DOCSLIB.ORG

1 M E M O R a N D U M To: Prime Minister Salam Fayyad Cc: Dr. Saeb Erekat Dr. Khouloud Daibes Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh From: N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 M E M O R a N D U M To: Prime Minister Salam Fayyad Cc: Dr. Saeb Erekat Dr. Khouloud Daibes Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh From: N CONFIDENTIAL M E M O R A N D U M To: Prime Minister Salam Fayyad Cc: Dr. Saeb Erekat Dr. Khouloud Daibes Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh From: Negotiations Support Unit Subject: “New 7 Wonders of Nature” Proposal for the Dead Sea Date: 1 July30 June 2009 The purpose of this memo is to advise on the legal and permanent status implications of Palestinian participation in the nomination of the Dead Sea as one of the “New 7 Wonders of Nature”. Facts As we understand it, the New7Wonders Foundation (Foundation), a private initiative, has invited the PNA, along with Jordan and Israel, to support the nomination of the Dead Sea as a candidate to become one of the ‘New 7 Wonders of Nature’. To the best of our knowledge, the Dead Sea can not qualify as a nominee unless the PNA, Jordan and Israel all support the nomination through the establishment of an Official Steering Committee by each of the three parties. However, we have been unable to rule out the possibility that the Foundation will go ahead with the nomination of the Dead Sea even if the PNA does not support it Both Jordan and Israel have already supported the nomination through the establishment of their respective Official Steering Committees. Israel initially appointed the Megillot (Dead Sea) Regional Council as its point of contact. The jurisdictional area of the Megillot Regional Council incorporates at least 6 settlements and the occupied Palestinian territory around the Dead Sea. Media reportsThe Foundation has suggested through a third party that Israel has since designated the Israeli Ministry of Tourism as itsthe point of contact, and that the contract between the foundation and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism would be signed on July 1, 2009, though we are unable to independently confirm that. According to the standard form contract that each of the Official Steering Committees is expected to enter into with the Foundation, a proposed copy of which we have obtainedhas been forwarded to us, the OSC would be required to facilitate and participate in certain Prepared by the Negotiations Support Unit of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department 1 CONFIDENTIAL publicity events at or near the nominee. See, in particular, clauses 4, 5 and 8 of the annexed contract (annexed). Palestine may: (i) decline to participate or; (ii) potentially participate by submitting an application, either: (a) unilaterally or; (b) through a joint application with Israel and Jordan. Risks of Participation • The primary legal risk would be to open the door to acquiescence (i.e., consent or waiver of objection) arguments in future negotiations, arbitration or litigation.1 Palestinian N7WN participation could be used by Israel or Jordan (or both) to Palestine’s detriment because Israel or Jordan could later argue that such participation evidences Palestinian acquiescence to: (a) the current military occupation, including Israel’s unilateral declaration of the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea areas as “closed military zones” and; (b) de facto Israeli and Jordanian control over, and exploitation of, the Dead Sea. The risk is not insignificant. As mentioned above, several news stories in the past 24 hours, together with independent information supplied from the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, confirm that Israel initially designated Megillot Dead Sea Regional Council (MDSRC) to represent Israel in its participation in N7WN. It would be decidedly against Palestinian interests to participate in N7WN where Israel has designated its N7WN participation to MDSRC, an entity ideologically antithetical to Palestinian rights and interests. Even if the media reports are true about Israel instead designating the Ministry of Tourism as the point of contact, that Israel contemplated such a pivotal role for the settlement regional council at all provides a reasonable reason to believe that Israel intends on to involveing the regional council and the settlements around the Dead Sea in N7WN events. In other circumstances, obtaining written assurances that no prejudice would result from Palestine’s participation might suffice to protect Palestine’s interests.2 On the egregious facts at hand, such an approach would be ill-advised. • Our understanding is that the PLO’s and the PNA’s policy since the Gaza offensive has been to limit contact with the Israeli government. Palestinian engagement in discussions with Israel over its proposed joint application to the N7WN would contravene this policy. 1 As an over-riding general principle, it remains imperative for Palestinians to avoid any conduct or relationship that could prejudice Palestinians’ desired final status outcome in future negotiations with Israel. With respect to the N7WN invitation, because Palestine will likely in future negotiate Dead Sea boundary and resource issues with Jordan, any conduct or relationship that could prejudice such boundary negotiations with Jordan must also be borne in mind and avoided. 2 If a trilateral (or bilateral) application to N7WN were contemplated, at a minimum Palestine would want to obtain an explicit written assurance (preferably in the form of a formal statement) from Israel and Jordan that Palestinian participation in N7WN shall have no effect whatsoever on Palestinian final status negotiations with Israel or any future negotiations with any other party. In addition to the unacceptable settlement organization participation already noted, it is also apparent that the 7 July deadline raises calls into question the feasibity of securing the required assurance. Although the risk of acquiescence arguments would be less in a unilateral application scenario, Palestine would want to submit with its N7WN application a covering letter that clearly states that nothing in Palestine’s application or participation should be construed to imply acquiescence to the current political-military status quo and shall have no effect whatsoever on Palestinian final status negotiations with Israel or any other future negotiations with any other party. Prepared by the Negotiations Support Unit of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department 2 CONFIDENTIAL o Moreover, a joint application with Israel to N7WN may serve to legitimize PM Netanyahu’s ‘economic peace’ agenda, as well as to improve the Israeli government’s standing with Israeli ‘moderates’ and the international community. Arguably, such coordinated participation would provide PM Netanyahu’s government with undeserved positive publicity and thereby fortify its resistance to engaging in negotiations on the core substantive final status issues. o It is unclear to what extent Palestinians stand to benefit by promoting the Dead Sea via N7WN (or any other commercial or promotional vehicle, for that matter) at the present time. Where, as now, Palestine is effectively excluded from meaningful access, control or use of the Dead Sea, only Israel and Jordan stand to increase their exploitation of the Dead Sea area and resources on the basis of positive publicity that N7WN may generate.3 Additionally, a review of the agreement N7WN would require from Palestine if it were to participate makes clear that Palestine would be unable to reap most of the potential benefits of N7WN participation except at Israel’s mercy.4 Israel through the Joint Tourism Subcommittee has been requesting Palestinian cooperation on the marketing and promotion of the Holy Land which has been rejected by the Palestinian side. The Palestinian rejection has been made conditional on the Israeli cooperation isn solving the outstanding tourism issues5 between PA and Israel. Indeed, it is apparent that Palestinian participation in N7WN may only serve to entrench Israel’s and Jordan’s long-term domination of the Dead Sea and its resources. Merits of Participation • Palestinian participation in the N7WN project would lend credence to Palestinian claims to the Dead Sea and its resources, and by extension, to broader Palestinian self- determination and national claims. Conversely, if the nomination goes ahead without Palestine’s participation, this could be detrimental to Palestinian political/legal claims to the Dead Sea and its resources, and by extension, to broader Palestinian self- determination and national claims. In this sense, Palestine’s participation in N7WN could be desirable, subject to the considerations set forth below: • A trilateral application would hold the potential to leverage Israel’s and Jordan’s expressed interest in N7WN as an entrée to secure their recognition of the legitimacy of Palestine’s Dead Sea resource and borders claims. The World Bank led negotiations on the Red Sea Dead Sea Canal Feasibility Study provide one example where Palestine was able to extract tangible riparian and other rights recognition that 3 Anecdotally, the Jordanian ruins at Petra apparently doubled its tourist traffic volume after winning a similar 2007 competition organized by the same company. 4 See clauses 4, 5 and 8 of the annexed proposed contract from N7WN. 5 Tourism issues include, movement of the tourism professionals, movement of tourist between the West Bank and Israel and within the West Bank, and the Palestinian development of Area C of the West Bank including the Dead Sea Area. Prepared by the Negotiations Support Unit of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department 3 CONFIDENTIAL had not otherwise been forthcoming.6 However, given the apparent 7 July deadline for submission of a Palestinian application to N7WN, it is unlikely to be feasible to conclude what would likely be protracted trilateral negotiations for such recognition. • Alternatively,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Palestinian Economy: a Historical View
    The Palestinian Economy: A Historical View Brian J. Friedman, CFA September 30, 2014 Among the thousands of articles written about the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict, very few study the impact of the conflict on the Palestinian economy. According to the CIA approximately 2.2 million Palestinians live in the West Bank (along with 350,000 Jewish settlers) and 1.8 million in the Gaza Strip. Total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the Palestinian Authority is $6.6 billion or $1,650 per capita. By way of comparison, Israeli GDP is $273 billion or $35,000 per capita. Israel’s 1.5 million Arab citizens suffer from a significantly lower standard of living than Jewish Israelis. Nonetheless, Israeli Arab GDP per capita is estimated to be $12,000 (Israel Bureau of Statistics). Even without a formal peace agreement, a cessation of Palestinian terrorism and violence could produce a significant peace dividend for the nearly 12 million people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately the Palestinians only started developing a working economy in 2007 with the appointment of Salam Fayyad as Finance Minister, and then again just in the West Bank. While Israel certainly shares some of the blame for the Palestinians economic malaise, economic development was also a low priority for the Palestinian leadership. Until Mahmoud Abbas became President of the Palestinian Authority in 2005, Palestinian factions pursued armed struggle and terrorism against Israel rather than build institutions required for economic prosperity such as banks, courts, capital markets, factories or corporations. The Palestinian Economy Prior to 1967 In June of 1967 the combined militaries of Egypt, Jordan and Syria mobilized against Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestine's Occupied Fourth Estate
    Arab Media and Society (Issue 17, Winter 2013) Palestine’s Occupied Fourth Estate: An inside look at the work lives of Palestinian print journalists Miriam Berger Abstract While for decades local Palestinian media remained a marginalized and often purely politicized subject, in recent years a series of studies has more critically analyzed the causes and consequences of its seeming diversity but structural underdevelopment.1 However, despite these advances, the specific conditions facing Palestinian journalists in local print media have largely remained underreported. In this study, I address this research gap from a unique perspective: as viewed from the newsroom itself. I present the untold stories of the everyday work life of Palestinian journalists working at the three local Jerusalem- and Ramallah-based newspapers— al-Quds, al-Ayyam, and al-Hayat al-Jadida—from 1994 until January 2012. I discuss the difficult working conditions journalists face within these news organizations, and situate these experiences within the context of Israeli and Palestinian Authority policies and practices that have obstructed the political, economic, and social autonomy of the local press. I first provide a brief background on Palestinian print media, and then I focus on several key areas of concern for the journalists: Israeli and Palestinian violence, the economics of printing in Palestine, the phenomenon of self-censorship, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, and internal newspaper organization. This study covers the nearly two decades since the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which put in place the now stalled process of ending the Israeli military occupation of Palestine (used here to refer to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip).
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Peace in the West Bank and the Fayyad Plan: Are They Working?
    The Middle East Institute Policy Brief No. 28 January 2010 Economic Peace in the West Bank and the Fayyad Plan: Are They Working? By Adam Robert Green Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Salam Fayyad wants to build the insti- tutional foundations of a Palestinian state by 2011. Improved security in the West Bank, and Israel’s easing of some checkpoints, has boosted the effort by strengthening the West Bank’s economy. This Policy Brief asks whether this muted economic re- vival can be deepened and sustained in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel or a unified Palestinian leadership. For more than 60 years, the Middle East Institute has been dedicated to increasing Americans’ knowledge and understanding of the re- gion. MEI offers programs, media outreach, language courses, scholars, a library, and an academic journal to help achieve its goals. The views expressed in this Policy Brief are those of the author; the Middle East Institute does not take positions on Middle East policy. Economic Peace in the West Bank and the Fayyad Plan: Are They Working? There can be a democratic, de facto Palestinian state by 2011, according to Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The goal was outlined in an eloquent two-year plan entitled “Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,”1 published in August 2009, which called for the formation of the institutional founda- tions of statehood prior to, and independent of, an agreement with Israel. The so-called “August plan” is breathlessly ambitious. It envisions the building of a Palestine International Airport in the Jordan Valley, the reconstruction of Gaza Port, and a passage connecting Hamas’ battered province with the West Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Meeting Minutes Saeb Erekat – Marc Otte NAD Jericho June 18, 2008 MO: I've Missed the Opportunity to Talk to You the Last
    Meeting Minutes Saeb Erekat – Marc Otte NAD Jericho June 18, 2008 MO: I’ve missed the opportunity to talk to you the last couple of trips. I have been in touch in David [Welch], Tzipi Livni and other. I will be missing Abu Ala’ this time. I want to hear about a few things: your strategy and ideas about the negotiations, particularly with the internal Israeli politics and US elections. Also on Gaza, the crossings, the business of reconciliation that Abu Mazen is talking about. SE: Tomorrow 6am is the zero hour for the Gaza truce. We have worked hard to achieve the goal and hope it will be sustained. All want that. First it allows us to intensify the peace negotiations – you know if there is an Israeli incursion Abu Mazen will suspend the negotiations. Second, it allows us to expose Hamas: with a quiet front, there will be no funerals and such events. People will see the destruction to infrastructure etc. brought about by their policy. The US is now involved in dealing with the smuggling – with $23 million. This is needed for sustaining the truce. Israel should clearly commit not to use needs of the population (fuel, electricity …) as a tool against Gaza. MO: Regarding the RCP, Israel and Egypt are consistent that the only way is the 2005 formula. I ask you – how? Where will we stay? SE: EU can be stationed on Egyptian side of Rafah – it’s much better than Ashkelon - - only two and a half hours from Cairo. I don’t think the EU will be the obstacle.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamas-Fatah Conflict: Shallow but Wide
    The Hamas-Fatah Conflict: Shallow but Wide NATHANJ. BROWN International attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to highlight major diplomatic initiatives and dramatic events while neglecting concrete developments, subtle trends, and grinding practical realities. Emphasis on the "peace process" has created an illusion that the two iden- tifiable antagonists could come to a clear agreement on a two-state solu- tion. But the widening division in the Palestinian ranks-between Hamas and Fatah, and between the West Bank and Gaza-remains unaddressed. The international community, and particularly Israel, seems to hope that punishing economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation will simply make Hamas disappear and render Gaza more pliable or even irrelevant. The Palestinian division, however, prevents the Palestinians from speaking with one voice, much less acting in a coherent manner. This rift would vitiate any diplomatic breakthrough that might occur between Israel and the Palestinians in resolving, or even managing, the conflict. When Hamas and Fatah fought their brief but bitter civil war in June 2007, the outcome was short of Solomonic: the object of contention, the Palestinian Authority (PA), was actually split in two. The grim reality is that the Palestinians now have two political systems that are moving further away from each other, and neither seems to have a viable strategy for realizing its vision or building a better future for the people it purports to lead. International diplomatic initiatives have proved ephemeral and dismissive of the widening chasm, which is profoundly distressing to most Nathan J. Brown is a nonresident senior associate at the CarnegieEndowment for InternationalPeace and professor of political science and internationalaffairs at George Washington University.
    [Show full text]
  • Usaid West Bank & Gaza
    USAID WEST BANK & GAZA - Latest Mission Program Achievem... http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/weekly_achDec2809.html Home Work With Us Contact Us About Us Programs Galleries News Notices Partners Resources You are here: Home > Mission Program Achievements > Mission program achievements fot this week Mission Program Achievements Week of December 28, 2009 W a t e r R e s o u r c e s a n d I n f r a s t r u c t u r e • New Classrooms Relieve Overcrowding in a Hebron Girls’ School: The Emergency Jobs Program, implemented by CHF International, completed the construction of four additional classrooms for a girls’ school in the rural community of Biyar al Arous in Hebron. The construction relieved over-crowded conditions for 667 students and 33 teachers. The $116,309 project created over 1,100 work-days for 96 workers. Upgraded Water Network Provides Water to All in Dar Salah: USAID’s Emergency Water and Sanitation and Other Infrastructure Program, implemented by ANERA, upgraded the deteriorated water network at Dar Salah village in the Bethlehem District. All 4,000 inhabitants of the village now enjoy a reliable supply of potable water. USAID contributed $230,000 to this activity, which generated more than 550 person-days of employment. Ec o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t Palestinian Food Industries Exhibition Boosts Business for Food Producers: Over 40 Palestinian food companies exhibited their food products at a three-day show sponsored by the Palestinian Food Industries Association and attended by 15,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority
    U.S. Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority Jim Zanotti Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs January 8, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40664 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress U.S. Security Assistance to the Palestinian Authority Summary Since shortly after the establishment of limited Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s, the United States has periodically provided assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) for civil security and counterterrorism purposes. Following the death of Yasser Arafat in late 2004 and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as his successor as PA President in early 2005, then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice created the office of U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC) for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to help reform, train, and equip PA security forces which had been personally beholden to Arafat and his political allies. Previous Israeli-Palestinian efforts at security cooperation collapsed during the second Palestinian intifada that took place earlier this decade. Since Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, head of the USSC since November 2005, and the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) have helped with the “gendarmerie-style” training of West Bank-based PA security personnel. As of June 2009, approximately 400 Presidential Guardsmen and 2,200 National Security Forces troops have been trained at the Jordan International Police Training Center (JIPTC) near Amman. All troops, new or already serving, are vetted for terrorist links, human rights violations, and/or criminal records by the State Department, Israel, Jordan, and the PA before they are admitted to U.S.-sponsored training courses at JIPTC.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and Hamas: Conflict in Gaza (2008-2009)
    = 87&*1=&3)= &2&8a=43+1.(9=.3=&?&=,**28,**3== .2=&3499.`= 447).3&947= 3&1>89=.3= .))1*=&89*73=++&.78= &741=.,)&14;.9?= 5*(.&1.89=.3= .))1*=&89*73=++&.78= *7*2>=_=-&75= 5*(.&1.89=.3= .))1*=&89*73=++&.78= &8*>=_=)).8= 3&1>89=.3= .))1*=&89*73=++&.78= -7.8945-*7=_=1&3(-&7)= 3&1>89=.3= .))1*=&89*73=++&.78= -4)&=&7,*8843= 5*(.&1.89=.3=39*73&9.43&1=:2&3.9&7.&3=41.(>= *'7:&7>=+3`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= .*+*+= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 87&*1=&3)= &2&8a= 43+1.(9=.3=&?&=,**28,**3== = :22&7>= On December 27, 2008, Israel launched a major military campaign dubbed “Operation Cast Lead” against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli offensive came in response to markedly increased Palestinian rocket fire following the expiration of a six-month cease-fire on December 19. On January 3, 2009, Israel began a ground offensive into Gaza. Despite international pressure to halt the fighting (including the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860 on January 8), the conflict continued until January 18, when Israel unilaterally ceased fire and Hamas followed suit shortly thereafter. Israel’s technological superiority and reliance on heavy armor and firepower contributed to a wide disparity in casualties—approximately 1,440 Palestinians have died (with some organizations estimating that at least half of the dead are civilians), compared with 13 dead (including four civilians) on the Israeli side.
    [Show full text]
  • SWP Comments 14/2007)
    Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs »Hamastan vs. Fatahland« A Chance for Progress in the Middle East? Muriel Asseburg SWP Comments In mid-June 2007, the »Islamic Resistance Movement« Hamas gained the upper hand in the Gaza Strip after a series of bloody conflicts. After seizing control of security facil- ities, Hamas announced the beginning of »Islamic rule« in the Strip. Palestinian President and Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, responded by dissolving the government of national unity and declaring a state of emergency. He appointed an emergency government headed by Salam Fayyad, the previous minister of finance, declared the military wing of Hamas and its security forces to be illegal and ordered their disarma- ment. He has since rejected any cooperation with Hamas in unusually strong terms. Israel and the international community have regarded this split as an opportunity to resume support for the Palestinian Authority (PA) and return to the diplomatic process. As of mid-June 2007, there have been two In particular, Hamas calls for all security governments in the Palestinian territories. forces to be placed under the control of the While Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, the Interior Ministry and for effective power West Bank is ruled by the emergency (since sharing in the institutions of the Palestinian mid-July 2007 the care taker or transition) Authority (PA) and the PLO. Hamas claims government under Salam Fayyad in coope- that its actions in the Gaza Strip were not ration with President Mahmoud Abbas. The directed against Fatah as such, but rather Hamas leadership rejects the Fayyad govern- against those people in Fatah and the Fatah- ment as illegal, arguing that the Palestinian dominated security forces who were harass- basic law requires any government to be ing the local population, engaging in crimi- ratified by the Palestinian Legislative Coun- nal activities, and preventing the unity gov- cil (PLC).
    [Show full text]
  • The Years After the Dream: Bethlehem's View of Oslo
    Occasional Publication October 2013 The years after the dream: Bethlehem’s view of Oslo By Akram Atallah Alayasa Executive summary Twenty years after the Oslo Accords, Palestinians are disillusioned with their promise. Oslo was meant to set the blueprint for two secure sovereign neighbouring states. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the agree- ment led to a dependent and derivative Palestinian shadow state and a predatory Israeli neighbour. This history casts doubt on the current negotiations and the initiative of U.S. secretary of state John Kerry. This is most evident in the state of Palestinian cities, especially Bethlehem. Bethlehem, like other Palestinian cities, is surrounded on all sides by settlements, walls and checkpoints. This has limited the city’s ability to expand and has separated it from Jerusalem. On the other hand, Bethlehem is special. Because of its historical and religious significance, the small city has managed to survive and even prosper, despite all odds. Tourism has provided it with revenues that allow for at least some economic development. But like the rest of Palestine, tourism is still hostage to political stability. Thus, as Bethlehem’s business people bravely invest in the town, their economic futures are still tied to the volatile Palestinian/Israeli reality. While Oslo has changed much in Palestine, it has yet to improve things to a similar degree. On a typical day at Bethlehem’s busiest intersection, four In many ways, Oslo reaffirmed Palestinian identity and Israeli armoured personnel carriers brought traffic to a national constants. The Declaration of Principles carried halt. Normally, this happens when Israeli army personnel with it an Israeli and international recognition of the or Israeli settlers clash with protesters near the check- Palestinians’ rights and, more importantly, their very points separating the district from Jerusalem to the north existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening the Palestinian Economy to Keep a Two-State Solution Viable
    ASSOCIATED PRESS/NASSER ISHTAYEH PRESS/NASSER ASSOCIATED Strengthening the Palestinian Economy to Keep a Two-State Solution Viable By Hardin Lang and Rudy deLeon April 13, 2016 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Strengthening the Palestinian Economy to Keep a Two-State Solution Viable By Hardin Lang and Rudy deLeon April 13, 2016 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Overview of the Palestinian economy 6 Challenges facing the Palestinian economy 6 Lack of control over revenue from imported goods 7 Barriers to exports and imports 7 Situation at the Allenby Bridge 8 Restrictions on freedom of movement 9 Restrictions on employment in Israel 10 Access to finance 10 Access to and management of the land 13 Most economic sectors are vulnerable to restrictions 14 Legitimacy and transparency of the Palestinian Authority 15 Recommendations 15 Priorities for U.S.-Israel-Palestinian diplomacy 19 Priorities for direct bilateral and multilateral economic engagement with the Palestinians 21 Conclusion 22 About the authors and acknowledgments 23 Endnotes Introduction and summary It has been more than two decades since the signing of the first Oslo Accord, which set into motion a process that was designed to achieve a lasting peace based on a two-state solution. Subsequent rounds of diplomacy have failed to realize that vision. Growing numbers of Israelis and Palestinians have begun to question the “land for peace” bargain.1 Yet the strategic logic of a two-state solution, with an independent state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, remains strong. Without two states—both viable, thriving, secure, and free—Israel faces a difficult dilemma in reconciling its identity as a Jewish state with its tradition of democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTIVISM 2006, April 26Th Evacuation
    the book of ACTIVISM 2006, April 26th Evacuation In April of 2006, the Israeli army evacuated a military camp strategically located on the highest hill at the southern entrance to the Palestinian city of Beit Sahour, part of the region of Bethlehem. The evacuation was itself a violent operation, at night dozens of tanks rolled into the town and in the morning the base was found empty. 2006, April 27th The morning after The morning after the military left Palestinians destroyed the space and carried out as many remnants of building materials they could use and carry. This destruction is a spontaneous architectural moment of re-appropriation, and as such we believe that it should not be prevented or controlled. It is only after the indeterminate result of this moment of first encounter, and within the possible rubble of its physical results, that architectural construction may begin. This moment of first access questions the conception of architecture and urban planning. The military history of the hill precedes the occupation. It was initially the site of a police station built by the British Mandatory forces during the Arab revolt of 1936-39. After 1948 it became a military base for the Jordan Legion, and after 1967 it become an Israeli military base. As part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, an agreement was signed between the municipality of Beit Sahour and the central government of Yasser Arafat, guaranteeing that in case of Israeli evacuation, the fortress would no longer be used as a military or police point, but instead handed over to the municipality for public use.
    [Show full text]