in an Islamic Sharia state that will campaign for all convicts to be freed, for all refugees to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.
A voice of moderation?
It would be interesting to know if the peace groups that distributed Fayad's working paper ever bothered to read it.
View the Original Link: Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
