Why It Won't Work Without Jerusalem

By Joharah Baker - The West Bank

Recently, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak floated an old/new idea of allowing certain Palestinian populated areas around Jerusalem to become the capital of any future Palestinian state. The center of the city, which includes the Old City, would remain in Israeli hands.

Like each time before, the Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal outright, maintaining the PLO's political line and all other Palestinian political parties that insist on east Jerusalem becoming Palestine's capital.

At this point in the Palestinians' struggle, frankly, the people would expect nothing less from their leaders. The Palestinian people have been witness to several historic compromises, some of them more painful than others. In November 1988, late President Yasser Arafat declared Palestine's independence during a special session of the Palestine National Council in Algiers. The future Palestinian state, he announced, would be established on the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. In other words, with one swipe of his mighty pen, Arafat excluded 78 percent of historical Palestine from the national struggle. Palestine would live peacefully side by side with Israel on the land Israel occupied in the 1967 War. Part of that land included east Jerusalem even though Israel unilaterally annexed this sector of the city later in that same year.

Hence, the Palestinian political stance has remained unwavering where Jerusalem is concerned. Still, all else aside, the attachment to Jerusalem runs much deeper than a political stance. On this issue in particular, I find it hard to believe that Palestinians everywhere would be able to release their hold on this holy city.

Take the month of Ramadan, a month of fasting for Muslims across the globe. In the heart of Jerusalem's Old City lies the Noble Sanctuary a 35-acre area that includes the Aqsa Mosque, revered as the third holiest site in Islam and the Dome of the Rock where Prophet Mohammed is said to have ascended to heaven on his winged horse. While Muslims frequent the mosque compound throughout the year, during Ramadan, prayer there is especially coveted. On Fridays, flocks of people descend on the compound to pray and Palestinians in particular are willing to risk arrest and even their lives for a chance to kneel in prayer on its sacred grounds.

Last Friday, September 5, saw thousands of men and women from the West Bank camp out at Israeli checkpoints around the city hoping to be allowed to cross over into Jerusalem. To them it did not matter that the temperature was above 30 degrees or that they would not be allowed a drink of water until the evening call to prayer marked the end of their day of fasting. For these dedicated men and women, reaching Al Aqsa was worth any hardships that might stand in their way.

Fully understanding that Israel would not allow an unlimited of Palestinians to cross into Jerusalem, many young Muslims tried to find other ways that would circumvent the checkpoints to enter the city. This included squeezing through the few remaining cracks in the separation wall in certain areas around Jerusalem or cutting across open fields and ducking from Israeli patrols to somehow enter the "forbidden" city. Once there, Palestinians faced further risks with thousands of Israeli police and border guards stationed at the entrance to the Old City and the compound itself.

To fully understand how important Al Aqsa is to Palestinian Muslims, who make up the overwhelming majority of Palestinian society, imagine being asked to deliver a handful of soil from the compound itself as a gift to someone outside of Jerusalem. This is not an uncommon request, both by Palestinians unable to reach the city and by Muslims who hold the sacred compound in equally high esteem. It is a symbolic gesture, no doubt but one that reflects the unbreakable attachment to this place and the city where it is located.

Palestinian Muslims, however, do not have sole claim to Jerusalem. Christians, both Palestinian and otherwise, are also not willing to hand over Jerusalem to foreign – namely Israeli - hands, especially since it is the site of the Holy Sepulcher, the place where Jesus is said to have been crucified.

Even if we put religious significance aside, Jerusalem holds a special place in Palestinian hearts. The walls of its Old City are centuries old, each with a story to tell. The two small neighborhoods flanking the main entrance to Al Aqsa are mostly inhabited by African- Palestinians, a small minority of the Muslim quarter who although are less prominent than other ethnic groups in this diverse city, have equally as strong bonds to it. Back in the 1940's, a group of pious African Muslims made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and to Al Aqsa to pay their religious duties. Because of their loyalty to Islam and to the Noble Sanctuary, the Waqf, or Islamic Authority, vested in them the duty of guarding the doors to Al Aqsa and allowed them housing in the two neighborhoods just outside of the compound. As the years passed and the subsequent wars broke out, the African men stayed, married Palestinian women, and a new generation of Palestinians of African background was born in Jerusalem.

There are several other ethnic groups in various pockets of the Old City, including Armenians, Christians and Jews, all in their distinct neighborhoods. There is even a Gypsy community with around 100 families living in part of the Muslim Quarter, who have made their home there for centuries.

This post was modified from its original form on 15 Sep, 12:57

This unique hodgepodge of Palestinian ethnicities makes Jerusalem one of the most distinguished cities in the world. While Jews also have claims in the city, Palestinians have come to terms with allowing them the western sector, even though many of the homes there were originally owned by Palestinians.

Given these unbreakable ties between Palestinians and Jerusalem, it is obvious any solution that falls short of granting them the eastern sector as their capital will crash and burn, at least in the eyes of the people. Israel may extract other compromises from the Palestinian leadership but it is our hope that this is one "red line" that will never be crossed.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14149

Olmert Offers Abbas Deal without Occupied Jerusalem

This post was modified from its original form on 15 Sep, 13:00

Open Letter to President Mahmoud Abbas

To: President Mahmoud Abbas
Chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee
President of the Palestinian National Authority

CC:
League of Arab States
Non-Aligned Movement
Organization of the Islamic Conference

Re: The Rights of Palestinian Refugees and the Final Status Negotiations

Dear Mr. President,

Greetings of Return

We, the undersigned Palestinian refugee organizations, civil society movements and institutions in the Palestinian homeland and in exile are national organizations working to defend the right of return. We appeal to you now because we are convinced that the alignment of the official Palestinian position and the position of the Palestinian people with regards to the final status negotiation issues is of the highest priority. Foremost among these issues is the cause of the Palestinian refugees.

We are convinced that the alignment of popular and official positions is the main guarantee of a strong Palestinian position in the current negotiation process, which is taking place in a local, regional and global context that jeopardizes the national rights of the Palestinian people. In this context, we are concerned in particular about the rights of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their original lands and properties, restitution of their homes, lands and properties and compensation for damages incurred over the past 60 years. Based on the fact that all of these rights are guaranteed under international law, and based on our awareness of the enormous pressures faced by Palestinian negotiators and the tactics of negotiations, such as secrecy with regards to the negotiation proceedings, we call upon you to adopt a negotiation strategy that is based on openness with the entirety of the Palestinian people - irrespective of their current place of residence - regarding all aspects and details of the negotiation process. Implementation of the Palestinian refugees' right of return was and continues to be the main purpose for which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established, a purpose which forms the central pillar of the PLO's legitimacy as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Transparency and candidness of our representatives with all sectors of our society will guarantee that our rights are best defended, and strengthen our position in the face of enormous pressures.

It has been clear at all stages of the negotiations that this process aims to eliminate the core issue of the Arab/Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice: the Palestinian refugees and their rights of return and restitution. In fact, elimination of these central Palestinian/Arab demands form the center-piece of both Israeli and US policies. It is also no secret that during the so-called "Oslo Peace Process" these policies have employed insidious tactics in order to nullify these rights altogether. Such tactics include attempts to substitute the return and restitution of the refugees with monetary compensation; to reduce the number of those entitled to exercise these rights from over 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to a tiny minority, including so-called "hardship cases" that would be arbitrarily defined by Israel; to suggest that the refugees return to homes located in the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority; and other humiliating "trade offs" whereby Palestinians are expected to surrender the right of refugees to return to homes, lands and properties of origin in exchange for other rights and demands, such as self-determination, borders, the reclamation of Jerusalem and removal of the illegal settlement-colonies. The Palestinian leadership has rejected such degrading bargaining tactics in previous negotiations, notably those known as the second Camp David summit and the Clinton initiative. The late President Yasser Arafat rejected these tactics, and he was made to pay for that with his liberty and his life.

Whereas the rights of return, restitution and compensation are enshrined in international law and specifically affirmed in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and UN Security Council Resolution 237;

Whereas we see that increasing US pressure aims to force Palestinian negotiators to agree to an obscure framework for a solution that is to be achieved by any means and at the soonest date, and that such a framework

is largely for internal US consumption in the context of a US Presidential election;

Whereas it has become clear that the US administration is working on other fronts to market its obscure framework for a solution in the September 2008 session of the UN General Assembly;

Whereas we realize, as a result of our movement's long and difficult experience with Israeli politics, that Israeli political actors seek to solve the internal Israeli political crisis by venting destruction on the Palestinian front through various policies and practices, all of which work to entrench Israeli occupation, colonialism, and apartheid, and aim to attain international recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish State;'

Whereas Western and Israeli election platforms must not be employed to put pressure on the Palestinian negotiators, who should in no way be a party to the political maneuvers of US and Israeli political candidates, particularly in order to protect the legality, legitimacy, and sanctity of Palestinian national rights regardless of who emerges victorious in foreign elections;

Whereas we perceive the retreat of the once principled European position, and the transformation of this position into one that conforms to the US policy of total complicity and support for Israel;
Whereas we clearly see the weakness and inability of the Arab countries to take action or play any effective role;

Whereas we witness the sharp, painful and unprecedented deterioration in the internal Palestinian political arena;

Whereas it has become plain and obvious that powerful external pressures aim to annul Palestinian refugee rights, particularly the right to return to their original lands and properties and the restitution of these lands and properties;
Whereas Israel and the US, according to Israeli officials, are intensifying their efforts to reach a framework for a solution that is acceptable to both Israel and the US and will be viable regardless of the ruling party;

Whereas the primary measure of the legitimacy of any solution remains the extent to which it will lead to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people, including foremost the right of Palestinian refugees to choose to return to their original homes and lands regardless of their current place of refuge,

We approach you with this statement based on our strong desire to chart a way forward that is built on the highest levels of clarity and candidness with the Palestinian people; a way forward that aims to strengthen the Palestinian position in this sensitive stage of the Palestinian struggle; a way forward that ensures that any framework for a solution will include the following principles in clear and immutable language:

The rights of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return, restitution and compensation are fundamental rights under international law and relevant UN resolutions - particularly UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and UN Security Council Resolution 237. The content of these rights is non-negotiable irrespective of the manner in which they will be exercised;

The right of return is an individual right held by every Palestinian refugee and internally displaced person. This right is passed on from one generation to the next, based on the individual's choice on whether or not to return, an inalienable and indivisible right, and not affected by any bilateral, multilateral, or international treaty or agreement. Any such agreement must respect the fundamental precepts and principles of international law;

The right of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return is a collective right that is not limited to one group or another, and it is an integral part of the Palestinian right of self-determination;

The right of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return is not subject to referendum.

May you remain steadfast in our struggle for freedom and dignity

Drafted: August 2008

Signed:
194 Association (Syria)
Abassiya Association (Palestine)
Abnaa Al-Balad Center for the Defense of the Right of Return (Syria)
Aidun Group (Lebanon)
Aidun Group (Syria)
Al-Awda Palestine Network (Holland)
Al-Awda, Palestine Right to Return Coalition (North America)
Arab Cultural Forum (Gaza, Palestine)
Arab Liberation Front
Arab Palestinian Front
Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced (Palestine)
Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (Palestine)
Beit Nabala Association (Palestine)
Bisan Association (Syria)
Coalition of Right of Return Defense Committees (Jordan)
Coalition of Right of Return Defense Committees (Jordan)
Committee for the Rights of Palestinian Women (Syria)
Confederation of Right of Return Committees (Europe: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, France, Holland, Poland, Finland)
Coordinating Committee of Palestinian Organizations Working in Lebanon (Lebanon)
Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Democratic Palestine Committee
Depopulated Towns and Villages Associations (Gaza, Palestine)
Farah Heritage Society (Syria)
Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Palestine)
Higher Follow-up Committee on Prisoners (Palestine)
Higher National Committee for the Defense of the Right of Return (Palestine)
Inevitable Return Assembly (Syria)
Islamic Jihad Movement
Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]
Istiqlal Youth Union (Lebanon)
Istiqlal Youth Union (Syria)
Ittijah: Union of Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations (Palestine)
Jafra Youth Center (Syria)
Jimzo Association (Palestine)
Lajee Center, Aida Camp (Palestine)
National Assembly of of Palestinian Civil Society Organizations (Palestine)
National Committee to Commemorate the Martyr Ahmad Al-Shuqairy (Jordan)
National Nakba Commemoration Committee (Palestine)
Palestine Democratic Union [Fida]
Palestine House Educational and Cultural Center (Canada)
Palestine Liberation Movement [Fatah]
Palestine Remembered (USA)
Palestine Right of Return Coalition (Global)
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (Palestine)
Palestinian Civil Society Coordinating Committee in Palestine and Abroad (Global)
Palestinian Liberation Front
Palestinian National Democratic Movement (Palestine)
Palestinian National Initiative
Palestinian People's Party
Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
Palestinian Refugee Rights Defense Committee (Balata Camp, Palestine)
Palestinian University Professors Union (Gaza, Palestine)
Palestinian Women's Grassroots Organization (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Democratic Union (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Organization (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Struggle Union (Syria Branch)
People's Assembly of the Towns and Villages Depopulated in 1948 (Palestine)
Platform of Associations in Solidarity with Palestine (Switzerland)
Popular Committees to Defend the Right of Return (Gaza, Palestine)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command
Refugee and Right of Return Committee (Syria)
Refugee Camp Popular Committees (West Bank & Gaza, Palestine)
Refugee Executive Office (Palestine)
Right of Return committee (Switzerland)
Ruwwad Cultural Center (Aida Camp, Palestine)
Salameh Association (Palestine)
Secular Democratic State Group (Gaza, Palestine)
Union of Right of Return Committees (Syria)
Union of Women's Activity Centers, West Bank Refugee Camps (Palestine)
Union of Youth Activity Centers, Refugee Camps (Palestine)
Vanguard for the Popular Liberation War [Sa'iqa]
Women's Activity Centers (Gaza, Palestine)
Yaffa Charitable Fund (Jordan)
Yaffa Cultural Center (Balata Camp, Palestine)
Youth Assembly (Gaza, Palestine)
Youth Struggle Union (Lebanon)

Not sure what the latest word is, but first Abbas said he would be willing to negotiate the right of return (hence the angry letter from Palestinian refugees).

Just read on IMEMC that now he is demanding the right of return for all refugees.

Here is letter to Abbas, in un-chopped format.

One year after Annapolis
Hasan Abu Nimah, 5 November 2008
Mahmoud Abbas, George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert at the Annapolis summit, November 2007. (Omar Rashidi/MaanImages) It seems like another age, but it was only one year ago that United States President George W. Bush and his administration were preparing to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to launch a final push for a peace settlement. The resulting conference in Annapolis, Maryland, was attended by officials from dozens of countries, the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, the Quartet and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, among many others. Only the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people under occupation, besieged in Gaza, were not invited. Although the summit was never intended to produce an agreement in itself, it was supposed to signal that the US and all the other countries would put their full weight in order to achieve a comprehensive agreement by the end of Bush's presidency. Only a fool, or an "enemy of peace" would have dared at the time express doubt about the credibility of the effort or the commitment of those who stood behind it. For many it seemed hard to believe that the world's only superpower would once again set off on the perilous path of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking unless this time it was prepared to go all the way. Bush had held out his "vision" of two states "living side by side in peace," and now he was going to deliver it. This was the consensus reflected by dozens of Arab and foreign diplomats, journalists and others who I talked to or whose opinions I read. I admit that I was one of the few skeptics (a fool perhaps, but never an enemy of peace) who had not the tiniest amount of hope that any such thing would happen. And there was no need to wait long to be proven right -- even though there is no satisfaction in that. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wasted no time in torpedoing any hopes; as soon as he got home from Annapolis he declared his government's intention to massively expand Israeli colonies around occupied Jerusalem which, he claimed, was not even on the peace process agenda since it was the "united and eternal capital of Israel." This being the case, he reasoned, settlement building was a purely internal Israeli matter and no one else's business. Other Israeli leaders rushed to dismiss the year-end deadline as not sacred, and set the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" (which can legally discriminate against non-Jews) as a precondition. The Annapolis sponsors and enthusiasts preferred not to pay too much attention to Israel's rapid and calculated sabotage of their efforts, nor to the other signals that Israel had no intention or desire to arrive at the stated endpoint of the peace process. Regular meetings between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continued without producing one single positive outcome other than to placate US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose own frequent forays in the region were equally sterile. Palestinian and Israeli negotiating delegations met dozens of times without putting on paper a single word or issuing a single statement on any one thing on which they agreed. It is almost a year after Annapolis, and weeks before the Bush administration exits the stage. Olmert, due to his corruption scandals, has been a lame duck for months, and Abbas, also months away from the expiry of his legal term of office, never commanded loyalty or authority among enough Palestinians to strike a deal on their behalf, assuming a deal was ever on offer. As usual, a lot of misguided analysis is once again attributing the failure of the peace process to the imminent departure of the leaders committed to it, thus obscuring the objective factors that made the failure inevitable. Such flawed reasoning holds that once new leaderships are in place in Washington, Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied Ramallah, the process can begin anew. This is a game that suits the participants well; Rice -- the lamest of lame ducks -- is heading back to the region to meet a powerless caretaker prime minister in Israel and a powerless Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah. What can this possibly achieve other than to preserve the illusion of an ongoing "process?" Sadly, many others who heavily invested in the peace process industry will prefer to latch on to these empty maneuvers as signs of "hope" rather than admit that they contain no substance that can ever lead to justice and peace. But let me be clear: the negotiations did not reach a dead end because the negotiators ran out of time and are now leaving the scene. They failed because there was no viable peace project, because Israel, the strongest party, was not interested in reaching a reasonable settlement, and the sponsors of the process lacked the political courage to stand up to Israeli obstruction. There is no reason to believe that any of this is going to change in the short term, no matter who is elected president in Washington or who comes to power in Israel. Nor are there many signs that Europe, which rarely wanted to distance its Middle East policy from that of Washington, even when there are serious misgivings and disastrous results, is about to change course. On the contrary, after Bush, Europe will be only too eager to make amends to Washington, and it is likely that Palestinians will be among the victims of such a rapprochement. Nor is there yet any sign the peace process sponsors will allow Palestinians to freely chose leaders who serve Palestinian, rather than Israeli interests. Nevertheless, Palestinians must continue their efforts to represent themselves and their cause despite the obstacles placed in their way.


This

One should therefore not submit to the concept that the peace process is on temporary hold and will resume on its successful and inevitable path once new leaders are in place. That will never happen in the absence of a plan whose goal is to restore Palestinian rights, implement international law and seek justice for all. Above all, those who continue to invest their efforts in the peace process will have to demonstrate something they never have: the political will and determination to stand up to Israeli rejectionism, colonialism and aggression.

Hasan Abu Nimah is the former permanent representative of Jordan at the United Nations.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9936.shtml

Israel must give up land for peace: Olmert
AFP - Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday that Israel must give up most of the Arab territories it has occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, if it wants peace.
http://news. yahoo.com/ s/afp/20081110/ wl_afp/ mideastconflictisra elpoliticsr abin

Livni distances herself from Olmert comments on '67 borders
Kadima Chairwoman and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni distanced herself Tuesday from outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's recent assertion that Israel needs to return to its pre-1967 borders.
http://www.haaretz. com/hasen/ spages/1036355. html

Foreign troops could deploy in West Bank after peace deal
BRUSSELS - After an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories within the framework of an overall peace agreement, foreign forces could be stationed there for a specific period, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, told Haaretz in an interview over the weekend in Brussels.
http://www.haaretz. com/hasen/ spages/1036103. html

Why do some leaders wait till the end of their term to start making sense? Guess there is still hope for George Bush Jr!

Israel Must Give Up Land for Peace: Olmert
World  (tags: ISRAEL PALESTINE PEACE olmert )

Zahra
- 1 hour ago - news.yahoo.com

Noted Zahra, atleast there seems to be some hope after all. But Obama did say that Jerusalem must remain the capital of Israel after his visit before he was elected. I will watch how this will unfold.

wait for what ..... , nothing is clear.

Peres: Obama told me he was 'very impressed' with Arab peace plan By Anshel Pfeffer
LONDON - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama proclaimed himself "very impressed" with the Arab League's peace plan when he discussed it with President Shimon Peres during a brief visit to Israel four months ago, Peres said Tuesday.

Peres, who had just arrived in London for an official visit, made the comment in interviews to be published in the British media. He was responding to questions about whether he thought Obama would advance the Middle East peace process in general and the Arab League's plan in particular.

But he denied a Sunday Times report earlier this week which claimed that Obama had said Israel would be "crazy" to reject the Arab initiative.
On Monday, former American envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, who has been advising Obama on the subject, also denied reports that Obama had said while visiting Israel in July that he supported the Arab initiative and would base his own diplomatic policy on it.

The plan, originally proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by the Arab League, states that Israel would receive full relations with the entire Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from all the territory it captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, plus a solution to the refugee problem. The Bush Administration has said it views the plan positively, but its own road map peace plan and the understandings reached at last year's Annapolis summit have served as the basis of its diplomatic program.

Peres said the Arab initiative was "not perfect," mainly because it fails to address Jewish rights. Nevertheless, he said, it is worth negotiating, alongside the bilateral talks with the Palestinian Authority.

The plan's big plus, he explained, is that it represents "a sea change" from the famous "three noes" - no peace with Israel, no recognition and no negotiations - of the Khartoum summit in 1967. In addition, he argued, it enables Israel to obtain peace with all the Arab states for the price of an agreement with the Palestinians.

Peres, who said the Arab plan was becoming "serious," added that he did not think the United States would need to pressure Israel to advance the peace process, since Washington and Jerusalem "see eye to eye" on how to solve the conflict with the Palestinians.

Addressing the issue again during a visit to London's old City Hall, where he received an honorary doctorate from University College London, Peres claimed that agreement had already been reached with the Palestinians on most issues, and all that remained was to reach a deal on territorial exchanges comprising 4 to 5 percent of the West Bank.

However, he added, Israel must be given guarantees because "in Gaza we failed. We took down 30 settlements by force, and there is not one Israeli citizen or soldier there anymore. But instead of settlements, they've built launching sites for missiles. And I have to give an answer to Israelis who are asking: 'How can we be sure that it won't happen if we leave more settlements?'"

Discussing negotiations with Syria, Peres noted that both Egypt and Jordan got back all the territory they lost in the Six-Day War by signing peace agreements with Israel, and that "if Syria changes its ways and goes in the direction of Egypt, it knows what it will receive."

On another issue, Peres lashed out at repeated attempts by British university lecturers to impose an academic boycott on Israel, terming it "hypocritical."

"Will the academics defend us? Will they defend our children?" he demanded. "Will they defend Sderot, which is being hit by missiles every day?"

Tuesday night, Peres gave a talk on peace and globalization at Oxford University, where he noted that Zionism arose in response to anti-Semitism and racism, but Obama's election might herald the end of racism. He was periodically interrupted by pro-Palestinian hecklers.

On Wednesday, Peres will address both houses of Parliament, and on Thursday, he will meet with Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038636.html

Unfortunatley Obama said the same thing about Netenyahu's economic plan which calls for full economic development of the occupied territories.

What is the Arab Peace Plan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

See also:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038959.html

Why Israel won't halt settlement expansion? I think they can't control them. In many cases the settlers beleive that the occupied territories is Israel's promised land, they are made up of some extreme religious fanatics who want to "expel the Arab enemy". Some say it is genocide happening in Gaza, in the West Bank it is ethnic cleansing.

Peres warns evacuation of settlers may lead to civil war
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038961.html

The extreme vs the moderate, like Hamas vs Fatah on the Palestinian side. It's like a reverse mirror reflection almost.

One thing is certain, without the dismantling of settlements, there will never be a proper two state solution. That should be "phase one" of the 'roadmap to peace'.

This post was modified from its original form on 20 Nov, 15:50

I have to reread what you posted, Zahra.  I don't know nearly enough about the history of the area.

But, it seems to me that the best situation for Jerusalem would be to have it controlled by an international body.  That way, neither Israel nor the Palestinians have control.  That way, Muslims, Christians and Jews could have full access to the entire city with no one claiming ownership of any part of it.

I just don't see any other way.  There seem to be too many issues around control there.  It seems that this would eliminate them.

Call me crazy, but I don't see any possibility of settling the Jerusalem issue any other way.

I can't argue with that Elizabeth, I think that would be an agreeable solution to the status of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem for me is a bit on the back burner for now.

I think the biggest obstacle to the two state solution are the West Bank settlements. I suppose the post just above yours should have been placed in the settlement thread but their existance is so closely entertwined with the peace process that one can't be addressed without the other.

The Arab peace Initiative suggests that Israel withdrawel from all territory occupied since 1967 and the recognition of an idependent Palestine state within the West Bank and Gaza.

President Peres says that to withdrawal settlers from the West Bank would result in a Israeli civil war!

But, I just don't see how there can be a two state solution, UNLESS the settlements are dismantled. It's just not possible to make a state from swiss cheese.

map of israeli settlements:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).gif

You might want to see this (it's actually quite good.)
http://trekkingtorah.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/zionism-a-security-problem/

Palestinian Elegy

 

Who will sound the requiem

to mark this grieving throng?

Who will write the epitaphs

in this brief historic hour?

Who will grieve the children

slaughtered for no just cause?

And who will bear the coffins

to the burial’s weeping ground?

 

Whose ululation do we hear

and whose plaint will be heard,

when all is set in epic verse,

anthologies composed of tears?

And whose elegy can we recite

when more are killed each night?

So tell us now why did they die

for no just cause or reason why?

 

Why is it the innocent

that pay the terrible price?

In all your adult wars,

why is it the children

that seem to perish first?

It is always their little faces

peeping from tiny shrouds

that break our brittle hearts.

 

So who will sound their requiem,

or write blood stained epitaphs?

Who then can write an elegy,

to honour so many little graves?

There is no shortage of weeping

over each of these little ones.

This world is so impoverished

for its future killed too soon.

 

David © 8^th November 2008

That is so amazingly beautiful David!
Thank You!

That was wonderful ..... ,thanks David

The drawing reminds me of a scene in The Wall by Simone Bittone. She interviews an Israeli who lives right next to the West Bank Wall on the Israel side. He said, "All I want is to have dinner with my neighbor!"

This post was modified from its original form on 25 Nov, 11:32