In the briefing delivered by the Prime Minister last week during his pitiful visit in Washington, he attempted to elucidate the construction in Ramat Shlomo. This particular neighborhood is inside Israel’s border in Jerusalem as drawn under the Geneva Initiative, explained the Prime Minister, believing that this statement would repeal the criticism his right wing government is facing while continuing construction beyond the Green Line. It is hard to believe that this argument managed to convince anyone in Washington.

 

Netanyau is right regarding the Geneva Initiative, which is the sole detailed paper that draws a map with borders, agreed and signed upon by significant Israelis and Palestinians alike. The principle that guided us in drafting the Accord is the one provided by President Clinton: in Jerusalem the Jewish neighborhoods will be part of sovereign Israel, whereas the Arab neighborhoods will be a part of sovereign Palestine, ultimately the state’s capital.

 

Ramat Shlomo, based on the above principle, will undeniably be a part of Israel according to the Geneva Initiative map. However, if this is the principle Netanyahu wishes to live by, he must enable the Palestinians to build on an area of approximately 100 km² bordering Gaza, which according to the Geneva Initiative should be transferred to the Palestinian state as compensation over land that Israel will annex east of the Green Line.

 

There will not be any hindrance to building in Ramat Shlomo, or any other neighborhoods for that matter, as part of a peace agreement. As long as such an agreement does not exist, however, Israel is unauthorized to build.

The difference between the current situation and the situation that prevailed since 1967 is that in the period in which most Israeli neighborhoods were built in East Jerusalem, there was no agreement. Israel constructed against International opinion; lost the thirteen embassies that were stationed in Jerusalem, and deteriorated her status extensively - but she did not infringe the Israeli law which adapted itself to the new situation nor her commitment to the other side.   

 

Since the Oslo agreement, however, the two sides are obligated to refrain from acts that could jeopardize a permanent agreement. The primary intention was to prevent the building of new settlements. And so, since 1993 no new settlements have been built but rather illegal outposts sponsored by the Government or elements therein. In this way, we behave as if we are in the British Mandate period – deceiving the government by creating facts on the ground. 

 

If Jerusalem was so important to Netanyahu, he would have referred to the relevant article in the Geneva Initiative and have endorsed it. Should the future of the city have been of real value to him, he would have asked President Abbas if the Jerusalem article in the Initiative could be acceptable to him. Unified Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, which includes the Western part of the city, the Jewish neighborhoods in the Eastern side, the Wall, the Jewish Quarter and part of the Armenian Quarter as part of sovereign Israel would be the largest Hebrew Jerusalem from all its prior generations. Next to it, in the rest of the Eastern parts will be Al Quds, the capital of the Palestinian state, and all embassies of the world, including those of the Arab League nations, will be located in the Israeli side of the city, similarly to embassies erected on the Eastern side.

 

Does the Prime Minister have better alternative for our unified capital - the poorest and so very neglected city, upon the quarter of a million Palestinians who reside there and the two refugee camps that it houses? If so, he must present it and seriously work to achieve it further to the city’s demographic trends. If not, he must hastily discuss the conflict’s core issues.