 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright Đ2000 UnitedJerusalem.com, Inc. P.O.BOX 26 New York, N.Y.10021 |
|||
|
|||
|
The Following are the 44 reasons why Fateh Movement rejects the Proposals made by US President Clinton First: The Peace Process Terms of Reference | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21|| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | First: The Peace Process Terms of Reference The process was launched on the basis of international legitimacy resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of land for peace, in addition to the resolutions pertaining to Jerusalem no. 181, 252 and pertaining to the refugees no. 194 and pertaining to settlements no. 486. The proposals violated the terms of reference in the following areas, which stipulates refusing them: 1- Non-implementation of full withdrawal from the occupied territories according to UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and the call for cutting part of the land means dividing the Palestinian state into three separated cantons; this prevents the geographic continuity that was stipulated in the unfair Oslo Agreements. 2- Demanding the reaching to a full peace without full military and civil withdrawal of the occupation army and the settlers from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967; this violates the principle of land for peace; an incomplete withdrawal means an incomplete peace; this is a situation that does not end the state of conflict, which is stipulated in the proposals.R e t u r n t o t o p 3- The demand for dividing Jerusalem to the point of fragmenting it into pieces without considering it an indispensable part of the occupied Palestinian lands; this contradicts with the UN Security Council resolution 252 pertaining to East Jerusalem.R e t u r n t o t o p 4- The call to cancel the right of return for the Palestinian refugees to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and impose the cases of resettlement and rehabilitation and some cases of return on a humanitarian basis under the title of family reunification.R e t u r n t o t o p 5- Impose the legitimacy of settlements through proposing a the annexation of 5% of the area of the West Bank to absorb the settlers; this contradicts with all resolutions issued by the UN Security Council and General Assembly that consider settlements as illegitimate and an obstacle in the path of peace.R e t u r n t o t o p Second: Sponsorship of the Peace Process The peace agreements were signed under US and Russian sponsorship with European and Arab participation and a UN representative. However, the monopoly of the Zionist Clinton administration to the peace process, especially after the end of the transitional phase without implementing it, made the Palestinian position stress on the full international sponsorship of the process. In addition to the reasons pertaining to the terms of reference, we add the following reasons for rejecting the proposals: 6- Imposing the absence of the UN in order to make the international legitimacy resolutions absent from any agreement.R e t u r n t o t o p 7- The US monopoly means that the Zionist group of the White House and the Zionist Lobby are controlling the future of the Palestinian people cause; in many of the instances, they prefer the Israeli interest over the US interest because of their ideological connection with the Zionist thought.R e t u r n t o t o p 8- The absence of the international sponsorship means the absence of guarantees towards the implementation of international legitimacy and making room for maneuvering and evasion.R e t u r n t o t o p 9- The US proposals talk about an end of a conflict at the time when they propose a new declaration of principles that abolishes the terms of reference of the peace process and do not deal with the final status of the process that requires implementing decisions and not evading them. Accepting the proposals even with reservations transforms the basic reference into a Palestinian non-binding demand and releases the Israelis and Americans from it.R e t u r n t o t o p 10- The vagueness of the text of the proposals requires international sponsorship that can impose clarity instead of the destructive vagueness so that interpreting the texts of the articles will not be in the hands of the US lobby and will not be subject to the hegemony of the Israeli force.R e t u r n t o t o p In addition to what we have mentioned in terms of non-commitment to the resolutions of full withdrawal 242 and 338 and the land for peace principle, there are additional reasons pertaining to the land: 11- The proposals are launched on the basis that the conflict is around the occupied territories in 1967, which is 23% of the Historical Palestine area; they are trying to ignore the historical and natural right of the Palestinian people on all of the Palestinian territories; they ignore UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which divided Palestine into a Jewish state that controls 52% and an Arab state which controls 44% and a separate entity for Jerusalem of 2%: it transformed the Palestinian lands into the Compromise of Partition, then into a Compromise of Forceful Occupation of half of the lands of the Palestinian state and half of the entity of Jerusalem. Now, they want to impose a new compromise of partition on the remaining 23% of the land.R e t u r n t o t o p 12- They play tricks in the ratios they talk about; we have to stress that we reject in the field of modern negotiations to talk about ratios of land. The basic matter is the principle of full withdrawal. Despite this, when Clinton says that Palestinians talk about 100% of the land and that Israelis talk about 90% of the land, which means they want to annex 10% only, but Clinton exerts pressure to reach a middle-road solution of 95% of land to the Palestinians. This figure is considered a profitable bargain to some under the shaking balance of powers. When the secret of figures was revealed, many realized that the real ratios are otherwise; they realized that these figures would shred the Palestinian entity into cantons. The 95% will not be calculated from the total area of the West Bank occupied in 1967; it will be calculated after deducting Jerusalem which was annexed, and the no mans land in Latron and the Dead Sea, which equals to 18% of the West Bank; this means that the withdrawal from 95% of a total area of 82%, which means withdrawing from 77% of the total area of the West Bank.R e t u r n t o t o p 13- Out of the remaining 77%, the proposals demand cutting 5% in addition to leasing 3% for 999 years "until Dooms Day"??? which leaves 69%, which is 15% of the historical and natural right of the Palestinian people in the lands of their homeland.R e t u r n t o t o p 14- The proposal that demands keeping 80% of the settlers in their settlement sites despite its illegitimacy; this proposal gives them land equal to four times the land where settlements are located now; all constructed settlements are located on 6.1% of the total area of the West Bank while giving them 5% to 6% is three or four times its area 15- Despite our absolute rejection to the land exchange principle as a precondition and not a result of negotiations between two independent states, the proposals included the exchange of 5% of the Palestinian lands in return for 1% to 3% of occupied lands in 1948. Instead of having it of the same value and size, the proposals suggest cutting the most important, fertile and populated parts of land and includes the basic water basin for the Palestinians and besieges Arab Jerusalem while they suggest in return desert land that are used as dumpsite for nuclear waste.R e t u r n t o t o p 16- Proposing the leasing of Palestinian lands for a long period of time is a state of annexation under tricky titles; we do not know for what purpose these lands will be used. Is it an attempt to cancel what has been agreed upon regarding the safe passage as a basic part of the peace process in the "Gaza Jericho First" Phase which has been stalled for now.R e t u r n t o t o p 17- The proposals give continuity of land to be annexed or rented by Israel so that it will lead to disconnecting the Palestinian lands. 18- The image of the Palestinian homeland according to the proposals gives an idea about the future conflict between the points of the intertwining and overlapping triangles which disrupts the future life of the Palestinian people because of this geographical overlap instead of geographical separation; the joint borders between the Palestinian lands and Israel after the amendments according to the proposal will be ten times the length of the existing Green Line and that the settlement blocs and concentrations will become areas for future conflict.R e t u r n t o t o p 19- Looking at the map according to the proposals gives a preliminary vision that the Palestinian state is unsustainable and cannot grow and absorb the refugees. Therefore, we reject using the settlement blocs as a negotiation principle that imposes itself on the ground.R e t u r n t o t op 20- Annexing an unpopulated area under the pretext of security reasons is rejected because it reduces the Palestinian sovereignty and makes the aspired state a subordinating entity, especially on the eastern borders along the Jordan River.R e t u r n t o t o p Clinton proposed a general principle that Arab regions go to Palestine and Jewish regions go to Israel. Clinton also appealed to both sides to draw up maps that secure the maximum extent of geographic continuity to both sides along with rights of both sides in Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall. The proposals pertaining to Jerusalem bring more substantial reasons to reject the proposals, mainly the following: 21- Rejecting the principle of Judaization and annexation since Jerusalem occupied in 1967 and anything in it belongs to Palestine and no one can accept the measures of Judaization and annexation that were exercised by Israel and violating the international legitimacy resolutions. 22- Rejecting any rights of Jews in the Aqsa Mosque that must not be desecrated by the Zionist extremists.R e t u r n t o t o p 23- Rejecting any rights for Jews in the Western Wall.. the Buraq Wall or its extension, this matter was ratified by a British Commission, especially after the Buraq Revolution in 1929 while its resolution came in 1931 regarding the right of ownership of the Wall to the Islamic Waqf and that Jews cannot set up a table near the Wall and that their connection and proximity to the Wall will be upon a permission by the Moslems.R e t u r n t o t o p 24- Rejecting the talk over the so-called Wailing Wall which is 58 meters long and reject its extension to include all the Western Wall which is 485 meters long since the whole wall is part of the Aqsa Mosque and there won't be any fragmentation of sovereignty over it. 25- Rejecting any recognition of the Jews rights in the Tunnel beneath the Western Wall since the mere opening of this tunnel in 1996 during Netanyahu reign erupted the Aqsa Uprising that did not calm down until the Hebron Protocol was imposed on Netanyahu and the withdrawal from important parts in Hebron.R e t u r n t o t o p 26- Rejecting the principle of sharing sovereignty over the Aqsa Mosque and rejecting any Israeli sovereignty beneath the Aqsa Mosque.R e t u r n t o t o p 27- Rejecting the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the sites that have connection with the Jews within the borders of East Jerusalem, such as what they call The Jewish Quarter, the Jewish Cemetery, City of David where Silwan town is located. This means once again yielding to the idea of dispersing the city into mosaic streets that contradict with the sanctity of the city that Zionists claim they want tit unified. They want it also under their absolute sovereignty. The future of the Holy City is that it should be open to all worshippers and religious people so that each can reach to his holy site under the Palestinian Islamic and Christian sovereignty and that does not contradict with any religion, including the Jewish religion.R e t u r n t o t o p 28- The proposals ignored the Arab rights in West Jerusalem since 70% of West Jerusalem is based on stolen Arab properties. The launching of the Palestinian armed revolution in 1965 under the title of (The Road of Return, the Road of Unity), at that time, the return was not meant as the return according to resolution 194, which means return under the Zionist entity but return under the liberation of Palestine. Then, the total occupation of the Palestinian lands came in 1967 to become the political program that coincides with the balances of powers that accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A concession was made on the area of the land. But the sacred right of return could not be surrendered. The issue of the refugees is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The refugees have a right. They are residing in various Arab countries, whether they have citizenship of these countries or if they are living in the refugee camps. They all refuse the idea of resettlement in general. They demand their right of return as a principle. This sacred right was ratified by the international legitimacy resolution 194, which was violated by Clinton's proposals. In addition to this blatant violation, there are other reasons to be added: 29- The proposals violate the core of the right of return since it expresses a freedom of choice for the Palestinian human being so that return will be to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and not to the sites that they decide.R e t u r n t o t o p 30- The right of return must guarantee also the right of compensation for all who desire to return because o9f the sufferings and eviction and for the years in which the occupation used these properties. 31- The formula in the proposals imposes on Arab countries to absorb Palestinian refugees as citizens in them and this is a rejected matter since it is a decision of collective punishment without giving the individuals freedom of choice.R e t u r n t o t o p 32- The proposals that demand a formula of both Palestinian and Israeli sides recognizing the right of return of refugees to historical Palestine or to their homeland show that the agreement must clarify that there is no specific right for refugees in return to the regions that are located now within Israel. This deception rises from the fact that Israel cannot absorb the right of return but it allows the unlimited return of any Jew in the world at any time. The slogan of Zionism remains immigration and it affects the Israeli policy which absorbed in a short period of time more than one million Russian immigrant from the former Soviet Union, where many of them were not Jews, but there is room for them in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people. 33- It is impossible to recognize the alleged right of return for the so-called the Chosen People into the Promised Land after thousands of years while at the same time it denies the Palestinian human being the same right and they see their lands seized every day and they are evicted from it every day.R e t u r n t o t o p 34- rejecting the right of return means the continuation of the struggle indefinitely and blocking the path for any possibility for coexistence between the Palestinian Moslem and Christian people and the Israelis. This coexistence can realize in the future democratic relations within the context of the historical Palestine that can secure peace and security. The right of return does not aim to destroy Israel as Zionist claim; the right of return seeks to help Jews get rid of the racist Zionism that wants to impose their permanent isolation from the rest of the world.R e t u r n t o t o p In addition to the principle position pertaining to rejecting settlements, the proposals tried to engage in details that confirm the US saying at the beginning of the Madrid Conference that settlements are illegitimate and constitute an obstacle in the path of peace. If we realize that most of the settlements were constructed or expanded during the reign of Clinton's sponsorship of the peace process, we conclude that he was with the Zionist Dennis Ross planning what they are offering now, which adds more reasons to reject the proposals: 35- Rejecting the using of settlements blocs as a negotiation principle according to the US proposal because they subject the most vital Palestinian interests, mainly the geographic continuity of the Palestinian state and control over the Palestinian natural resources, to the Israeli greedy interests.R e t u r n t o t o p 36- The principles inside these proposals oppose each other since the principle of annexing the settlements contradicts with the principle of reducing the impact of this on the Palestinian land and the Palestinian people.R e t u r n t o t o p 37- The proposals demand the Palestinian approval to the violation of international legitimacy resolutions which means legitimizing the process of settlements that constitute a dangerous cancer in the Palestinian body on land and people. R e t u r n t o t o p The Israelis and the Americans understand that security achieves peace. Therefore, the US proposals within this context transforms the land for peace principle into security for peace formula and sometimes security for security and that the most important point for them is to make the land absent from any formula. There are new reasons for rejecting the US proposals because of the security aspect of these proposals: 38- The proposals stipulate that withdrawal takes place within a period of three years and handing over to international troops is to be done gradually and that Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley remains for three more years. These proposals seem to be suggested to be rejected. They give the justification not to replace the Israeli occupation through a compound occupation with international troops and cancel the eastern borders of the state of Palestine. It is natural based on the capacity of Israel, which withdrew in a matter of a few hours from South Lebanon, can make the withdrawal within one month and not years.R e t u r n t o t o p\ 39- The US proposes that Israel should have three early-warning stations and bases for weapons warehouses for ten years, in addition to its right to deploy its troops in the Palestinian lands during an emergency state to be defined by Israel; they want us to be occupied psychologically forever, which is the worst level of an autonomy. 40- The proposals give the Palestinian people a state with sovereignty but without arms, which means a state with a violated sovereignty, which cannot be accepted by any sane human being; the Palestinian people realize that the Israeli arson did not stop the Palestinian people from moving in their revolution and Intifada. However, seeking peace must carry with it the meanings of justice, respect, freedom and not subordination.R e t u r n t o t o p 41- The proposals demand arrangements through which the state of Palestine accepts the violation of its air space under the title of Israel's needs in the area of training and operations, which violates blatantly and complicates the relation between the Palestinian state and the neighboring Arab countries.R e t u r n t o t o p 42- The peace imposed through these proposals does not guarantee ending the conflict but will escalate it in the future since the outstanding issues between the aspired Palestinian state and Israel will appear very clearly, especially on the issues of water, environment and the future economic relations, which cannot be stable under these proposals. R e t u r n t o t o p 43- The proposal to end the conflict in the region as soon as the Palestinian leadership accepts Clinton's proposals is the biggest trick because accepting these proposals after the above-mentioned reasons means moving the conflict into an internal Palestinian-Palestinian conflict that will destroy the Intifada and into an Arab-Palestinian conflict; this reveals that the golden opportunity that Clinton offers in the overtime of his term as president is nothing but a poisonous opportunity and what is most dangerous about it is to find people who can deal with them because these proposals will be the grounds for the new US administration. Therefore, the rejection must be clear and honest.R e t u r n t o t o p 44- Ending the conflict in the region is an Arab-Palestinian cause and cannot be done through an imposed deal because it is rejected by our people and by our Arab and Islamic nation. Ending the conflict requires reaching a comprehensive peace in the region where the peace process becomes mature enough with its accepted goals achieved on all Syrian and Lebanese tracks alongside the Palestinian track. All the above-mentioned reasons that aim to reject surrendering and rejecting the stopping of the Intifada can be summarized in one reason. If the new US administration decides to play an important role in a comprehensive and just peace in the region, it must abide by the implementing of the international legitimacy resolutions. The basic matter regarding all the complexities is that President Clinton did not honor his commitment and his signature to achieve a just peace based on international legitimacy resolutions. We only demand the implementation of these resolutions. This makes us all say in Fateh Movement that we will not accept any proposals that violate international legitimacy resolutions which are in favor of our cause under the title of escaping and surviving the war threats of Clinton and Barak. The continuing Intifada with the will and determination of our people will have the answer for the future. |Israel History in Maps | PLO Claim "Right of Return"| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|