Rahm Gets Really Rammed

The New York Times editorial lays it into Rahm Emanuel:-

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.

Most important, they allowed the controversy to obscure the real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks. (We don’t know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers — specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel — than of his Mideast specialists.)

But then the writer (Tom Friedman?) goes too far on another point:

At some point extremists will try to provoke another war. and the absence of a dialogue will only make things worse.

Now, we know there are Arab extremists capable of launching a war but are there Jewish/Israeli extremists who can?

Well, Now I Am Losing My Patience

Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and an author (*), in a piece in the Atlantic Monthly, suggests that "more than democracy, Washington wants stability in the Middle East. That means leaning against the interests of the Jewish state" which leads to the idea that America (and its liberal elitist Jews I would add) are Losing Patience with Israel.

America’s foreign policy toward Israel, he writes, "been characterized by such an attitude of unsentimental realism."

But, at his conclusion, he becomes quite unreal. Maybe, because "In his book Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, published shortly after 9/11, Kaplan offered the opinion that political and business leaders should discard Christian/Jewish morality in public decision-making in favor of a pagan morality focused on the morality of the result rather than the morality of the means."

Excerpts from his latest piece:

Many, both in the Administration and in the wider Washington establishment, have simply lost patience with what they see as Israeli intransigence over settlements in occupied territories. This may not be fair, or even wholly logical, for the issue of settlements is highly complex. But the reality is that Washington’s quiet passions have turned decidedly against Israel.

...Iran threatens Israel much more than it does America. It may very well be in Israel’s best interest to attack Iran. But it is probably not in America’s for Israel to do so, given America’s exposure in Iraq. And an Israeli attack could destroy President Barack Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Muslim world. If you think the tension between the U.S. and Israel is high now, just wait until there’s a significant spike in casualties in Iraq following an Israeli strike on Iran.

...Israel’s incompetent war in Lebanon in 2006 and its inconclusive one in Gaza last winter have made it look like the boorish regional aggressor. Moreover, in the past, America’s military establishment admired Israel for its military innovation and derring-do. But Israel’s inability to cope sufficiently with unconventional enemies in Lebanon and Gaza has reduced its appeal.

One striking indication of the extent to which Israel has lost American sympathy was the publication in 2007 of The Israel Lobby...the fact that two highly distinguished political scientists—one from Harvard and the other from the University of Chicago, who have contributed significantly to their field in their other works—felt confident enough to go so far out on a limb on this sensitive issue is telling...The Israeli-Palestinian problem is increasingly becoming seen as a leftover irritant from a passing era.

All of this leaves Israel in an increasingly lonely position. With whom can it negotiate? With Fatah, which is relatively moderate, but lacks support among Palestinians themselves? With Hamas, which has support, but which demonstrates no proclivity to make peace?

Both politically and demographically, time is not on Israel’s side. Now that Iran is weakened by domestic turmoil, it may actually be in Israel’s best interests for America, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate Arab states to impose a peace agreement by leaning hard on the Palestinians, as America twists Israel's arm. The result would be the return of almost all of the West Bank to a fundamentally demilitarized Palestinian state, even as many Israeli settlements are dismantled. What other resolution can there be?

Another one, not that I support it, but use it to challenge Kaplan and others, is one we suggested in 1978: first we go through a significant period when the Arab side proves it can fufil its commitments of a peace treaty and then Israel will do what it is to do.

The Egyptian peace was based on "normalization" but no one demanded that first we see what is meant by "normal" by the Egyptians. So, today, we have a cold peace: little commercial business, little cultural exchange, next to no tourism but lots of academic antisemitism.

Mr. Kaplan, what's a "fundamentally demilitarized Palestinian state"? Is it a Hamas fundamentalist state? Islamic Jihad? Hizbollah?

If the issue of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is "highly complex", as you are convinced, why cannot thinking people resolve it or recognize the justice and necessity of their continued existence? If Bill Clinton read your book on the Balkans but adopted a different policy than that which you might have wished, why give enemies of Israel more ammunition as you have done?


---------------
(*)

His "Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite" supplies a secondary source of minibiographies sketching the lives of dozens of Protestant missionaries and U.S. State Department officials who worked in the Arab world over the past 200 years. Addressing current concerns, he shows that the opposition of missionaries and Foreign Service officers to Israel's creation--meant to appease the Arabs--led to the various wars in the Middle East and, ultimately, to the Gulf War of 1991...[and] tells how American "Arabists"--diplomats, intelligence agents, scholar-adventurers, Protestant missionaries, military attaches--formed an elitist, expatriate professional caste in the 19th-century Middle East. The Arabists, in Kaplan's ( Balkan Ghosts ) view, carried on a "romance" with exotic Islamic cultures, and many supported pan-Arab nationalism. Blind to what Kaplan deems the inevitability of the birth of Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust, American Arabists today often see Israel "in only the simplest stereotype," he asserts.


(Kippah tip: AJG)

Let's Recall Another Solution

Statement to the Knesset by Prime Minister Begin presenting Israel's peace plan, December 28, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, Member of the Knesset.

On the establishment of peace we shall propose to grant administrative self-rule to the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District on the basis of the following

(Mr. Begin then read out the plan for self-rule for Judea, Samaria and Gaza - see below).

Mr. Speaker, I must now explain paragraph 11 of this plan and also paragraph 24. In paragraph 11 of our plan we stated that security and public order in the areas of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza District will be the responsibility of the Israeli authorities. Without this paragraph the plan for administrative self-rule is meaningless. I wish to state from the Knesset rostrum that it obviously includes the stationing of Israel army forces in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. It is quite out of the question - if we had been asked to withdraw our army forces from Judea, Samaria and Gaza - to allow these areas to be dominated by the murderers' organization known as the PLO - "Ashaf" in Hebrew translation. This is the vilest organization of murderers in history, with the exception of the Nazi armed organizations. A few days ago it also boasted of the murder of Hamdi el-Kadi, the deputy director of the education office in Ramallah, and today it threatens to solve the problems of the Middle East by one bullet to be dispatched to the heart of Egyptian President Sadat, as its predecessors did in the Al-Aksa Mosque against King Abdullah - with one bullet. No wonder the Egyptian government announced that if one such bullet is fired Egypt will reply with a million bullets.

We want to say that this organization will not be permitted, under any conditions, to dominate Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If we did withdraw our forces, that is what would happen. And therefore let it be known that anyone who wants an agreement with us should be good enough to accept our statement that the Israel Defence Forces will be stationed in Judea, Samaria and Gaza; and there will also be other security arrangements so that we shall give all the residents - Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel - security of life, that is, security for all.

In paragraph 24 we stated:

"Israel stands by its right and its claim of sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district. In the knowledge that other claims exist, it Proposes, for the sake of the agreement of the peace, that the question of sovereignty in these areas be left open."

We explained this to U.S. President Carter and to Egyptian President Sadat. We have a right and a claim of sovereignty to these areas of the Land of Israel. This is our country, and it belongs by right to the Jewish people. We want agreement and peace. We know that there are at least two other claims of sovereignty over these areas. If there is a mutual will to achieve an agreement and bring about peace, what is the way? If these conflicting claims are upheld and if there is no solution to the conflict between them, there can be no agreement between the parties. And for this reason, to facilitate agreement and to make peace, there is only one way: to decide, by agreement, that the question of sovereignty remains open; and to deal with the people, the nations - for the Palestinian Arabs, administrative self-rule; and for the Palestinian Jews, real security. This is the fairness contained in the proposal, and thus it has also been received abroad.

[and as for]...the principles for the settlement of the relations between Egypt and Israel in the context of a peace treaty - are:

...Jewish settlements shall remain in place. These settlements will be linked with Israel's administration and courts. They will be protected by an Israeli force - and I repeat this sentence for a reason well known to all the members of the House - they will be protected by an Israeli force.

Those Religious Fanatics, Again (Oops)

Found at Elder of Ziyon via Mere Rhetoric:

A number of senior clerics in Saudi Arabia have forbidden any collective peace initiative that includes the right of Jews to immigrate to the land of Palestine, and the normalization of relations with them.

The prohibition was a clearly targeting the 'Arab Peace Initiative' launched by Saudi Arabia at the Arab Summit in Beirut in 1982, which until now has been the cornerstone of many of the deliberations on the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

Source


Oops there goes another peace initiative (that should be sung to this tune)

Mitchell Messed in Ireland; And The Middle East?

Oh, my, Mr. Mitchell, there goes the Irish peace?

an attack on a British army base in Northern Ireland...killed two soldiers...Gunmen fired on an army base in Country Antrim, 16 miles north of Belfast Saturday night. The victims were the first British soldiers to be killed in Northern Ireland since 1997.

No one has claimed responsibility, although suspicion immediately fell on dissident Irish republicans.

Refresh your memory.

Does this portend a possible failure for him here in Israel?

I'm guessing yes.

The Continuing Condi Confabulation

In her remarks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Rammallah yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continued to project a problematic policy for Israel as she confabulated(*).

Let me highlight with selections from her words.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. President...we know how hard you are working to build a truly democratic Palestinian state. You are someone who is yourself devoted to democracy, and I just want to take note of that.

[a democracy? like what other?]

When President Bush came into office in 2001, and it was a very difficult situation between Palestinians and Israelis, indeed the intifada was raging, large-scale Israeli military operations were taking place, many, many innocent Palestinians and Israelis were losing their lives. [hey, she corrected herself from yesterday. maybe someone read my blogpost?]

...I think that President Bush’s vision of a state of Palestine, an independent state of Palestine at peace with Israel, while it will not come in a single, dramatic moment, it will come because the commitment of the Palestinian and the Israeli people to their peace will not waiver.

[sorry but the commitment of Pals. can never match that of the Israelis who have constantly yielded on territory and security in order to reach peace with all its Arab neighbors as well of the Arab community in the borders of the Jewish national homeland]

It’s critical that in moving forward on the peace process we remember that other pillars were established at Annapolis as well, and those pillars cannot be separated; indeed, the work that is being done on the ground to improve the lives of the Palestinian people, the work that is being done to build the democratic institutions of a Palestinian state, the work that has been done to reform security services and to really improve their capability and to have them be professional security forces. I’m very much looking forward to going to Jenin because I think it is an example of this relationship between security provided by Palestinian forces for the Palestinian people, the willingness to fight extremists...

[but they don't fight extremists!] (**)

...I also want to note that settlement activity, both actions and announcements, is damaging for the atmosphere of negotiations. And the party’s actions should be encouraging confidence, not undermining it. And no party should take steps that could prejudice the outcome of negotiations and the United States will not consider settlement activity to affect any final status negotiations, including final borders. Borders are to be negotiated between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338...I think we’re on the record about our views of the settlement activity, and that has been American policy in the past. I think perhaps we’ve spoken as clearly about it as anyone, perhaps more clearly, the President and I. And it is going to continue to be the case that settlement activity is inconsistent with the atmosphere that really helps promote negotiations.

[Neither 242 or 338 deal with the rights of Jews to live, settle, thrive, develop and grow in the areas of Judea and Samaria and, indeed, Gaza. The right to do so, despite the bad 'atmosphere' Condi talks about, is enshrined in the decision of the League of Nations: The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.]

...And just as Oslo was a basis, Madrid was a basis, Annapolis is a basis. And while we may not yet be at the finish line, I am quite certain that if Palestinians and Israelis stay on the Annapolis course, they are going to cross that finish line and can do so relatively soon.

[and just as the Pals. ignored their responsibilities and commitments as per Madrid and Oslo, they are and will ignore Annapolis]

Condi, what are you talking about?

--------------

(*)

con·fab·u·late (kn-fby-lt)

1. To talk casually; chat.
2. Psychology - To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.

(**)

Update from Jenin:

About 600 Palestinian security personnel were deployed in Jenin in May, some of whom were trained in Jordan under an American-sponsored program to back up the forces already there. Most have since been redeployed to other parts of the West Bank, including Hebron.

Lt. Gen. Keith W. Dayton, the United States security coordinator, told reporters that the exercise had been a “great success,” and that the Israelis said they had reduced their incursions into Jenin by about 40 percent.

Down by 40% still leaves 60% terror.

Rubin Rubs It In

Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, really rubs it in to our peace messianists.

As I've always said, not every problem has a solution. Here's how Rubin says it:-

The Region: Drowning in solutions

...basically the situation we face regarding the absurd belief that the Arab-Israeli, or more immediately, the Israeli-Palestinian, [is that the] conflict can be resolved at this time.

Let me say it again: despite the mountains of speeches, conferences, articles, committees, foundation grants, projects, currencies of every description and policies expended on it, there is no solution in sight for the conflict. It will continue for decades.

Hamas is not about to become moderate. Even Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (PA), which few reporters can even mention without inserting the word moderate before their names, isn't anywhere near moderate enough to make peace...

For some it isn't obvious because they know nothing about the region, its history or politics...

...the idea of finding the solution, and a speedy one at that - the holy grail of policymakers - negates not only all of our previous experience but also any sensible analysis of the current situation.

Why is this? Along with the ignorance factor, there is arrogance ("I will make peace"), and opportunism (there's a lot of money, fame, and career advancement in the peace industry). There is also a baffled rationalism - why wouldn't the Palestinian or Arab leaders make peace when it is so much in their interest? (Answer: they don't think peace is in their interest, and also believe it to be unnecessary and immoral.)

Finally, there are just plain old good intentions, which have killed almost as many people in history as bad intentions.

...There is no solution in sight and no gimmick that will bring such an outcome. Let's begin the discussion there.

...But as long as we spend a disproportionate amount of our time pretending there's some imminent Arab-Israeli solution (or attending to the ridiculous notion that the failure is Israel's fault), we won't give enough attention to the real threats, issues and options.

And, yes sir, that's one of the reasons why the Middle East is such a mess, the Western attempt to deal with the region such a shambles, and the effort to understand the area generally such a disaster.

One Commentator's View

True, there was no mention of what the final-status agreement would look like, as the PA had hoped, but overall, the PA's negotiating tactics worked. By fomenting a crisis, they compelled the Americans to pressure Israel, and Israel capitulated.

Source

And we have a full year to go...and capitulate.

Here Are the New Parameters

We agree to immediately launch good faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues, without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.

For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed.

The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party.

The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 (hereinafter, "the Roadmap") and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the Roadmap. The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the Roadmap until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitments of both sides of the Roadmap.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the Roadmap, as judged by the United States.

In conclusion, we express our profound appreciation to the President of the United States and his Administration, and to the participants of this international conference, for their support for our bilateral peace process.

Bernard Lewis' Thoughts on the Jewish Question

From an article in the Wall Street Journal today:-

...The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

...Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question...What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan...The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

...The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

...Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

Plausible or Improbable?

Henry Kissinger knows what Israel must agree to:-

The process is being driven by the assumption that the parties can be led to accept by the end of November - or have already tacitly accepted - the so-called Taba Plan of 2000, developed in the wake of the abortive Camp David meeting by technically non-official negotiators.

It provides for Israeli withdrawal to essentially the 1967 borders (with minor rectifications), retaining only the settlements around Jerusalem but narrowing the corridor between two principal Israeli cities, Haifa and Tel Aviv, to about 20 miles. The to-be-created Palestinian state would be compensated by some equivalent Israeli territory, probably in the underpopulated Negev.

Israel seems prepared to agree to an unrestricted return of refugees to the Palestinian state but adamantly refuses any return to Israel. Plausible reports have the Israeli government willing to cede the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem (as yet undefined) as the capital of a Palestinian state.

But, he is aware of a problem:-

Will diplomacy be able to deliver on these expectations?

The interlocutors on both sides have extremely shaky domestic positions. The governing coalition in Israel has collapsed, and the approval ratings of the Cabinet are at a historic low.

The definition of a Palestinian partner has so far proved elusive. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, not to speak of the specific terms under negotiation. Who then takes responsibility for Gaza? And it is unclear how much of the West Bank population Abbas can speak for.

And warns:-

If either America's Arab or Israeli friends are asked to take on more than they are able to withstand, there's the risk of another, even larger blow-up.

So, he can still come up with a bit of wisdom - when it stares him in the face.

And While We're On the Subject...

...of peace proposals, here's another IMRA gem:

DOCUMENT: FULL TEXT OF AMERICAN "NONPAPER" DESCRIBING ISRAEL/PA POSITIONS
23 June, 2000

The following is IMRA's translation of the "non-paper" prepared by the Clinton Administration outlining the positions of Israel and the Palestinians before the summit as published in Hebrew in Yediot Ahronot today:

AMERICAN REPORT - FULL TEXT

1. Jordan River and bridges: Under Palestinian sovereignty, but an international observer force, that will include a large Israeli unit, will be stationed there. The Palestinians have proposed UN forces instead of the above force.

2. Jordan Valley: Under Palestinian sovereignty, but Israel leases it under a long-term lease (the Palestinians have yet to agree to this). Likewise, it will be agreed in advance that in the case of an Arab attack from the East, Israeli military forces stationed in Beit Shean and Maaleh Adumim can redeploy to three to four areas in the Valley without requiring Palestinian consent.

3. Right of return: We have the apparatus and the programs. The problem is solved for all practical purposes. We have a vague wording that meets Arab demands for the right of return but it will be so limited in numbers and additional limitations that it will not have any real significance such that it will meet the needs of the
Palestinians without causing concern to Israel.

4. Jerusalem: The Prime Minister [Barak] is still torn between the "interim agreement" approach of [Chaim] Ramon and the alternative approach proposed by [Shlomo] Ben Ami and [Oded] Eran. There has however been progress in convincing the Prime Minister that an interim solution of the eastern Jerusalem issue by classifying it as a kind of Area B will not suffice. Barak is beginning to understand that the People of Israel are ripe for a permanent agreement within
which there is the transfer of Arab neighborhoods to Palestinian sovereignty with the annexation of Jewish areas by Israel. This will improve the demographic balance. It should also be understood that it is impossible to call an agreement that leaves the problem of Jerusalem unresolved as "an agreement ending the conflict". Everyone, even [Minister] Yitzchak Levy [NRP], understands that in the end it will be necessary to draw new borders - so why not deal with this reality now. In any case, this matter requires a Knesset vote in accordance with the law ("Kahalani Law" [Golan Law]), that sets that the transfer of territory subject to Israeli law,
jurisprudence and sovereignty requires a 61 MK majority and a national referendum.

5. Land swap: The Prime Minister still virulently opposes this, but Indyk [American Ambassador] believes that Barak will have to reassess his position if he want to reach an agreement. The swapping of territory is difficult to implement in accordance with Israeli law and may open a Pandora's box, but the negotiators understand that without it the chances of reaching an agreement are slim. [Mohamed]
Dahlan [head of Preventive Security in Gaza] says that if there is a land swap the Palestinians would be prepared to accept settlement blocs covering 4% of the area of the [West] Bank.

6. National referendum: The United States receives the internal polls done by the Prime Minister according to which Barak can attain a 72-75% majority for an agreement with three elements: an end to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute; leaving most settlers under Israeli sovereignty; leaving Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. A national referendum will be carried out according to the French example [of 1962], when De Gaulle won a national referendum [on withdrawal from
Algeria] after he declared that "a vote against the national referendum is a vote against me and if I lose I will resign."

7. Financial aid from overseas:

+ Refugees: Over 100 billion dollars will be invested in the rehabilitation of refugees over the course of 10 - 20 years according to the following breakdown: 40 billion for the Palestinians, $40 billion for Jordan, $10 billion for Lebanon and $10 billion for Syria. The funds, of which 25% is American, will go to a new
international body (and not the World Bank or the IMF), that will replace UNWRA [that today deals with the Palestinian refugees]. This body will transfer the funds for collective and individual compensation.

+ Israel's security: Israel will receive less than the $17 billion it asked for for leaving the Golan, but not much less than that. The aid will include the main elements of the Golan package that were not specifically earmarked to the Golan as well as funding for the erection of fences and additional costs directly associated with the agreement in the West Bank and Gaza.

+ Palestinian infrastructure: The amount of aid for the establishment of a new state is not set. The allocation of less than $5 billion for water infrastructure over a 20 year period is not a serious problem.

8. Settlers not in settlement blocs: We are struggling for the rights of the 40,0000 settlers living outside of the settlement blocs to remain in their homes under Palestinian sovereignty - if they so desire. There is still no answer to the question as to if it is possible to get Palestinian agreement on this matter. It is also true that the continued presence of settlers in the area transferred to the Palestinians is likely to be a landmine that will explode the agreement.

9. The paper: The parties developed a joint "nonpaper" in Stockholm but the Palestinians later claimed that it only represents the Israeli position. This paper will be the opening point of the summit.

Yediot Ahronot 23 June 2000