[GushShalom] Three peace drafts // reminder discussion Thursday // petition is support of refusniks
Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)
info at gush-shalom.org
Wed Nov 26 03:54:04 IST 2003
GUSH SHALOM pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org
[] Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement
[] Reminder Geneva discussion Thursday 19.30 in Beit Sofer
[] Sign the petition in support of the refusniks
\\// //\\ \\// //\\ \\//
[] Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement
òáøéú áàúø / Hebrew
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/compare_heb.html
English:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/compare_eng.html
Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement
A Comparison
The Gush Shalom Peace Proposal (2001)
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh Statement of Principles (2002)
The Geneva Initiative (2003)
Adam Keller
The three documents here compared are of very different length, the one
of Gush Shalom covering three pages, that of Ayalon-Nusseibeh a single
page (being more a statement of general principles then a draft peace
agreement) and the Geneva document the far longest, covering 47 pages
and going into the fine technical details of implementation. This should be
taken into account in reading the following comparison, and in particular
the lack of reference in the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document to many points
mentioned in the others should not be necessarily taken to mean a lack of
concern to these points by its drafters.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
All three documents start with affirming the principle of “Two states for
Two nations”. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document and the Geneva
document include in this context a Palestinian obligation to recognize the
Jewish character of Israel (Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "both sides will
declare that Palestine is the only state of the Palestinian people, and Israel
is the only state of the Jewish people"; Geneva document: "the State of
Israel and Palestine Liberation organization (...) affirm that this agreement
marks the recognition of the right of Jewish people to statehood and the
recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without
prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens"). The Gush
Shalom document does not include such a reference.
The Gush Shalom document mentions as a basis for the agreement UN
resolutions 242, 338 and 194. The Geneva document mentions resolutions
242, 338 and 1397 (which did not yet exist when Gush Shalom drafted its
proposal) as a basis for the whole agreement. 194 is not mentioned in the
preamble of the Geneva document, but it is mentioned in the specific
article about the refugee problem. In the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document
there is no mention of UN resolutions.
All three documents include the statement that their implementation
constitutes the end of the conflict (the Gush Shalom document has the
specific stipulation that the two parties will jointly report to the UN about
completing the implementation of the agreement).
THE BORDERS
In all three documents the borders between the two states are based on
the borders of June 4, 1967, with the possibility of exchange of territories.
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document and the Geneva document stipulate
specifically that the exchange will be at the rate of 1:1 while the Gush
Shalom document states that "exchange of territories can be effected by
agreement between both parties". (The rate of exchange was one of the
issues which caused the collapse of the Camp David Conference in 2000,
where PM Barak proposed an exchange at the rate of 9:1 in Israel's favor.)
While the Gush Shalom document and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document
don't make a specific proposal of concrete change of territory, the Geneva
document does draw an exact border down to the centimetre, whose
demarcation was the subject of prolonged, precise and crisis-ridden
negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian drafters. In the Geneva
document website there is a detailed list of the settlements which would be
annexed to Israel as part of the proposed agreement (including the main
ultra-Orthodox settlements, Beitar-Illit and Modi'in-Illit/Kiryat Sefer, which
are both located near to the Green Line but presumably their inclusion is
also designed to help gain support of the ultra-Orthodox parties).
The Israeli territories which would be given to the Palestinians in exchange
are mostly near the Gaza Strip, in order to increase its overcrowded
territory. These are fertile lands in territorial continuity with the Strip,
unlike the proposal made in the time of Camp David, to give the
Palestinians the Chalutza Sands which are a desert area having no
territorial continuity with the Strip.
CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP
The Gush Shalom document: "a highway will be constructed between the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip and it will belong to the state of Palestine";
the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "the Palestinian state will have a
connection between its two geographic areas, the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip"; the Geneva document has a long and detailed article which defines
a corridor between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which will be "under
Israeli sovereignty" but "under Palestinian administration" and with
everybody passing through it subject to Palestinian law. The territory of
the corridor is not included in the calculation of the land swap.
The Geneva document also includes arrangements for the use by Israeli
civilian traffic of "designated roads in Palestine" (road 443 which connects
Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem and a large part of which goes through the West
Bank, the Jerusalem-Tiberias Road going via the Jordan valley, and the
Jerusalem-Ein Gedi Road). Israelis will be given special "permits for use of
designated roads"; the roads will be under both Palestinian sovereignty
and Palestinian administration, but there will be patrols of a multinational
force patrolling through them (presumably to intervene in case of any
incident involving these passing Israelis, though that is not explicitly
stated in the text; the Oslo Agreement assigned that role to joint Israeli-
Palestinian patrols, which despite partial success could not avoid the
tension of being regarded by Palestinians as a form of continuing
occupation).
TIME-TABLE FOR ENDING THE OCCUPATION
The Gush Shalom document: "within a year"; the Ayalon-Nusseibeh
document makes no reference to a specific time-table; the Geneva
document, withdrawal is to take place in two stages, the first after nine
months and the second after a further 21 months. After the second stage,
the full territory will be under complete Palestinian sovereignty but Israel
will be allowed to maintain a small military presence in the Jordan Valley
for a further 36 months. Two Israeli early-warning stations will remain in
Palestinian territory indefinitely, but the Palestinians could ask for a
reopening discussion on this issue after ten years.
THE DEMILITARIZATION OF PALESTINE
The Gush Shalom document: "the state of Palestine undertakes to refrain
from arming itself with heavy offensive weapons for 25 years. This
obligation will become void if peace treaties are signed between Israel and
the Arab states." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "The Palestinian
state will be demilitarized and the international community will guarantee
its security and independence." The Geneva document: "Palestine shall be
a non-militarized state, with a strong security force."
COUNTERING TERRORIST ACTIVITY
The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties undertake to combat terrorism
and terrorist initiatives organized in one state against the other, its
residents and institutions." In the Geneva document, both parties are to
"refrain from organizing, encouraging, or allowing the formation of
irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries and militias within
their respective territory and prevent their establishment. (…)The Parties
shall take joint and, in their respective territories, unilateral comprehensive
and continuous efforts against all aspects of violence and terrorism.”
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document has no specific reference to this
subject.
THE AIR SPACE
The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties will come to an agreement
regarding the usage of each other's air space." The Geneva document
required Israel to facilitate Palestinian air traffic according to the Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation, but the Israeli Air Force shall
be indefinitely entitled "to use the Palestinian sovereign airspace for
training purposes".
THE BORDER CROSSINGS
The Gush Shalom document: "The State of Palestine will have full
sovereign control of all its border crossings on land, sea and air." The
Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no reference to the subject. The
Geneva document: "All border crossings shall be monitored by joint
teams" of the Palestinians and the multinational force, which will prevent
the entry into Palestine “of any weapons, materials or equipment that are
in contravention of the provisions of this Agreement." Israel will be
allowed to maintain an "unseen presence" at the border crossings for 30
months, and a remote control monitoring of them for a further two years,
and will be entitled to demand a reinspection by the Palestinians and
multinational force whenever it feels that an inspection has been
inadequate.
MILITARY CONTACTS WITH THE OUTSIDE
The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties undertake to prevent the entry
of any foreign military force into their territories. Any contravention of this
section by either state will grant the other state the right to take any
measures required for self-defense."
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no reference.
The Geneva document: Palestine and Israel each shall "refrain from
joining, assisting, promoting or co-operating with any coalition,
organization or alliance of a military or security character, the objectives or
activities of which include launching aggression or other acts of hostility
against the other."
SETTLEMENTS
The Gush Shalom document: "Residents of the settlements located in
territory that is to become part of the State of Palestine will be evacuated
from the territory before the end of the Israeli occupation."
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "After establishment of the agreed
borders, no settlers will remain in the Palestinian State."
The Geneva document: "The state of Israel shall be responsible for
resettling the Israelis residing in Palestinian sovereign territory outside
this territory."
Where the Gush Shalom document writes: "The settlements will be
transferred intact to the Palestinian authorities, without any damage
inflicted on buildings or other immovable property. The property
evacuated by the settlers will be considered part of Israel's contribution to
the rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees" the Geneva document has a
svery similar but more detailed provision, and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh
document makes no specific reference to this aspect.
INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND A MULTINATIONAL FORCE
On this subject there is an obvious difference between the Geneva
document and the other two. In the Gush Shalom document there is a
provision that "an agreed-upon international committee will monitor the
implementation of this agreement and act as arbitrator in the case of
differences of opinion" and an international involvement is mentioned in
the context of the refugee issue. (See later.) Similarly the Ayalon-
Nusseibeh document refers to international involvement mainly with
regard to the refugees, and also refers, without going into details, to the
international community guaranteeing the security and independence of
the demilitarized Palestinian state without going into details. On the other
hand, in the Geneva document the international involvement is far more
direct and prominent, not only with regard to the refugees but in all
aspects of implementing Israeli-Palestinian peace and maintaining that
peace in being. This enhanced international involvement clearly
constitutes a central and essential element in the percept of peace held by
the drafters of the agreement
According to the Geneva document there will be created a
"Implementation and Verification Group (IVG)" which will include the
partners of the present diplomatic "Quartet" - the United States, the
Russian Federation, the EU and the UN - as well as "other parties, both
regional and international, to be agreed upon by the Parties." The IVG will
maintain a permanent headquarters in Jerusalem, will maintain a
Multinational Force on the ground, and will establish a permanent
apparatus for dealing with complaints of the parties one against the other
for violation of the agreement. Nearly each article in the Geneva document
includes a detailed reference to the part of the IVG in implementing that
article.
The Multinational Force is to have many and different roles, among them
close monitoring of the Israeli withdrawal, protecting the territorial
integrity of the state of Palestine which will be not allowed to have an
army of its own, monitoring the border crossings of Palestine, helping to
enforce the measures against terrorism, protecting the security of the
Israeli teams which will go to and from the early-warning stations located
in Palestinian territory, and maintaining a permanent presence in the al-
Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount Compound together with the Palestinian
security personnel and in the Old City of Jerusalem together with the
Palestinian and Israeli police forces.
The Geneva document regards the IVG as an active partner which would
not be restricted to answering appeals from the parties but might initiate
actions which it will regard as necessary on the basis of reports from its
own personnel on the ground. The way that the Geneva document is
written seems to indicate that those who drafted it wanted as much as
possible to anticipate the problems which might arise and provide
solutions in advance, and these solutions usually include the active
involvement of the IVG (presumably, a lesson drawn from the collapse of
Oslo).
One exceptional issue should be mentioned. In all other spheres the
Geneva document provides for international involvement to be exercised
through the IVG, which includes many different international actors, but all
issues of intelligence and the sharing of information about terrorism are
assigned to a trilateral committee which together with of the Israelis and
Palestinians includes solely the representatives of the US, The document
provides no explanation for this exceptional arrangement.
JERUSALEM
In all the three documents the basis of the solution in Jerusalem is Israeli
rule over the Jewish neighborhoods and Palestinian rule over the Arab
neighborhoods, with each state establishing its capital in the part of
Jerusalem under its control (This is drawn from the principles of the
"Clinton Parameters of December 2000 – see
http://www.fmep.org/documents/clinton_parameters12-23-00.html).
The Gush Shalom document mentions that "The Jewish quarter of the Old
City will be part of the State of Israel and will be attached to its territory.
The Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City will be part
of the State of Palestine."
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no specific mention of how to
divide the Old City. The Geneva document makes a division similar to that
of the Gush Shalom document, except for the stipulation that the historic
"David's Tower" which is in the Armenian Quarter will be under
Palestinian sovereignty but Israeli administration. The Geneva document
also gives Israel sovereignty over the road south of the Old City Wall, so
as to create territorial continuity to the Jewish Quarter. (The idea of that
road providing Israel with such territorial continuity was mentioned by
President Arafat at a meeting with a Gush Shalom delegation in Gaza, some
years ago.)
It should be noted that the detailed maps of dividing sovereignty in
Jerusalem, which appear on the Geneva document’s website, do not
include Har Homa among "the Jewish neighborhoods" which will pass to
Israeli rule, but rather pass Har Homa to the Palestinians. Dr. Menachem
Klein, who is the main expert on Jerusalem among the Israeli drafters of the
agreement, noted that the settlement of Israeli civilians in Har Homa
started only after President Clinton published the above-mentioned
“parameters” and after these parameters had been accepted by both
parties. The Geneva document also notes that the Jewish neighborhoods
in Jerusalem which have been created beyond the Green Line and which
will be annexed to Israel are counted in the calculation of the territory
swap.
The Gush Shalom document notes that "The municipality of the
Palestinian Jerusalem and the municipality of the Israeli Jerusalem will
establish a joint council, based on the principle of equality, to manage the
shared municipal services." The equivalent paragraph of the Geneva
document mentions a "Jerusalem Co-ordination and Development
Committee", charged with "co-operation and co-ordination of the
municipal services" with sub-committees in the areas of Planning and
Zoning , Hydro Infrastructure, Transport, Environment, Economic
Development; Police and Emergency Services and the Old City. The
difference between joined management of municiapl services according to
the Gush Shalom document, and coordination between separately
managed services in the Geneva document, is more than verbal and seems
to reflect a fundamental difference on the issue of freedom of movement,
as will be shown later. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no
specific reference to this point.
According to the Geneva document, "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", but
"interim measures" will be applied in order to preserve "the accumulated
socio-economic rights of the residents of East Jerusalem." The other
documents make no reference to this issue.
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document says that "Jerusalem will be an open
city, the capital of two states" with no further elaboration. The Gush
Shalom document states explicitly that "There will be no barriers or
obstacles preventing unrestricted passage between the two parts of the
City. Both parties will establish border checkpoints, if they so decide, at
the entrances/exits of the City." On the other hand, in the Geneva
document it is defined that a "border regime" shall be designed in
Jerusalem which will take into account "the specific needs of Jerusalem
(e.g., movement of tourists and intensity of border crossing use, including
provisions for Jerusalemites)." In a lecture at the Tzavta Club in Tel-Aviv
Dr. Klein confirmed that this could be interpreted as leading to the
construction of a border fence between the two parts of Jerusalem - "not a
separation fence like the one Sharon is now constructing, but the border
fence of a living, functioning border between two sovereign states which
live in peace with each other but have not yet attained the degree of
intimacy of the United States and Canada, or Holland and Belgium" as he
put it (quote made from memory, not necessarily verbatim).
In the Geneva document, the freedom of movement does not apply to
Jerusalem as a whole, but only inside the Old City which is surrounded by
a wall. The Geneva document devotes a long and very detailed chapter to
the Old City and the special regime which will govern it. According to it,
the division of sovereignty within the Old City will be marked by “a visible
color-coding scheme “ but without physical barriers, with security and
public order taken care of by Palestinian, Israeli and multi-national police
units acting together as well as by a special tri-lateral committee of the
Palestinian, Israeli and American security service which will deal with
threats of terrorist attacks. In the Old City, unlike the other parts of
Jerusalem, the Geneva document defines a joint Israeli-Palestinian
management of municipal services rather than a coordination of separate
services. Some of the gates of the Old City will be under Palestinian
control and the others under Israeli control. Anybody who enters the Old
City could move freely within its boundaries but would be able to leave
only through the gates controlled by the same sovereignty that had let
him in. The Geneva document mentions the possibility that "The Parties
shall examine the possibility of expanding these arrangements beyond the
Old City and may agree to such an expansion." Apparently, the drafters of
the agreement consider the Old City of Jerusalem a suitable ground for
experiments which may be later extended.
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document states that "Neither side will exercise
sovereignty over the holy places. The State of Palestine will be designated
Guardian of al-Haram al-Sharif for the benefit of Muslims. Israel will be the
Guardian of the Western Wall for the benefit of the Jewish people." In
both, the Geneva document and the Gush Shalom document the two states
will get sovereignty not just guardianship over the above-mentioned holy
places. The Geneva document includes detailed provision about
preserving security and public order in the al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple
Mount Compound jointly by Palestinian security personnel and a
multinational presence. The latter will be "composed of the IVG and other
parties to be agreed upon by the Parties, including members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)" – which implies that at least
part of the multinational presence in this important Muslin site will be
drawn from Muslim countries.
All three documents include the stipulation that there will be no
archeological or other diggings in the al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Compound without the consent of both parties. The Gush Shalom
document applies this stipulation also to diggings in the Wailing Wall
Compound (not a theoretical question; in the 1970s and 1980s the Israeli
archeological diggings in the Wailing Wall area were the cause of
constant controversy and tensions). For its part, the Geneva document
gives Israel sovereignty not only over the Wailing Wall but also over the
tunnel under it, whose opening in September 1996 sparked off riots and
bloody confrontations.
The Geneva document also provides for Israeli administration of the
Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, a subject not mentioned in the
two other documents.
THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
On this issue, there is a conspicuous difference between Ayalon-
Nusseibeh document and the other two documents. The Ayalon-
Nusseibeh document does use the term "Right of Return" but gives it the
interpretation "Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of
Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel", which makes the
document controversial on the Palestinian side.
The Gush Shalom document states that "Israel acknowledges the principle
of the Right of Return as a basic human right" and stipulates that "In order
to heal the historical wound and as an act of justice, Israel will allow the
return into its territory of a certain number of refugees, which will be
decided by agreement. The returnees will be allowed back under a
reasonable annual quota within a time limit not exceeding 10 years."
In the Geneva document the term "Right of Return" does not appear at all,
a point on which the Israeli partners had been completely unwilling to give
way during their discussions with Palestinian interlocutors, and instead
there appears the term "choice of permanent place of residence" (by the
refugees). The refugees are offered the following residence options: the
state of Palestine, areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land
swap, third countries, the state of Israel, or the present host countries.
According to this perception, the arrival of Palestinian refugees to live
within the state of Israel is not considered "Return" but rather absorption
of refugees similar to that in third countries towards whom there is no
historical claim. Accordingly, the number of refugees which Israel will
accept is to be determined by Israel on the basis of "the average of the
total numbers [admitted] by the different third countries."
All three documents provide for an international fund which will provide
monetary compensations for the Palestinian refugees. The Gush Shalom
document states that "Israel will contribute an appropriate portion to this
fund, taking into account the value of Palestinian property that remained
in Israel." A similar principle guides the Geneva document, where there is
detailed the process by which an international "Panel of Experts" will
determine within six months the value of Palestinian property left in Israel
in 1948, which would constitute "the Israeli lump sum to the international
fund" and after which "no other financial claims arising from the refugee
problem may be raised against Israel." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document
only states in general terms that Israel and the Palestinian state will initiate
an international fund and contribute to it.
In the Geneva document the international involvement is deeper than in
the other documents, also regarding the refugees. It states that there will
be created not only an international fund but also "An International
Commission [which] shall have full and exclusive responsibility" in
everything concerning the refugees. That commission should include,
except for Israel and Palestine, also "the United Nations, the United States,
UNRWA, the Arab host countries, the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Norway,
Japan, the World Bank, the Russian Federation, and others."
According to the Geneva document, the process of solving the refugee
question will take five years at the end of which refugees, even when they
refuse to accept one of the options offered by the agreement, will lose the
refugee status; and UNWRA, which has taken care of the refugees since
1949, will be dismantled and its functions transferred to the host states.
Altogether, a rather quite callous rude approach which may end up turning
refugees who are opposed to the agreement and refuse to give up their
individual claims into stateless vagabonds with no legal status
whatsoever.
About the Geneva document offering refugees the option of residing in
"areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap", several
remarks deserve to be made.
First, in defining their proposed border, the Geneva document initiators
included Israeli territory near the Hebron area, an area in which until 1948
the Palestinian village of Duheimeh existed. During the occupation of
Duheimeh by the Israeli army in late 1948 many civilians got killed, and on
the ruins of the deserted village there was never established an Israeli
community. Therefore, the transfer of this territory to Palestine will enable
the refugees of Duheimeh, unlike those of other villages, to implement the
full right of return in the sense of rebuilding their village on its exact
original location, which may turn into a heavily-symbolic event.
Furthermore, the extension of the Gaza Strip will place in Palestinian hands
lands which belonged before 1948 to Palestinians now living in Gazan
refugee camps; but, given the overcrowding in these camps, there may
also come up the option of building there whole new cities for use of
refugees in general.
Finally, it should be noted that in drawing the border in the Latrun area,
the Geneva document leaves in Israel's hands the whole of the main Tel-
Aviv--Jerusalem highway, but gives to the Palestinians most of the pre-'67
Latrun enclave in a way which makes possible the restoration of the three
villages destroyed by Israel in June 1967.
HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEMORY OF THE PAST
Under the Gush Shalom document, "Israel acknowledges its central
responsibility for the creation of this tragedy during the course of the wars
of 1948 and 1967." There is nothing of the kind in the other two documents
and the Israeli participants in the Geneva document are actually
emphasizing the absence of such a clause on historiavl responsibility as
one of their achievements in the negotiations with their Palestinian
partners.
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document includes "Recognizing the suffering
and the plight of the Palestinian refugees." The Gush Shalom document
details: "Both parties will establish a "truth commission" of historians -
Israeli, Palestinian and international - that will examine the precise causes
that lead to the creation of the problem in all its aspects, and will issue an
objective, conclusive report within three years. This report will be
incorporated into the schoolbooks of both states."
In the Geneva document, there is a program along similar lines: “The
Parties will encourage and promote the development of cooperation
between their relevant institutions and civil societies in creating forums for
exchanging historical narratives and enhancing mutual understanding
regarding the past. The Parties shall encourage and facilitate exchanges in
order to disseminate a richer appreciation of these respective narratives, in
the fields of formal and informal education, by providing conditions for
direct contacts between schools, educational institutions and civil society.
(...) These programs may include developing appropriate ways of
commemorating those villages and communities that existed prior to 1949."
RELEASE OF PRISONERS AND DETAINEES
According to the Geneva document, all Palestinian prisoners and
detainees in the hands of Israel will be released without exception, in three
stages: all prisoners held since before May 4, 1994 (when the Oslo
Agreement went into effect) will be released immediately upon signature of
the argeement, , as will be all administrative detainees, women prisoners
and ill prisoners. The other prisoners will be released after 18 months,
except for prisoners whose names will be mentioned specifically in an
annex to the agreement (that will presumably include mainly prisoners
fitting the wide Israeli criteria of being considered to have "blood on their
hands"); this group of prisoners will be released within five years of the
agreement coming into force. The other two documents have no prisoners
clause.
According to the Uvdah program of Second-Channel Israeli TV, which on
November 18 broadcast authentic material filmed during the discussions
which led to the Geneva document, the prisoner clause was the subject of
sharp and prolonged debate between the Israeli and Palestinian partners.
At some point Yossi Beilin was even heard declaring that if such an
agreement would have been brought up in the government where he was
Minister of Justice, he would have been opposed to it. But Sufian Abu-
Zaida, who led the Palestinians on the prisoner issue, insisted that it
would be impossible to have an agreement ending the conflict while and
leaving any Palestinian prisoners behind Israeli bars.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The Geneva document: "Israel and Palestine shall work together with their
neighbors and the international community to build a secure and stable
Middle East, free from weapons of mass destruction, both conventional
and non-conventional, in the context of a comprehensive, lasting, and
stable peace, characterized by reconciliation, goodwill, and the
renunciation of the use of force. To this end, the Parties shall work
together to establish a regional security regime." The other two
documents don't refer to such matters.
WATER
The Gush Shalom document: "The water resources of the entire land
between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean belong to both parties. A
Supreme Israeli-Palestinian Committee will be appointed and will be
responsible for water resources and distribution. Water will be allocated
justly and equally, on the basis of the numerical proportion of residents in
both states. Both parties will cooperate in projects for the development of
additional water resources, such as desalination of seawater." In the
Geneva document a clause on this important subject is missing. In the text
as it was presented to the Israeli and the Palestinian public, this lack is
acknowledged and the text states that this issue was passed on to a team
of experts, which apparently did not yet finish its work. The Ayalon-
Nusseibeh document makes no mention of water.
***
Full original texts available at:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/peace.html
http://www.mifkad.org.il/eng/PrinciplesAgreement.asp
http://www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp
[] Reminder Geneva discussion Thursday 19.30 in Beit Sofer
òáøéú áàúø
www.gush-shalom.org
THE JOINT ACTION GROUP
FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE
Invites you to a discussion of
THE GENEVA INITIATIVE
Thursday 27.11.03
at 19.30 in Beit HaSofer
6, Kaplan Street, Tel-Aviv
Among the participants:
*Initiators of the Agreement*
*Palestinians and Israelis of the JAG*
*Open discussion with participation of the audience*
For details:
Yakov 050-733276 / 09-7670801
Latif: 03-7520212
[] Sign the petition in support of the refusniks
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: Refusniks Parents' Forum <snehab at netvision.net.il>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:52 PM
Dear friends,
As you may know, the trial of the five occupation refuseniks is
about to end. The Refuseniks Parents' Forum intends to publish a
petition supporting the accused and their freedom of conscience
before the final session of the military court in Jaffo. We intend
to gather signatures and contributions in order to print a very large ad
in the daily press. For this purpose, the seruvniks need your help.
Please sign your name, gather additional signatures and make your
contribution against the occupation.
You can use the enclosed form to send your signature (and other
signatures). You can also write and send a check made out to New
Profile to POBox 9013 Jerusalem 91090. Signatures can also be sent
via email to refusniks_updates at yahoogroups.com
=========================================================
=========================================================
While occupation spawns terror
While war spawns poverty and unemployment
While innocent children are being killed in the occupied territories
While an agreement, an alternative to blood and death, is on the table
While the settlers impose terror on the Arab villages
While collective punishment, curfew and siege have become routine
While the occupation corrupts the morals of an entire generation
While soldiers die in a superfluous war – a war for the settlements
While the government of Israel continues its drive for annexation and
expropriation
Six youngsters: Yoni Ben Artzi, Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri
Tsameret and Noam Bahat refuse to become soldiers as a matter of
conscience: they refuse to be occupiers, they refuse to violate the
human rights of the Palestinians and they refuse to assist in the
continuation of the occupation, which is destroying Israeli society.
For more than a year, Israel is imprisoning these young people who
listen to the dictate of their conscience. All this time, they have
been prevented from contributing to Israeli society through
alternative civilian humanitarian service.
If convicted, they can be sentenced to three years in jail.
We, the undersigned demand the immediate release of the prisoners of
conscience, and to enable them to perform alternative civilian
service according to the dictates of their conscience.
=========================================================
=========================================================
Name:
Email:
Address:
--
If you do not really believe us and feel Gush Shalom is exaggerating then
go to the following Haaretz page:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/360916.html
--
http://www.gush-shalom.org/ (òáøéú)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)
with
\\photos - of actions
\\the weekly Gush Shalom ad - in Hebrew and English
\\the columns of Uri Avnery - in Hebrew, Arab and English
\\position papers & analysis (in "documents")
\\and a lot more
######################
Petitions against the Wall:
http://www.gader.org/Main/engPetition.asp (for Israelis)
http://www.petitiononline.com/stw/petition.html (international petition)
######################
N.B.:
On the Gush Shalom website links for:
Articles and documents in German, French and Spanish
In order to receive Gush Shalom's Hebrew-language
press releases mail to:
gush-shalom-heb-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org
+ NB: write the word "subscribe" in the subject line.
If you want to support Gush Shalom's activities you can
send a cheque or cash, wrapped well in an extra piece
of paper to:
Gush Shalom
pob 3322
Tel-Aviv 61033
Israel
or ask us for charities in your country which receive
donations on behalf of Gush Shalom
Please, add your email address where to send our
confirmation of receipt. More official receipts at
request only.
More information about the gush-shalom-intl
mailing list