Celebrating 25 Years of Scoop
Special: Up To 25% Off Scoop Pro Learn More

World Video | Defence | Foreign Affairs | Natural Events | Trade | NZ in World News | NZ National News Video | NZ Regional News | Search


Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Three Peace Drafts - Petition In Support Of Refusniks

GUSH SHALOM pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org

[1] Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement
[2] Reminder Geneva discussion Thursday 19.30 in Beit Sofer
[3] Sign the petition in support of the refusniks

\\// //\\ \\// //\\ \\//

Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement

òáøéú áàúø / Hebrew




Three Drafts for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement A Comparison

The Gush Shalom Peace Proposal (2001)
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh Statement of Principles (2002)
The Geneva Initiative (2003)

Adam Keller

The three documents here compared are of very different length, the one of Gush Shalom covering three pages, that of Ayalon-Nusseibeh a single page (being more a statement of general principles then a draft peace agreement) and the Geneva document the far longest, covering 47 pages and going into the fine technical details of implementation. This should be taken into account in reading the following comparison, and in particular the lack of reference in the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document to many points mentioned in the others should not be necessarily taken to mean a lack of concern to these points by its drafters.


All three documents start with affirming the principle of “Two states for Two nations”. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document and the Geneva document include in this context a Palestinian obligation to recognize the Jewish character of Israel (Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "both sides will declare that Palestine is the only state of the Palestinian people, and Israel is the only state of the Jewish people"; Geneva document: "the State of Israel and Palestine Liberation organization (...) affirm that this agreement marks the recognition of the right of Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties' respective citizens"). The Gush Shalom document does not include such a reference.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

The Gush Shalom document mentions as a basis for the agreement UN resolutions 242, 338 and 194. The Geneva document mentions resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 (which did not yet exist when Gush Shalom drafted its proposal) as a basis for the whole agreement. 194 is not mentioned in the preamble of the Geneva document, but it is mentioned in the specific article about the refugee problem. In the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document there is no mention of UN resolutions.

All three documents include the statement that their implementation constitutes the end of the conflict (the Gush Shalom document has the specific stipulation that the two parties will jointly report to the UN about completing the implementation of the agreement).


In all three documents the borders between the two states are based on the borders of June 4, 1967, with the possibility of exchange of territories. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document and the Geneva document stipulate specifically that the exchange will be at the rate of 1:1 while the Gush Shalom document states that "exchange of territories can be effected by agreement between both parties". (The rate of exchange was one of the issues which caused the collapse of the Camp David Conference in 2000, where PM Barak proposed an exchange at the rate of 9:1 in Israel's favor.)

While the Gush Shalom document and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document don't make a specific proposal of concrete change of territory, the Geneva document does draw an exact border down to the centimetre, whose demarcation was the subject of prolonged, precise and crisis-ridden negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian drafters. In the Geneva document website there is a detailed list of the settlements which would be annexed to Israel as part of the proposed agreement (including the main ultra-Orthodox settlements, Beitar-Illit and Modi'in-Illit/Kiryat Sefer, which are both located near to the Green Line but presumably their inclusion is also designed to help gain support of the ultra-Orthodox parties). The Israeli territories which would be given to the Palestinians in exchange are mostly near the Gaza Strip, in order to increase its overcrowded territory. These are fertile lands in territorial continuity with the Strip, unlike the proposal made in the time of Camp David, to give the Palestinians the Chalutza Sands which are a desert area having no territorial continuity with the Strip.


The Gush Shalom document: "a highway will be constructed between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and it will belong to the state of Palestine"; the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "the Palestinian state will have a connection between its two geographic areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip"; the Geneva document has a long and detailed article which defines a corridor between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip which will be "under Israeli sovereignty" but "under Palestinian administration" and with everybody passing through it subject to Palestinian law. The territory of the corridor is not included in the calculation of the land swap. The Geneva document also includes arrangements for the use by Israeli civilian traffic of "designated roads in Palestine" (road 443 which connects Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem and a large part of which goes through the West Bank, the Jerusalem-Tiberias Road going via the Jordan valley, and the Jerusalem-Ein Gedi Road). Israelis will be given special "permits for use of designated roads"; the roads will be under both Palestinian sovereignty and Palestinian administration, but there will be patrols of a multinational force patrolling through them (presumably to intervene in case of any incident involving these passing Israelis, though that is not explicitly stated in the text; the Oslo Agreement assigned that role to joint Israeli- Palestinian patrols, which despite partial success could not avoid the tension of being regarded by Palestinians as a form of continuing occupation).


The Gush Shalom document: "within a year"; the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no reference to a specific time-table; the Geneva document, withdrawal is to take place in two stages, the first after nine months and the second after a further 21 months. After the second stage, the full territory will be under complete Palestinian sovereignty but Israel will be allowed to maintain a small military presence in the Jordan Valley for a further 36 months. Two Israeli early-warning stations will remain in Palestinian territory indefinitely, but the Palestinians could ask for a reopening discussion on this issue after ten years.


The Gush Shalom document: "the state of Palestine undertakes to refrain from arming itself with heavy offensive weapons for 25 years. This obligation will become void if peace treaties are signed between Israel and the Arab states." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "The Palestinian state will be demilitarized and the international community will guarantee its security and independence." The Geneva document: "Palestine shall be a non-militarized state, with a strong security force."


The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties undertake to combat terrorism and terrorist initiatives organized in one state against the other, its residents and institutions." In the Geneva document, both parties are to "refrain from organizing, encouraging, or allowing the formation of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries and militias within their respective territory and prevent their establishment. (…)The Parties shall take joint and, in their respective territories, unilateral comprehensive and continuous efforts against all aspects of violence and terrorism.” The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document has no specific reference to this subject.


The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties will come to an agreement regarding the usage of each other's air space." The Geneva document required Israel to facilitate Palestinian air traffic according to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, but the Israeli Air Force shall be indefinitely entitled "to use the Palestinian sovereign airspace for training purposes".


The Gush Shalom document: "The State of Palestine will have full sovereign control of all its border crossings on land, sea and air." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no reference to the subject. The Geneva document: "All border crossings shall be monitored by joint teams" of the Palestinians and the multinational force, which will prevent the entry into Palestine “of any weapons, materials or equipment that are in contravention of the provisions of this Agreement." Israel will be allowed to maintain an "unseen presence" at the border crossings for 30 months, and a remote control monitoring of them for a further two years, and will be entitled to demand a reinspection by the Palestinians and multinational force whenever it feels that an inspection has been inadequate.


The Gush Shalom document: "Both parties undertake to prevent the entry of any foreign military force into their territories. Any contravention of this section by either state will grant the other state the right to take any measures required for self-defense." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no reference. The Geneva document: Palestine and Israel each shall "refrain from joining, assisting, promoting or co-operating with any coalition, organization or alliance of a military or security character, the objectives or activities of which include launching aggression or other acts of hostility against the other."


The Gush Shalom document: "Residents of the settlements located in territory that is to become part of the State of Palestine will be evacuated from the territory before the end of the Israeli occupation." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document: "After establishment of the agreed borders, no settlers will remain in the Palestinian State." The Geneva document: "The state of Israel shall be responsible for resettling the Israelis residing in Palestinian sovereign territory outside this territory."

Where the Gush Shalom document writes: "The settlements will be transferred intact to the Palestinian authorities, without any damage inflicted on buildings or other immovable property. The property evacuated by the settlers will be considered part of Israel's contribution to the rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees" the Geneva document has a svery similar but more detailed provision, and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no specific reference to this aspect.


On this subject there is an obvious difference between the Geneva document and the other two. In the Gush Shalom document there is a provision that "an agreed-upon international committee will monitor the implementation of this agreement and act as arbitrator in the case of differences of opinion" and an international involvement is mentioned in the context of the refugee issue. (See later.) Similarly the Ayalon- Nusseibeh document refers to international involvement mainly with regard to the refugees, and also refers, without going into details, to the international community guaranteeing the security and independence of the demilitarized Palestinian state without going into details. On the other hand, in the Geneva document the international involvement is far more direct and prominent, not only with regard to the refugees but in all aspects of implementing Israeli-Palestinian peace and maintaining that peace in being. This enhanced international involvement clearly constitutes a central and essential element in the percept of peace held by the drafters of the agreement

According to the Geneva document there will be created a "Implementation and Verification Group (IVG)" which will include the partners of the present diplomatic "Quartet" - the United States, the Russian Federation, the EU and the UN - as well as "other parties, both regional and international, to be agreed upon by the Parties." The IVG will maintain a permanent headquarters in Jerusalem, will maintain a Multinational Force on the ground, and will establish a permanent apparatus for dealing with complaints of the parties one against the other for violation of the agreement. Nearly each article in the Geneva document includes a detailed reference to the part of the IVG in implementing that article. The Multinational Force is to have many and different roles, among them close monitoring of the Israeli withdrawal, protecting the territorial integrity of the state of Palestine which will be not allowed to have an army of its own, monitoring the border crossings of Palestine, helping to enforce the measures against terrorism, protecting the security of the Israeli teams which will go to and from the early-warning stations located in Palestinian territory, and maintaining a permanent presence in the al- Haram al-Sharif/ Temple Mount Compound together with the Palestinian security personnel and in the Old City of Jerusalem together with the Palestinian and Israeli police forces. The Geneva document regards the IVG as an active partner which would not be restricted to answering appeals from the parties but might initiate actions which it will regard as necessary on the basis of reports from its own personnel on the ground. The way that the Geneva document is written seems to indicate that those who drafted it wanted as much as possible to anticipate the problems which might arise and provide solutions in advance, and these solutions usually include the active involvement of the IVG (presumably, a lesson drawn from the collapse of Oslo). One exceptional issue should be mentioned. In all other spheres the Geneva document provides for international involvement to be exercised through the IVG, which includes many different international actors, but all issues of intelligence and the sharing of information about terrorism are assigned to a trilateral committee which together with of the Israelis and Palestinians includes solely the representatives of the US, The document provides no explanation for this exceptional arrangement.


In all the three documents the basis of the solution in Jerusalem is Israeli rule over the Jewish neighborhoods and Palestinian rule over the Arab neighborhoods, with each state establishing its capital in the part of Jerusalem under its control (This is drawn from the principles of the "Clinton Parameters of December 2000 – see http://www.fmep.org/documents/clinton_parameters12-23-00.html). The Gush Shalom document mentions that "The Jewish quarter of the Old City will be part of the State of Israel and will be attached to its territory. The Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the Old City will be part of the State of Palestine." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no specific mention of how to divide the Old City. The Geneva document makes a division similar to that of the Gush Shalom document, except for the stipulation that the historic "David's Tower" which is in the Armenian Quarter will be under Palestinian sovereignty but Israeli administration. The Geneva document also gives Israel sovereignty over the road south of the Old City Wall, so as to create territorial continuity to the Jewish Quarter. (The idea of that road providing Israel with such territorial continuity was mentioned by President Arafat at a meeting with a Gush Shalom delegation in Gaza, some years ago.)

It should be noted that the detailed maps of dividing sovereignty in Jerusalem, which appear on the Geneva document’s website, do not include Har Homa among "the Jewish neighborhoods" which will pass to Israeli rule, but rather pass Har Homa to the Palestinians. Dr. Menachem Klein, who is the main expert on Jerusalem among the Israeli drafters of the agreement, noted that the settlement of Israeli civilians in Har Homa started only after President Clinton published the above-mentioned “parameters” and after these parameters had been accepted by both parties. The Geneva document also notes that the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem which have been created beyond the Green Line and which will be annexed to Israel are counted in the calculation of the territory swap.

The Gush Shalom document notes that "The municipality of the Palestinian Jerusalem and the municipality of the Israeli Jerusalem will establish a joint council, based on the principle of equality, to manage the shared municipal services." The equivalent paragraph of the Geneva document mentions a "Jerusalem Co-ordination and Development Committee", charged with "co-operation and co-ordination of the municipal services" with sub-committees in the areas of Planning and Zoning , Hydro Infrastructure, Transport, Environment, Economic Development; Police and Emergency Services and the Old City. The difference between joined management of municiapl services according to the Gush Shalom document, and coordination between separately managed services in the Geneva document, is more than verbal and seems to reflect a fundamental difference on the issue of freedom of movement, as will be shown later. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document makes no specific reference to this point.

According to the Geneva document, "Palestinian Jerusalemites who currently are permanent residents of Israel shall lose this status upon the transfer of authority to Palestine of those areas in which they reside", but "interim measures" will be applied in order to preserve "the accumulated socio-economic rights of the residents of East Jerusalem." The other documents make no reference to this issue.


The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document says that "Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states" with no further elaboration. The Gush Shalom document states explicitly that "There will be no barriers or obstacles preventing unrestricted passage between the two parts of the City. Both parties will establish border checkpoints, if they so decide, at the entrances/exits of the City." On the other hand, in the Geneva document it is defined that a "border regime" shall be designed in Jerusalem which will take into account "the specific needs of Jerusalem (e.g., movement of tourists and intensity of border crossing use, including provisions for Jerusalemites)." In a lecture at the Tzavta Club in Tel-Aviv Dr. Klein confirmed that this could be interpreted as leading to the construction of a border fence between the two parts of Jerusalem - "not a separation fence like the one Sharon is now constructing, but the border fence of a living, functioning border between two sovereign states which live in peace with each other but have not yet attained the degree of intimacy of the United States and Canada, or Holland and Belgium" as he put it (quote made from memory, not necessarily verbatim).

In the Geneva document, the freedom of movement does not apply to Jerusalem as a whole, but only inside the Old City which is surrounded by a wall. The Geneva document devotes a long and very detailed chapter to the Old City and the special regime which will govern it. According to it, the division of sovereignty within the Old City will be marked by “a visible color-coding scheme “ but without physical barriers, with security and public order taken care of by Palestinian, Israeli and multi-national police units acting together as well as by a special tri-lateral committee of the Palestinian, Israeli and American security service which will deal with threats of terrorist attacks. In the Old City, unlike the other parts of Jerusalem, the Geneva document defines a joint Israeli-Palestinian management of municipal services rather than a coordination of separate services. Some of the gates of the Old City will be under Palestinian control and the others under Israeli control. Anybody who enters the Old City could move freely within its boundaries but would be able to leave only through the gates controlled by the same sovereignty that had let him in. The Geneva document mentions the possibility that "The Parties shall examine the possibility of expanding these arrangements beyond the Old City and may agree to such an expansion." Apparently, the drafters of the agreement consider the Old City of Jerusalem a suitable ground for experiments which may be later extended.

The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document states that "Neither side will exercise sovereignty over the holy places. The State of Palestine will be designated Guardian of al-Haram al-Sharif for the benefit of Muslims. Israel will be the Guardian of the Western Wall for the benefit of the Jewish people." In both, the Geneva document and the Gush Shalom document the two states will get sovereignty not just guardianship over the above-mentioned holy places. The Geneva document includes detailed provision about preserving security and public order in the al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount Compound jointly by Palestinian security personnel and a multinational presence. The latter will be "composed of the IVG and other parties to be agreed upon by the Parties, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)" – which implies that at least part of the multinational presence in this important Muslin site will be drawn from Muslim countries. All three documents include the stipulation that there will be no archeological or other diggings in the al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount Compound without the consent of both parties. The Gush Shalom document applies this stipulation also to diggings in the Wailing Wall Compound (not a theoretical question; in the 1970s and 1980s the Israeli archeological diggings in the Wailing Wall area were the cause of constant controversy and tensions). For its part, the Geneva document gives Israel sovereignty not only over the Wailing Wall but also over the tunnel under it, whose opening in September 1996 sparked off riots and bloody confrontations.

The Geneva document also provides for Israeli administration of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, a subject not mentioned in the two other documents.


On this issue, there is a conspicuous difference between Ayalon- Nusseibeh document and the other two documents. The Ayalon- Nusseibeh document does use the term "Right of Return" but gives it the interpretation "Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel", which makes the document controversial on the Palestinian side.

The Gush Shalom document states that "Israel acknowledges the principle of the Right of Return as a basic human right" and stipulates that "In order to heal the historical wound and as an act of justice, Israel will allow the return into its territory of a certain number of refugees, which will be decided by agreement. The returnees will be allowed back under a reasonable annual quota within a time limit not exceeding 10 years."

In the Geneva document the term "Right of Return" does not appear at all, a point on which the Israeli partners had been completely unwilling to give way during their discussions with Palestinian interlocutors, and instead there appears the term "choice of permanent place of residence" (by the refugees). The refugees are offered the following residence options: the state of Palestine, areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, third countries, the state of Israel, or the present host countries.

According to this perception, the arrival of Palestinian refugees to live within the state of Israel is not considered "Return" but rather absorption of refugees similar to that in third countries towards whom there is no historical claim. Accordingly, the number of refugees which Israel will accept is to be determined by Israel on the basis of "the average of the total numbers [admitted] by the different third countries."

All three documents provide for an international fund which will provide monetary compensations for the Palestinian refugees. The Gush Shalom document states that "Israel will contribute an appropriate portion to this fund, taking into account the value of Palestinian property that remained in Israel." A similar principle guides the Geneva document, where there is detailed the process by which an international "Panel of Experts" will determine within six months the value of Palestinian property left in Israel in 1948, which would constitute "the Israeli lump sum to the international fund" and after which "no other financial claims arising from the refugee problem may be raised against Israel." The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document only states in general terms that Israel and the Palestinian state will initiate an international fund and contribute to it.

In the Geneva document the international involvement is deeper than in the other documents, also regarding the refugees. It states that there will be created not only an international fund but also "An International Commission [which] shall have full and exclusive responsibility" in everything concerning the refugees. That commission should include, except for Israel and Palestine, also "the United Nations, the United States, UNRWA, the Arab host countries, the EU, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Japan, the World Bank, the Russian Federation, and others."

According to the Geneva document, the process of solving the refugee question will take five years at the end of which refugees, even when they refuse to accept one of the options offered by the agreement, will lose the refugee status; and UNWRA, which has taken care of the refugees since 1949, will be dismantled and its functions transferred to the host states. Altogether, a rather quite callous rude approach which may end up turning refugees who are opposed to the agreement and refuse to give up their individual claims into stateless vagabonds with no legal status whatsoever.

About the Geneva document offering refugees the option of residing in "areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap", several remarks deserve to be made. First, in defining their proposed border, the Geneva document initiators included Israeli territory near the Hebron area, an area in which until 1948 the Palestinian village of Duheimeh existed. During the occupation of Duheimeh by the Israeli army in late 1948 many civilians got killed, and on the ruins of the deserted village there was never established an Israeli community. Therefore, the transfer of this territory to Palestine will enable the refugees of Duheimeh, unlike those of other villages, to implement the full right of return in the sense of rebuilding their village on its exact original location, which may turn into a heavily-symbolic event. Furthermore, the extension of the Gaza Strip will place in Palestinian hands lands which belonged before 1948 to Palestinians now living in Gazan refugee camps; but, given the overcrowding in these camps, there may also come up the option of building there whole new cities for use of refugees in general. Finally, it should be noted that in drawing the border in the Latrun area, the Geneva document leaves in Israel's hands the whole of the main Tel- Aviv--Jerusalem highway, but gives to the Palestinians most of the pre-'67 Latrun enclave in a way which makes possible the restoration of the three villages destroyed by Israel in June 1967.


Under the Gush Shalom document, "Israel acknowledges its central responsibility for the creation of this tragedy during the course of the wars of 1948 and 1967." There is nothing of the kind in the other two documents and the Israeli participants in the Geneva document are actually emphasizing the absence of such a clause on historiavl responsibility as one of their achievements in the negotiations with their Palestinian partners.

The Ayalon-Nusseibeh document includes "Recognizing the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian refugees." The Gush Shalom document details: "Both parties will establish a "truth commission" of historians - Israeli, Palestinian and international - that will examine the precise causes that lead to the creation of the problem in all its aspects, and will issue an objective, conclusive report within three years. This report will be incorporated into the schoolbooks of both states." In the Geneva document, there is a program along similar lines: “The Parties will encourage and promote the development of cooperation between their relevant institutions and civil societies in creating forums for exchanging historical narratives and enhancing mutual understanding regarding the past. The Parties shall encourage and facilitate exchanges in order to disseminate a richer appreciation of these respective narratives, in the fields of formal and informal education, by providing conditions for direct contacts between schools, educational institutions and civil society. (...) These programs may include developing appropriate ways of commemorating those villages and communities that existed prior to 1949."


According to the Geneva document, all Palestinian prisoners and detainees in the hands of Israel will be released without exception, in three stages: all prisoners held since before May 4, 1994 (when the Oslo Agreement went into effect) will be released immediately upon signature of the argeement, , as will be all administrative detainees, women prisoners and ill prisoners. The other prisoners will be released after 18 months, except for prisoners whose names will be mentioned specifically in an annex to the agreement (that will presumably include mainly prisoners fitting the wide Israeli criteria of being considered to have "blood on their hands"); this group of prisoners will be released within five years of the agreement coming into force. The other two documents have no prisoners clause.

According to the Uvdah program of Second-Channel Israeli TV, which on November 18 broadcast authentic material filmed during the discussions which led to the Geneva document, the prisoner clause was the subject of sharp and prolonged debate between the Israeli and Palestinian partners. At some point Yossi Beilin was even heard declaring that if such an agreement would have been brought up in the government where he was Minister of Justice, he would have been opposed to it. But Sufian Abu- Zaida, who led the Palestinians on the prisoner issue, insisted that it would be impossible to have an agreement ending the conflict while and leaving any Palestinian prisoners behind Israeli bars.


The Geneva document: "Israel and Palestine shall work together with their neighbors and the international community to build a secure and stable Middle East, free from weapons of mass destruction, both conventional and non-conventional, in the context of a comprehensive, lasting, and stable peace, characterized by reconciliation, goodwill, and the renunciation of the use of force. To this end, the Parties shall work together to establish a regional security regime." The other two documents don't refer to such matters.


The Gush Shalom document: "The water resources of the entire land between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean belong to both parties. A Supreme Israeli-Palestinian Committee will be appointed and will be responsible for water resources and distribution. Water will be allocated justly and equally, on the basis of the numerical proportion of residents in both states. Both parties will cooperate in projects for the development of additional water resources, such as desalination of seawater." In the Geneva document a clause on this important subject is missing. In the text as it was presented to the Israeli and the Palestinian public, this lack is acknowledged and the text states that this issue was passed on to a team of experts, which apparently did not yet finish its work. The Ayalon- Nusseibeh document makes no mention of water. *** Full original texts available at:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/peace.html http://www.mifkad.org.il/eng/PrinciplesAgreement.asp http://www.heskem.org.il/Heskem_en.asp

\\// //\\ \\// //\\ \\//

[2] Reminder Geneva discussion Thursday 19.30 in Beit Sofer òáøéú áàúø www.gush-shalom.org THE JOINT ACTION GROUP FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE Invites you to a discussion of THE GENEVA INITIATIVE

Thursday 27.11.03 at 19.30 in Beit HaSofer 6, Kaplan Street, Tel-Aviv

Among the participants: *Initiators of the Agreement* *Palestinians and Israelis of the JAG* *Open discussion with participation of the audience*

For details: Yakov 050-733276 / 09-7670801 Latif: 03-7520212

\\// //\\ \\// //\\ \\//

[3] Sign the petition in support of the refusniks

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: Refusniks Parents' Forum
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 7:52 PM

Dear friends,

As you may know, the trial of the five occupation refuseniks is about to end. The Refuseniks Parents' Forum intends to publish a petition supporting the accused and their freedom of conscience before the final session of the military court in Jaffo. We intend to gather signatures and contributions in order to print a very large ad in the daily press. For this purpose, the seruvniks need your help. Please sign your name, gather additional signatures and make your contribution against the occupation.

You can use the enclosed form to send your signature (and other signatures). You can also write and send a check made out to New Profile to POBox 9013 Jerusalem 91090. Signatures can also be sent via email to refusniks_updates@yahoogroups.com

While occupation spawns terror While war spawns poverty and unemployment While innocent children are being killed in the occupied territories While an agreement, an alternative to blood and death, is on the table While the settlers impose terror on the Arab villages While collective punishment, curfew and siege have become routine While the occupation corrupts the morals of an entire generation While soldiers die in a superfluous war – a war for the settlements While the government of Israel continues its drive for annexation and expropriation

Six youngsters: Yoni Ben Artzi, Haggai Matar, Matan Kaminer, Shimri Tsameret and Noam Bahat refuse to become soldiers as a matter of conscience: they refuse to be occupiers, they refuse to violate the human rights of the Palestinians and they refuse to assist in the continuation of the occupation, which is destroying Israeli society.

For more than a year, Israel is imprisoning these young people who listen to the dictate of their conscience. All this time, they have been prevented from contributing to Israeli society through alternative civilian humanitarian service.

If convicted, they can be sentenced to three years in jail.

We, the undersigned demand the immediate release of the prisoners of conscience, and to enable them to perform alternative civilian service according to the dictates of their conscience.

Name: Email: Address:


If you do not really believe us and feel Gush Shalom is exaggerating then go to the following Haaretz page:



http://www.gush-shalom.org/ (òáøéú)

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)


\\photos - of actions
\\the weekly Gush Shalom ad - in Hebrew and English
\\the columns of Uri Avnery - in Hebrew, Arab and English
\\position papers & analysis (in "documents")
\\and a lot more


Petitions against the Wall:

http://www.gader.org/Main/engPetition.asp (for Israelis)
http://www.petitiononline.com/stw/petition.html (international petition)


© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
World Headlines


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.