By Israel Insider staff    
  The independent Palestinian news agency Maan published a Hebrew document late last week that purports to represent the "principles" apparently agreed on in negotiations between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. While the offices of both men denied any connection to it, comments by Israeli President Shimon Peres confirm some of the main points. On one of the most controversial points, that Israel has agreed to surrender sovereignty the Old City of Jerusalem, Peres pointedly refused to comment.
Despite the denials, then, there is reason to believe that the draft does represent or approximate, the emerging joint declaration between Olmert -- who has kept negotiations from almost all of this minister -- and Abbas, who has doubtful authority to negotiate a deal since his supporters were expelled from Gaza and his headquarters there conquered by Hamas. That apparently hasn't stop the Israeli Prime Minister, evidently with the blessing of eminence grise Peres, who long has pushed for a deal that would redivide Jerusalem.
In its first point, the document states -- adopting Arab language for the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria -- that Israel has agreed to "end the occupation of the West Bank within an agreed-upon time period." adding that "the retreat and the evacuation of the settlements will occur gradually and in several stages. Each area that is evacuated will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, which will establish law and order there." Sidestepping the fact that the legally elected government of the Palestinian Authority supported Hamas, while Abbas and his Fatah apparatus fled to the West Bank, the document goes on to note that "the existence of a regime in Gaza that is willing to be part of the peace process will enable Israel to view Gaza and the West Bank as one political entity.
The second point of the document confirms previous reports that Israel had agreed to give up the equivalent of 100% of the territories acquired in the Six Day War of 1967. It says that "an unarmed Palestinian state will be established, whose permanent borders will be based on the pre-1967 borders. The precise border will reflect security, demographic and humanitarian needs. An exchange of territory will be enabled on a 1:1 basis, to preserve settlement blocs in Israeli hands and to guarantee Palestinian contiguity and economic development."
The third point says that "There will be two capitals in Jerusalem, that of Israel and that of Palestine, and they will be sovereign over the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, respectively. The two municipalities will cooperate for the enhancement of the quality of life of all the residents." The language would seem to indicate that Israel has abandoned its position that the Palestinian capital would be in Abu Dis, not in the central part of Jerusalem.
Indeed, the document suggests that there would be a "special administration" presumably under the authority of an international or multinational authority to administer the holiest of sites in Jerusalem, and possibly the entire Holy Basin, including the Old City in its entirety. "Special arrangements will be emplaced to preserve free access to all the holy sites of the various religions. A special administration will be established to maintain the two nations' bonds with the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem." In other words, this "special administration" will determine how and when and where Jews are allowed to visit and pray in their most sacred spots, including the Temple Mount and the Kotel (Western Wall).
The fifth point holds that "Palestine will be recognized as the national home of the Palestinian nation, and Israel will be recognized as the national home of the Jewish nation."
The incendiary sixth point appears to confirm prior reports that Israel has made additional concessions on the issues of Palestinian refugees, without clear insistent that they would be resettled in a future Palestine, not in Israel. Indeed, there is a suggestion that Israel may be ready to take some responsibility for their suffering. "A fair and agreed solution will be found for the problem of the Palestinian refugees, with consideration and recognition of the suffering that was caused to them, and with the understanding that the implementation of national self-definition will be the main aspect of the solution." The term "national self-definition" hints at a further erosion in the Israeli position. If each nation defines itself, who is to say that a future Israel, bloated with the fast-growing birthrate of Arab citizens and newly arrived Palestinians rejoined by "family unification" and other measures to redress their suffering, will not choose to redefine itself as a "state of all its citizens." The ambiguous language hints at unresolved issue that guarantee future explosions.
The seventh point of the document essential equates Israeli army actions with terrorist attacks from the Arab sites, effectively preventing Israel from taking pre-emptive or retaliatory measures. "The two sides will declare their willingness to end the conflict and to act to increase public support for the agreement as much as possible. The two sides will act with all their force, together and separately, against any manifestation of violence and terrorism that is directed from the area of either state to the other."
The eight point expresses the hope that the Arab states will support these principles. "The two sides see this agreement as a significant manifestation of the principles of the Arab League's peace initiative, and call upon the members of the League to take operative steps to bring about its full implementation. Similarly, the sides call upon the entities represented in the Quartet and international community to guarantee and help, in various ways, to promote and actualize this agreement."
The document ends with this paragraph: "A document based on principles of the above type must be reached before the international summit in November, must be presented during the summit, and must be anchored in international decisions after it. Immediately following the summit, parallel with the negotiations for a detailed agreement, Israel will begin withdrawing its forces and evacuating settlements from areas in the West Bank. Completion of the various stages of evacuation will be done parallel to the completion of the negotiations."
The emphasis on "must" and "immediately" indicates that Israel will invite and succumb to international pressure and that negotiations will not reach their "completion" until Israel has retreated fully, with no strategic assets left in its hands. Since it says that "immediately following the summit... Israel will begin withdrawing its forces and evacuating settlements" there is the understanding that the agreements, which will have no backing by the Knesset or people of Israel, will have a force that supersedes the authority of Israel's parliament: truly an imposed solution that disregards the will of the Israeli people. The last sentence of this paragraph further indicates that there will be no recognition of Israel nor declaration of an "end of conflict" before fully Israeli capitulation and retreat. Likely not then either, since the Palestinians and Arabs will have nothing more to gain without additional Israeli withdrawals and dismantlement.
In a holiday interview with the Jerusalem Post, President Shimon Peres waxed loquacious on all manner of subjects related to Israel. Asked about the status of Jerusalem, he referred to the formula of former US President Bill Clinton: "What Clinton said: Jewish parts of Jerusalem for Israel, and the Arab parts for the Arabs. And there has to be an arrangement whereby all of the faiths can pray in the places that are holy to them."
The Jerusalem Post followed up -- "You mean some kind of non-sovereign arrangement in the Old City?" Peres refused to answer. "I don't want to get into that."
Peres tried to rationalize the refusal to discuss or vote on Israel's diplomatic position."And these [political] negotiations also have to be secret. There is an opening position and a fallback position. You can't bring an agreement to the people [for approval] until it is finalized." However, Prime Minister Olmert has indicated that he has no plans to bring the declaration of principles, or any other diplomatic paper for the vote of the Knesset or the people before the "mandatory" summit planned for November. In other words, the government of Israel appears ready to undertake diplomatic obligations without any public discussion of its position, a stance which is ruffling feathers even within Olmert's government.
Peres' refusal to indicate the nation's red lines was echoed by Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni. "Israel cannot divulge information on what the country is willing to give up before the beginning of negotiations with the Palestinians because it will weaken the country's stance, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Saturday, rejecting a proposal made by Vice Premier Haim Ramon, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Original Source