Post by Paddy by Grace on Sept 2, 2008 0:02:28 GMT -7
Israeli editorial call for third party peace guranteeor foreshadowing of Daniel 9:27?
www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2857
Last week Haaretz newspaper reported on the Olmert offer to the Palestinians. According to the report Israel has offered the Palestinians 93% of the West Bank, a territorial swap of 5.5% making the total Israeli withdraw from territories 98.5% of the 100% of the 22% of West Bank Palestinian land between the River and the Sea.
The Israeli offer includes a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza that would remain under Israeli sovereignty but Palestinians would enjoy free passage without Israeli security checks. The main parcels of land to be swapped would be in the Negev and would enlarge the land area of Gaza.
The report also mentions a deal on the refugee issue that �rejects a Palestinian "right of return" and states that the refugees may only return to the Palestinian state, other than exceptional cases in which refugees would be allowed into Israel for family reunification. Nevertheless, the proposal includes a detailed and complex formula for solving the refugee problem.�
Apparently the detailed and complex formula resembles the Clinton parameters which were borrowed from the discussions on refugees at Taba in early 2001.
Absent from the plan is any mention of Jerusalem. The report does not mention if the total land area in question include the Jerusalem area. In the past, Israel played with the percentages of land to be withdrawn from by excluding the greater Jerusalem area from the map. It is quite clear to me that the negotiators have been discussing Jerusalem, however, internal Israeli domestic politics do not allow for admitting that Jerusalem is on the table. Of course without Jerusalem, there is no possibility of a deal. Did Olmert already agree to Palestinian or Muslim sovereignty over Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount?
Or have Olmert and Abbas agreed to deposit the sovereignty over the Holy place to God? Will Palestinians have sovereignty over the Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem including within the Old City (as the Clinton parameters proposed?). Without answering these questions there is no peace treaty, no end of conflict and no change in the status quo.
The territories that Israel plans to hold onto includes Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, the settlements surrounding Jerusalem and the settlements in western Samaria � more or less according to the route of the separation barrier. Again it is not clear if the figures include all of the Israeli settlements/neighborhoods in Jerusalem such as French Hill, Ramot, Gilo, etc. The Haaretz report mentions that once Palestinian agreement is achieved on the plan, Israel plans to continue settlement expansion in those settelements that will remain under Israeli sovereignty. Is this Olmert�s way of removing US pressure on Israel concerning the settlement expansion already taking place under Olmert�s reign?
So far, there has been no official response from President Abbas. From the Israeli side, this may very be as far as any Israeli government can go. This plan would include an Israeli commitment to remove some 100 settlements which are east of the areas to be withdrawn from with an estimated population of about 80,000.
The report makes mention that the government would sponsor the legislation for voluntary withdrawal and resettlement tabled in the Knesset by Colette Avital (Labour) and Avshalom Vilan (Meretz). The Israeli government has not been capable of removing even a single unauthorized outpost, how will it remove so many settlements and so many settlers? The only way for that to be possible is to have a clear majority of Israeli public support for the whole plan.
This is a good basis for moving forward but there needs to be a lot of clarifications. What is the status of the land between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem? Is it possible for the Palestinians to purchase Maaleh Adumim and to remove that large Israeli island in the middle of the West Bank? Would the Palestinians allow Israeli settlers to remain the West Bank as citizens of Palestine living under Palestinian law? Regarding the link to Gaza, Olmert has mentioned in the past that his preferred option for the Gaza-West Bank link is a tunnel of 40 kilometers from Tarqumia to Gaza, if there will be a tunnel, clearly, it does not have to remain under Israeli sovereignty.
What will happen to the Jewish settlers in Hebron and to Jewish religious rights in Hebron? How long is the proposed period of implementation? When with the first Israeli withdrawals be made? What will be the future of Gaza? What will be the status of the coastal waters of Gaza? Will there be a Gaza seaport? Will the Palestinians have freedom to control their external borders? Will Palestine have an international airport? Do the sides agree to international peacekeeping forces on the ground? Who will monitor and verify implementation?
In addition to these questions there are the internal domestic political questions that need to be resolved: Will Hamas allow for the Palestinian elections based on a peace proposal? Could there be a referendum in Palestine on the plan? Would a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support the plan? What about the Palestinians in the diaspora � will they be counted as well? Will the plan gain the support of a majority of Israelis?
It seems that the negotiations are continuing despite the difficult internal domestic political situation on both sides. Secretary Rice will be in the region next week. It has been reported that the Americans would like to see a draft of what has been agreed to. The Haaretz reports mentions Olmert�s objection to having a partial document that would/could serve as a point of reference in future negotiations after there is a new government in Israel. Olmert�s objection to such a document might be because it would expose the fact that Jerusalem has also been negotiated.
Recently, the negotiators have been confronting Israel�s security demands and these have caused significant frustrations on both sides. Those demands include (according to rumors) Israeli refusal to the seaport in Gaza and the airports in the West Bank (Calandia in Jerusalem and the north of the West Bank in the Jenin area).
Palestinians have indicated a willingness to meet all of Israel�s reasonable security demands, but without third party troops on the ground this will not be possible. Is Israel willing to have foreign troops stationed in Palestine to provide for Israel�s security demands?
There are many other questions, one important one who is leaked the document and why?
Haaretz correspondent Aluf Benn is known for his good contacts in the Prime Minister�s office � was his source Olmert himself?
Is leaking the plan a �test balloon� of Israeli public opinion?
Did Abass know that Olmert was planning to leak the plan?
Did leaking the plan have anything to do with the Kadima primaries?
Was it an attempt by Olmert to embarrass Tzipi Livni who is associated with the negotiations?
Certainly some of these questions will become clearer in the coming days, others will remain without answers.
There are two main observations that I would like to point to:
1 is that significant progress has been made and Olmert has come a long way since his days in the Likud; and
2, this same deal could have been reached years ago without all of the pain, suffering, death and destruction that we have seen since September 2000. An agreement is possible, the gaps have been significantly narrowed.
There is now a need for a credible third party mediator to step in with bridging proposals to close the deal and to provide the guarantees that are required.
www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2857
Last week Haaretz newspaper reported on the Olmert offer to the Palestinians. According to the report Israel has offered the Palestinians 93% of the West Bank, a territorial swap of 5.5% making the total Israeli withdraw from territories 98.5% of the 100% of the 22% of West Bank Palestinian land between the River and the Sea.
The Israeli offer includes a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza that would remain under Israeli sovereignty but Palestinians would enjoy free passage without Israeli security checks. The main parcels of land to be swapped would be in the Negev and would enlarge the land area of Gaza.
The report also mentions a deal on the refugee issue that �rejects a Palestinian "right of return" and states that the refugees may only return to the Palestinian state, other than exceptional cases in which refugees would be allowed into Israel for family reunification. Nevertheless, the proposal includes a detailed and complex formula for solving the refugee problem.�
Apparently the detailed and complex formula resembles the Clinton parameters which were borrowed from the discussions on refugees at Taba in early 2001.
Absent from the plan is any mention of Jerusalem. The report does not mention if the total land area in question include the Jerusalem area. In the past, Israel played with the percentages of land to be withdrawn from by excluding the greater Jerusalem area from the map. It is quite clear to me that the negotiators have been discussing Jerusalem, however, internal Israeli domestic politics do not allow for admitting that Jerusalem is on the table. Of course without Jerusalem, there is no possibility of a deal. Did Olmert already agree to Palestinian or Muslim sovereignty over Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount?
Or have Olmert and Abbas agreed to deposit the sovereignty over the Holy place to God? Will Palestinians have sovereignty over the Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem including within the Old City (as the Clinton parameters proposed?). Without answering these questions there is no peace treaty, no end of conflict and no change in the status quo.
The territories that Israel plans to hold onto includes Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, the settlements surrounding Jerusalem and the settlements in western Samaria � more or less according to the route of the separation barrier. Again it is not clear if the figures include all of the Israeli settlements/neighborhoods in Jerusalem such as French Hill, Ramot, Gilo, etc. The Haaretz report mentions that once Palestinian agreement is achieved on the plan, Israel plans to continue settlement expansion in those settelements that will remain under Israeli sovereignty. Is this Olmert�s way of removing US pressure on Israel concerning the settlement expansion already taking place under Olmert�s reign?
So far, there has been no official response from President Abbas. From the Israeli side, this may very be as far as any Israeli government can go. This plan would include an Israeli commitment to remove some 100 settlements which are east of the areas to be withdrawn from with an estimated population of about 80,000.
The report makes mention that the government would sponsor the legislation for voluntary withdrawal and resettlement tabled in the Knesset by Colette Avital (Labour) and Avshalom Vilan (Meretz). The Israeli government has not been capable of removing even a single unauthorized outpost, how will it remove so many settlements and so many settlers? The only way for that to be possible is to have a clear majority of Israeli public support for the whole plan.
This is a good basis for moving forward but there needs to be a lot of clarifications. What is the status of the land between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem? Is it possible for the Palestinians to purchase Maaleh Adumim and to remove that large Israeli island in the middle of the West Bank? Would the Palestinians allow Israeli settlers to remain the West Bank as citizens of Palestine living under Palestinian law? Regarding the link to Gaza, Olmert has mentioned in the past that his preferred option for the Gaza-West Bank link is a tunnel of 40 kilometers from Tarqumia to Gaza, if there will be a tunnel, clearly, it does not have to remain under Israeli sovereignty.
What will happen to the Jewish settlers in Hebron and to Jewish religious rights in Hebron? How long is the proposed period of implementation? When with the first Israeli withdrawals be made? What will be the future of Gaza? What will be the status of the coastal waters of Gaza? Will there be a Gaza seaport? Will the Palestinians have freedom to control their external borders? Will Palestine have an international airport? Do the sides agree to international peacekeeping forces on the ground? Who will monitor and verify implementation?
In addition to these questions there are the internal domestic political questions that need to be resolved: Will Hamas allow for the Palestinian elections based on a peace proposal? Could there be a referendum in Palestine on the plan? Would a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support the plan? What about the Palestinians in the diaspora � will they be counted as well? Will the plan gain the support of a majority of Israelis?
It seems that the negotiations are continuing despite the difficult internal domestic political situation on both sides. Secretary Rice will be in the region next week. It has been reported that the Americans would like to see a draft of what has been agreed to. The Haaretz reports mentions Olmert�s objection to having a partial document that would/could serve as a point of reference in future negotiations after there is a new government in Israel. Olmert�s objection to such a document might be because it would expose the fact that Jerusalem has also been negotiated.
Recently, the negotiators have been confronting Israel�s security demands and these have caused significant frustrations on both sides. Those demands include (according to rumors) Israeli refusal to the seaport in Gaza and the airports in the West Bank (Calandia in Jerusalem and the north of the West Bank in the Jenin area).
Palestinians have indicated a willingness to meet all of Israel�s reasonable security demands, but without third party troops on the ground this will not be possible. Is Israel willing to have foreign troops stationed in Palestine to provide for Israel�s security demands?
There are many other questions, one important one who is leaked the document and why?
Haaretz correspondent Aluf Benn is known for his good contacts in the Prime Minister�s office � was his source Olmert himself?
Is leaking the plan a �test balloon� of Israeli public opinion?
Did Abass know that Olmert was planning to leak the plan?
Did leaking the plan have anything to do with the Kadima primaries?
Was it an attempt by Olmert to embarrass Tzipi Livni who is associated with the negotiations?
Certainly some of these questions will become clearer in the coming days, others will remain without answers.
There are two main observations that I would like to point to:
1 is that significant progress has been made and Olmert has come a long way since his days in the Likud; and
2, this same deal could have been reached years ago without all of the pain, suffering, death and destruction that we have seen since September 2000. An agreement is possible, the gaps have been significantly narrowed.
There is now a need for a credible third party mediator to step in with bridging proposals to close the deal and to provide the guarantees that are required.