Haaretz, picking up material from the Associated Press, puts a somewhat different cast on the same story, reporting that “Israeli President Shimon Peres appeared side by side to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday at the Ambrosetti Forum, an annual gathering of global political and business leaders in an Italian lakeside resort. The two leaders … said that Israel and the Palestinian Authority are closer than ever to a peace deal. Abbas pledged to try to reach a final status peace agreement with Israel by the end of the year – but he admitted the goal, set by U.S. President George W. Bush, might not be achieved. Abbas also rejected the notion that he and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might put forth a partial document outlining the areas in which they do agree and leaving open other issues – most notably, and most sensitive, the sharing of Jerusalem as a joint capital. ‘It is necessary for the agreement to address all … issues’, said Abbas. ‘It is all or nothing, really … We might not be able to reach a final status agreement by the end of the year [but] We will make all possible efforts’. Abbas said if no agreement was reached while Bush remained in office, ‘the new administration should not wait seven years for us to start negotiations … It should begin immediately as soon as a new president is in the White House’. Israeli President Shimon Peres, who has used his largely ceremonial role and his stature as an elder statesman to push peace efforts in the past, addressed the forum after the Palestinian President. ‘We have to try to reach an agreement’, Peres told the crowd. ‘We have to act on the supposition that it is possible’.” This report can be read in full in Haaretz here.

Livni, who is also deputy Prime Minister, is in charge of Israel´s direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

The head of the Palestinian team is Ahmad Qurei´a (known as Abu Alaa) who participated in the secret “Oslo” track that led to the 1993 diplomatic recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and to a series of “Oslo Accords” that in many but not all aspects are no longer actually in effect.

The two sides have agreed to keep all details of their discussions secret, and there have so far been few if any leaks of what has been happening behind closed doors. But, Livni said, in answer to a question, that she now has “a better understanding of the sensitivities and what is important to them. And I discovered that they are very suspicious when it comes to Israel”.

Now, she said, “we have started to draft part of the agreement, and I also hope they know more about Israeli concerns”:

Livni was speaking at a briefing in Jerusalem on Thursday organized by the Foreign Press Association in Israel

Before even being asked, Livni said she wanted to address the question of whether there could still be an agreement by the end of the year. She said “a timeline is important, but [even] more important is the content. Any attempt to bridge the gap (between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators) which is premature to bridge, or any attempt to avoid the comprehensive agreement we want to reach, can lead to clashes, misunderstandings, and violence”.

Livni said that this is what happened after the failed Camp David peace talks in July 2000, which ended with recriminations and blame – mostly on the Palestinians for not having responded to what was called a major concession by Israel´s then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

A provocative visit by Ariel Sharon accompanied by a large and armed Israeli security contingent to the Haram as-Sharif/Temple Mount in East Jerusalem´s Old City a few months later, in late September 2000, ended in clashes with Palestinian protesters, a number of Palestinian deaths and injuries– and the outbreak of the Second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which was characterized by clashes between the Israeli military and the newly-created and armed Palestinian security forces, then a determined Israeli assault on these same forces, accompanied by a re-invasion of Palestinian urban areas. It is only very recently that the U.S. has been helping to retrain and rebuild the Palestinian security capacity – and only to the extent to which Israel permits.

“Here I represent not only the Israeli Government but also the Palestinians, and if we can reach agreement, the international community should respect it. We are working on a comprehensive agreement on the core issues, which will give answers to the concerns of both sides,” Livni told reporters.

It was surprising to hear Livni telling journalists that she was also representing specific points in the Palestinian position. It did not appear to have been a slip of the tongue, but rather a deliberate statement arrived at in prior consultation. Pressing the point, Livni repeated the same formula a little later in the press conference.

“The aspiration of the Palestinians is to have a state that includes the Gaza Strip”, Livni said. She added that if she said anything else, “I would be blamed of doing something against the Palestinian interest – this is what we were accused of before our withdrawal from Gaza[in 2005].”

But the Oslo Accords never even mentioned the words Palestinian State, and only laid out in great detail an interim period that theoretically should have ended in 1999, which should have led to “final status” talks. It was only since the beginning of this year that Israel reported that “core issues” and “final status” matters are now being negotiated between Livni and Qurei´a.

Livni admitted today that “it took some time” in Israel to accept the idea of “dividing the land”. Now, she said, she believes that the former left-vs-right divide in Israeli politics is “something that belongs to the past. Two states is in Israel´s interest, and represents [the will] not only of the government but of the entire Israeli people”.

Livni indicated that in the negotiations, “Everybody is using the formula, and this is the basic understanding between Israel and the Palestinians: two states for two peoples. Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people [– "this is the raison d´etre of the State of Israel", she added seconds later –] and the Palestinian state will be the homeland for the Palestinians”

“The answer to the [Palestinian] refugee problem is the creation of a Palestinian state”, Livni said. “But unfortunately some Arab and Palestinian leaders are calling for two states but also demanding the right of return to Israel, which is the Jewish state. This is not a theoretical question. This is the basic understanding [between the two negotiating teams] And this is one of the two basic pillars … the other of course is Israel’s security.”

She said that “the borders should not be vague – or say only 1967 lines, plus or minus a percentage. No, we need outlines on the map, so that the day after the agreement there will be no misunderstanding”.

And, Livni said, for Israel, “it is important to know what will be on the other side of these borders … and to know that it´s demilitarized”.

What we cannot afford, she said, is “a failed state or a terror state”.

Livni added that “We have no hidden agenda – a future Palestinian state includes the West Bank and Gaza. This is the Palestinian aspiration. But in order to create a state, they need to give an answer to the situation on the ground”.

Hamas is currently in control in the Gaza Strip.

Livni did not say what she thought should be done about that. Israel has recently concluded a kind of truce (“tahdia”) with Hamas, but has apparently ambivalent views about actually dealing directly with Hamas, something which the U.S. rejects rather more categorically.

Livni has several times in recent months described her view of an overall scenario where “extremists” – and in this group she includes Iran and Iranian-backed Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, but not Syria – as getting stronger.

The task, and the remedy, as she describes it, is to reinforce the “moderates”.

“In Annapolis we decided to negotiate with pragmatic Palestinians”, Livni explained. A simultaneous decision was made, she said, “to delegitimize Hamas and keep the pressure on them” – that is, unless they accept the right of Israel to exist, end terror and violence, and accept the former agreements reached in the Oslo process between Israel and Palestinians, Livni indicated.

She suggested that “since there is no hope with Hamas”, the negotiators are working for what is being called a “shelf agreement”.

Acting very much like a candidate for leadership of the Kadima party to replace the current party leader – and Prime Minister – Ehud Olmert, Livni appeared to be trying to re-cast what is now called in Israel the “Second Lebanon War”.

She suggested that war is a much easier and cleaner affair when the protagonists are states.

Drawing a hypothetical future parallel with the Palestinian situation, Livni said that between two states there could be misunderstandings, and even war. “The Lebanon war could have been ended in a few days if it had just been between states”, she said. “But with a terror organization it is completely different”

Acting for a moment as a candidate for higher office, Livni appeared to criticize the involvement if not predominance of the Israeli military in decision-making – and this appeared to be a reference to the widely-criticized conduct of the Second Lebanon War. Livni said that “The Israeli Prime Minister needs to understand the threats and trends in the region. Preparation is needed, and not only of the army….There are different options, and the Prime Minister needs to put on the table what is the goal of Israel, what are the options, and to choose from then. Then [and only then], we [the political leadership] should ask our military experts what is best, after already choosing between the options”.

Acting very much like a candidate for leadership of the Kadima party to replace the current party leader – and Prime Minister — Ehud Olmert, Livni appeared to be trying to re-cast what is now called in Israel the “Second Lebanon War”.

Livni said that in 2006, “It was important for Israel and the international community not to undermine the Lebanese Government, and we worked against Hizballah in south Lebanon only”.

Now, she said, Hizballah is getting stronger in Lebanon, and is part of the government, so the international community should ask “for state responsibility for the situation in Lebanon”.

She repeated Israeli complaints that the arms embargo contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is “not being enforced”.

UN Security Council resolution 1701 says that there should be “no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government”. But, now that Hizballah is part of the government, is this Israeli criticism still legitimate?

The Committee has set down some general principles, and has asked for the submission of an amended design.

The damaged ramp was built on the remains of the Mughrabi Quarter that was razed after Israeli forces conquered the Old City of Jerusalem in the June 1967 war.

Part of the ramp collapsed after winter rains and snow in February 2004, and the Israeli authorities initially decided it was a good opportunity to reconstruct areas of the Western Wall Plaza – including the ramp access to the Mughrabi Gate – to suit its own estimates of its present needs, including greater security access to the mosque esplanade, and an expanded prayer area for Jewish women.

Ir Amim’s legal adviser, attorney Daniel Seideman reported that objections he presented to several earlier versions of the reconstruction plan were accepted in large part – but not in their totality – by the Regional Planning Committee in the first week of July.

Ir Amim is an NGO working for the equitable sharing of Jerusalem, which it calls a city “of two peoples and three religions”.

“Where we were successful is that the Committee ordered the preservation of artifacts including from the Ottoman and Mandate periods, which includes the remains of the Mughrabi Quarter”, Seidemann said, whereas last November the government indicated that it wanted to raze all artifacts dating later than 1700 A.D.

But the wording of the Committee’s decision – directing without greater precision only that the design for reconstruction would have to “take into account” the artifacts that have been found there – leaves a lot to discretion, Seidemann noted.

A proposal which would have transformed some of the vaults of the Islamic-era structures that have been unearthed under the ramp in recent Israeli excavations into Jewish prayer halls has been rejected, Seideman reported.

Israeli excavation activity now appears to have stopped.

The biggest remaining problem, according to Seidemann, is the Committee’s ruling that the Western Wall Plaza could be expanded – though he said it would be less than in the earlier proposal.

So, he warned, “this is not over”, and the situation will require continued close attention.

The Israeli government in 2006-2007 signed off on a ramp redesign plan at every level up to and including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, after which excavations were carried out under the ramp, in accordance with requirements of Israel’s antiquities law.

But, the original redesign plan was severely criticized by 18 leading Israeli archeologists who said they were appalled by the potential damage to one of the most important archeological sites in Israel-Palestine, and a main focus of all the various civilizations that have coexisted in Jerusalem from ancient biblical times through the present day. The original plan was described as “megalomaniac” and “phatasmagorical”.

Following strong international protests, the Israeli government agreed to begin a consultation process under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Jordanian government and the Waqf (Islamic Trust Foundation) in Jerusalem participated in these consultations, which were apparently indirect – meaning that the delegations were not all in the same room.

A revised plan was filed, but objections persisted. As required by the Israeli approval process, the government’s Regional Planning Committee – which is administratively part of Israel’s Ministry of the Interior but which is composed of members of a number of other ministries, as well as of the Jerusalem Municipality, as well as two members of the public – has been considering these objections.

Now, the Regional Planning Committee has just ruled that the revised reconstruction plan must be further amended, and still has to sign off on the revised plan that it now awaited from local Jerusalem architect Eli Ilan, before a building permit is issued.

More hearings could be required if the design revisions are extensive, Seidemann indicated.

This project could become a model for working in such an immensely significant and sensitive site, according to Seidemann, but he noted that there is also still the potential to revert back to fighting that could cause “an interreligous conflagration”.

Adnan Husseini said this week that he was concerned that Israel was not paying attention to the negotiations conducted last February by UNESCO, and was just using the fact that these meetings were held “as an umbrella to get to their target”. The whole story, he said, is about Israel’s intention to enlarge the prayer area in the Western Wall Plaza. To so, he said, Israel could destroy 1400 years of history. “We ask UNESCO to take a serious role”, Husseini said. “This is an entrance to our Mosques, and it [the ramp as well as the archeological remains] is Awqaf property”. He urged UNESCO to take a position, and be firm and clear – and not just allow Israel “to show a picture of having discussed the issue with others, while in the end imposing everything on the ground”.

According to a report in Haaretz, the Israeli government is planning to spend 17 million shekels (over $5 million, at the current rate of exchange) on this project.

Israel considers the site to be an area of Israeli sovereignty. Israel extended its law and administration over East Jerusalem in the wake of the 1967 war, and Israel later proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1980 – a move that was declared null and void by United Nations member states, and which is recognized by fewer than a handful of countries.

A “de facto” arrangement put in place in 1967 by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan left authority over the Haram as-Sharif mosque esplanade to Jerusalem’s Islamic Waqf (trust foundation) – while Israel proclaimed itself in full charge of the site´s Western Wall and the plaza created where the Mughrabi Quarter previously stood, but the Israeli Foreign Ministry website states now that “the Temple Mount lies within the sovereign jurisdiction of the State of Israel”.

The two concepts – of delegating authority to the Waqf while retaining sovereign jurisdiction – could be interpreted in various ways that could be more or less accommodating to the two sides. However, Israel has appeared in recent years to be moving to a more and more restrictive interpretation.

The Waqf continues to claim the entire area of the Mughrabi Quarter, including the ramp, as its property.

And the Palestine Liberation Organization’s National Council, in 1988, approved the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine, to be established on the territory captured by Israel in the June 1967 war, with East Jerusalem to be its capital.

Seidemann said that Israel’s Regional Planning Committee appears to have at least taken into consideration the views of the other parties, and he believes “there were clear instructions from the political echelons to handle the situation responsibly”.

But, the situation could go either way, Seidemann said: the revised plan could be “upgraded to something close to what is acceptable to the Waqf, the Jordanians, and UNESCO, or it could degenerate into something close to the original plan”.

Israel, in its 1994 Peace Treaty with Jordan, stated that it “respects” Jordan´s “special role” in the “Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem” (but not, however, in management of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, for which Jordan also reportedly wanted a special status during the peace treaty negotiations). The 1994 Peace Treaty also says that Jordan´s “historic role” in the Jerusalem shrines will be given “high priority” when “negotiations on the permanent status” [i.e., between Israel and the Palestinians] “will take place”

Seidemann cautioned: “To fall asleep at the watch now would be exactly the wrong thing to do”.

A revised Israeli design to rebuild the ramp is expected to receive Israeli government approval imminently.

Depending on what is finally approved – by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Commission – there still may be one or two problems, but the revised plan as viewed a few weeks ago by Israeli attorney Danny Seidemann, appears to be a big improvement over an earlier Israeli plan which, he said, reflected “ulterior motives”.

When the Regional Planning Commission hands down its decision, there will still be a possibility of appealing to the Jerusalem District Court if necessary, says Seidemann.

Seideman presented objections to both the original and the revised designs before open meetings at the Jerusalem Municipality, and at a more recent meeting of the Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Commission, on behalf of Ir Amim, an Israeli NGO which he formed to work for the equitable sharing of Jerusalem, which Ir Amim calls a city “of two peoples and three religions”.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinowitz, confirmed that a decision on the new ramp design is now being finalized. He described the revised design as “a bridge in the air”, and said he liked the revised plan. “I hope that by September or October we will start building”, the Rabbi said. “The design was arrived at after a lot of thought, and the plans are very aesthetic”.

Adnan Husseini, a former head of the Waqf in Jerusalem, who is presently an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Jerusalem affairs, said the plan is not available, until now, “for the public”.

But, Husseini also said that the Israelis announced their original plan through the Jerusalem Municipality, and held meetings – which Palestinians apparently do not attend, so as not to confer legitimacy on the occupation – to discuss the design. The Israelis have also shown the plan to UNESCO, Husseini said, and an alternative plan prepared by Jordanians was also presented.

The situation has cooled somewhat by the involvement of UNESCO, a Paris-based organization. Though Israel has often had a tendentious relationship with many UN bodies and agencies, it appeared to have no qualms or objections in this case.

“This site one of the most sensitive places on the planet”, Israel attorney Danny Seideman said in an interview last week, “and the role of UNESCO has been very positive, fair, and evenhanded”.

UNESCO inscribed the Old City of Jerusalem on its World Heritage Site list for protection in 1981 – and in 1982 on a list of World Heritage Sites in danger. The current Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, proposed a “comprehensive plan of action to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem”, which was approved by UNESCO’s membership in 2003.

Matsuura recently visited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the Muqata’a Presidential Headquarters in Ramallah. On the same trip, Matsuura also spent time visiting areas in Israel which are, or which may in the future become, sites designated as worthy of being listed, and protected, as part of the cultural heritage of mankind

UNESCO intervened in the Mughrabi Gate controversy last year in an attempt to open a dialog between the parties concerned. Under its umbrella, UNESCO has formally brought Jordan back into the picture concerning the Mughrabi Gate excavations and ramp renovation.

For all intents and purposes, and in actual fact, that means Israel and Jordan, two governments which are state members of UNESCO.

Israel, in its 1994 Peace Treaty with Jordan, stated that it “respects” Jordan’s “special role” in the “Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem” (but not, however, in management of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, for which Jordan also reportedly wanted a special status during the peace treaty negotiations). The 1994 Peace Treaty also says that Jordan’s “historic role” in the Jerusalem shrines will be given “high priority” when “negotiations on the permanent status” [i.e., between Israel and the Palestinians] “will take place”.

Jordanian personnel headed the Waqf when Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967. After a period of stronger Palestinian influence in the 1990s, Jordan once again now exercises control of the Waqf’s top post, while the Palestinian Authority is in charge of nominating the Mufti.

The most recent involvement of Jordan in this controversy has been through UNESCO, however, and not through the Waqf, which prefers to avoid dealing with the Israelis as occupiers, because that would signify acquiescence to the legitimacy of Israeli authority in East Jerusalem.

Seidemann said that “Neither the Waqf nor the Jordanians ever formally participated within the Israeli approval process, though they did participate in the UNESCO deliberations”.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall said that UNESCO and the Waqf have had an opportunity to give input into the design, but “both did not come two times to meetings, and the third time UNESCO sent only low-ranking officials. Their objections were political and not actually about the design or the way it will be built”.

“There was a learning process”, Seideman said, and “the Jordanians fulfilled the role of responsible adults”.

But Seidemann says that he believes the new or revised Israeli design seems even better than the Jordanian design – though there are still problems with the revised Israeli design that must be resolved, including the fact that it would result in a significant expansion of the Western Wall Plaza by razing remaining remnants of the Mughrabi Quarter.

The Jordanian plan featured the construction of containment walls to hide the Islamic artifacts now being excavated under the crumbling ramp, Seidemann said, but he feels that the columns in the new Israeli plan are more reasonable.

The Turkish Government also initially protested the Israeli actions vocally and visibly when the controversy blew up just over a year ago. A technical mission sent by Turkey visited to examine the site, and wrote a highly critical report. Recently, however, the Turkish government seems to have all but disappeared from view on the issue.

The Jerusalem Municipality has, coincidentally, reportedly rushed through plans to permit the construction of a memorial to Ottoman war victims just outside (about 50 meters outside) the south-east corner of the Old City walls.

The Mufti of Al-Aqsa, Muhammed Hussein, denounced the whole reconstruction project during his sermon during Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of East Jerusalem on 13 June. The Mufti reportedly told worshippers that information now available indicates that the temporary wooden bridge that allows non-Muslim tourists and visitors to the Haram ash-Sharif (Mosque Esplanade) is to be replaced by a “steel bridge”.

This structure, the Mufti reportedly complained, would allow easier and faster access for the Israeli police and security forces, and would also expand the area currently available for Jewish women to pray in their separate section in the southern area of the Plaza facing the Western or Wailing Wall, which is below the southern end of the Mosque Esplanade.

In fact, some Palestinians in Jerusalem say, the proposed ramp appeared (in the original Israel plan) designed mainly to serve the Israeli security forces, and was wide enough for an armed vehicle to get quickly up into the Haram as-Sharif if riots break out.

Israeli attorney Seideman said that there were proposals for a structure strong enough to hold 300 Israeli police standing on the ramp at one time, in full gear.

However, with the intervention of UNESCO agreement was reached that the new ramp should not be a new security tool, but should instead restore the “status quo ante”.

While the new design may give somewhat better access for Israeli security forces, Seideman said, it will also provide greater accessibility for the handicapped, for the first time – including for Muslims with disabilities.

The ramp and the Mughrabi Gate is the only entrance to the Haram as-Sharif for non-Muslims – including Jews.

The other entrances are normally reserved for Muslims, while Muslims are not supposed to use the Mughrabi Gate.

The ramp was damaged by the elements, including a minor earthquake. Heavy rain and snow in the winter of 2004 eventually caused the collapse of what is called the “northern wall” of the structure in February 2004. It was declared unsafe.

Three years later, Israel began “salvage” excavations on the site that have aroused controversy and great suspicion, all the more so because the Israeli decisions were being taken unilaterally – as UNESCO said in a report on the controversy in the spring of 2007.

The structures tucked under the ramp which are now being excavated include part of an ancient madrasa and mosque as well as parts of homes from various historical periods. Seideman said these included structures from the Ottoman, Mameluk, and Ommayad periods. UNESCO said in a recent report that “several strata of archaeological structures (from the Herodian times to the British Mandate period) and of earth and rubble”, while the Rabbi of the Western Wall said he believed the structures were very recent.

The original Israeli plan to renovate the ramp suggested the removal of all or part of these structures, which Seidemann called “Islamic artifacts” in order to allow an enlargement of the prayer area reserved for Jewish women in front of the Western Wall.

The revised plan, as presented to the Regional Planning Commission, proposed the preservation of these structures – but with the vaults transformed into prayer halls for Jewish women. This, too, would be “very problematic, inflammatory and dangerous”, according to Seideman.

Otherwise, Seidemann said, the revised Israeli plan, which was the only one presented to the Regional Planning Commission, is very close to the original route of the ramp, and he said he considers it “reasonable”. It might be some 20 meters longer, Seidemann said, but the location, slope, and overall size are “much improved”.

The revised plan, Seidemann said, “is much more modest than the original plan”, which he called “megalomaniac”. That would have built a much larger and longer structure, he said, and would have resulted in considerable damage to very important archeological sites. And, according to Seidemann, there were a number of “hidden agendas to increase access for the Israeli police and military and the extremist settlers, and ad nothing to do with repair work.”.

There is “a reasonable chance that the decision of the Regional Planning Commission will be balanced”, he continued, but the test will not be the design of the ramp itself, but whether the area to the north of the ramp will still be marked for razing, and whether or not the idea to turn Islamic-era artifacts into Jewish prayer halls is rejected.

The Regional Planning Board, Seideman said, “is trying to do the right thing, which is rare. Their public hearing was very civil and intelligent, and there were clearly instructions from the political echelons to handle the situation responsibly. As Abba Eban once said, ‘politicans may eventually do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities’.”

By contrast, non-binding hearings held earlier at the Jerusalem Municipality had been “hostile, primitive, and racist”, Seidemann said. “This played to the grandstand, but had no real impact”.

The Haram as-Sharif is “the volcanic core of the conflict, and fundamental extremists on both sides are trying to take advantage of the situation”, Seideman said. “It makes everybody acts strangely – normal people become neurotic, and neurotic people become psychotic”.

The plateau itself is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, the site where the inner sanctum of the two Jewish temples, which housed the Ark of the Covenant, containing the Ten Commandments and the Torah, is believed to have been built.

The Western Wall is composed of huge slabs of quarried and cut stone and believed to be part of the second (if not also of the first) Jewish temples that were built – and then destroyed, first by the Babylonians, then by the Romans – in Jerusalem.

After the Mughrabi Quarter was razed, a large plaza was created for Jewish worshippers, and the stated policy of the Israeli government remains that it is open to visitors of all faiths.

The Western Wall plaza is also used for state events, including for Israeli Defense Force ceremonies for induction, promotion, and commemorations.

Nearly one thousand residents of the Old City, many of whom were 1948 refugees from the Lod region near Tel Aviv, or from West Jerusalem, were made homeless in the process of clearing the area in 1967 to create the Plaza, and became refugees for a second time. Many moved to the Shuafat refugee camp on the northern outskirts of East Jerusalem, or to Anata – both of which have now been effectively banished to the West Bank by the route of The Wall in north-eastern areas of Jerusalem..

A still-existing though some believe now eroding “de facto” arrangement worked out just after the 1967 war by Israel’s Defense Minister at the time, Moshe Dayan, gave the Waqf authority over the Haram as-Sharif mosque esplanade, while Israel proclaimed itself in full charge of the site’s Western Wall.

Despite the immense religious importance of the place, there was no Jewish challenge at the time to Moshe Dayan’s “de facto” arrangement of partitioned responsibility. The religious-national right-wing Israeli settler movement had not yet been created.

The very sanctity of the site protected it, for years, from Jewish militant agitation. Mainstream rabbinic interpretation taught that Jewish Law forbids Jewish people to go up to the Temple Mount.

The Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinowitz, said in an interview last week with this journalist that this remains his belief and official position.

Rabbi Rabinowitz explained that the prohibition of visits to the site is “not because it is not ours. It is ours. But it is because of the sanctity of the place. It is where the Holy of Holies stood. Jews who go there must purify themselves with the [sacrifice of the] Red Heifer, which we do not have now”.

The first Temple was built by King Solomon over 500 years B.C. (before the start of the Common or Christian Era, which began with the birth of Christ). The second Temple was built in the same time period, about 50 years after the destruction of the first Temple. The second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.

Some rabbis have more recently adopted the view that Jews could go to the Temple Mount – as long as they avoided certain specific areas. Jewish visitors generally walk only around the perimeter of the mosque esplanade, and they avoid wearing leather while visiting the site.

Rabbi Rabinowitz explained that “There are a very few activists, a very small percentage, who do not observe Jewish Law. And even those who do go up to the site, do not go to every place there”.

The Rabbi said that “the entire Temple Mount, like the rest of Jerusalem, is under Jewish authority. Jerusalem has been important to us for generations, for thousands of years, wherever in the world Jews found themselves”. And, he noted, his grandfather was expelled from the Old City in the war of 1948.

“The current agreement, made in 1967, for the Waqf to take care of the Temple Mount, is in place until today”, the Rabbi said. “They are in charge of the Temple Mount, and we are in charge of the Western Wall. The excavations on our sides are open to the public, but we do not know about everything that’s going on up there”.

Excavations carried out on the esplanade directly under Al-Aqsa Mosque to create more prayer space have been a source of anguish for many Israelis, who believe that valuable antiquities were removed and tossed out carelessly, and there are continuing recovery efforts to sift through the soil that was removed.

The connection between the Rabbi and the Waqf is through the Israeli police, he said, and there is “full cooperation”. He explained that the contacts are not on a daily basis, but “only if things come up” – although the police and the Waqf authorities are in touch on a regular basis.

As far as the Rabbi is concerned, he said, he “would prefer not to have the Mughrabi Gate at all. We do not go up to the Temple Mount, so it is not a concern to us. There are other entrances that could be used”, he added.

He said he “would be very interested if all of that were to be removed”, because that would enable an extension of the women’s prayer area at the Western Wall. “In 1967, they didn’t see the need [for a large women’s area]”, the Rabbi added, “but now we see the need”. However, the Rabbi said, a decision was made to remove only a part of what is being excavated.

The Israeli government is firmly of the view that it has the right to make any decisions about what happens in the Western Wall plaza because it has been declared “an area of Jewish sovereignty” since the 1967 war.

Two days into the 1967 war, on 7 June, Israeli troops took East Jerusalem. The first step, taken three weeks later in the Knesset, was “the extension of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to the eastern neighborhoods of the city”, as the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says.

Then, on 30 July 1980, Israel proclaimed a new “Basic Law” stating that Jerusalem [by then, meaning the greatly expanded “Greater Jerusalem” defined after the 1967 war] is “the eternal and undivided capital of Israel”, as well as the seat of Israel’s government.

The United Nations has taken the position that these actions are “null and void”.

For the Waqf, and for Palestinians, as well as for many others around the world, the areas that Israel conquered in 1967 – including East Jerusalem — are still under belligerent military occupation.

Adnan Husseini, a former head of the Waqf, who is presently an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Jerusalem affairs, said that there was a small police post on the Haram as-Sharif during the Jordanian time, which the Israelis took over.

But he feels the police should generally remain outside. “The police should be on all the gates all the time”, he said, “because they should be taking care of the situation”.

But, Husseini said, the police are now “moving everywhere inside the Mosque. And it’s not just the police with blue clothes. It’s also the border police with olive green uniforms, and even special police for more dangerous confrontations who carry automatic weapons. They are using all kinds of security, and it’s not any more a holy place”.

Al-Aqsa Mosque, he said, “started to be a mosque 1400 years ago…It is a key between earth and heaven, and the instructions of prayers started in this place”.

“What we need is to stop any intervention or threat coming from the outside”, Hussein said, “but instead the police responsibility has changed, and the police are now more concerned about the Muslims coming to pray. They control them, instead of controlling the settlers. They allow groups inside, in violation of the agreed instructions for visits. But some are coming not under the umbrella of religion, but with political goals, to change the status of the place. And the police are allowing it. This is a provocation. And this is part of the Israeli policy towards changing the status of the Mosque”.

Husseini said that the settlers are “very extreme” and have engaged in “violence in and around the Old City”. And, he said, “when the settlers enter the Mosque, they try to pray. But they should pray in their own places…Everyone should pray in his own place. They (the settlers) wanted to change this Mosque into a synagogue and to pray there. But touching religious issues creates troubles and hatreds”.

“All the time we have protested to everyone”, Husseini added, “because they are hurting, and touching the feelings of others, and this is dangerous”.

FIrst of all, we need to know where these Palestinians were taken prisoner:  Was it in Gaza?  Was it in the West Bank? Or, was it in Israel itself?

Then, we need to know where is the military base?

To detain Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory and take them outside of that territory — as in this case, to Israel — would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The caption also says: “An Israeli negotiator was due to travel to Egypt on Thursday in a bid to speed up indirect negotiations with the Hamas movement for the release of a soldier the Islamists have held for two years”

Apparently, either the photographer and/or the caption writer were aware of the irony of Israel continuing to “detain” Palestinians while the Israelis themselves are utterly preoccupied with the return of one IDF soldier (Gilad Shalit) who was captured at Kerem Shalom and held captive for the past two years inside Gaza, and with the issue of the return of two soldiers (or their bodies) who were captured by Hizballah in a disputed area along Israel’s northern border just after Shalit was seized near Gaza.

The Hizballah action, which triggered a massive Israeli military response — now known as the Second Lebanon War — was aimed at taking the pressure off Gaza and increasing the pressure on Israel, both to change its policies, and to negotiate for the release of its captured men.

This photo w.as taken apparently today for AFP by David Buimovitch

What Ynet is reporting: Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said today that “By stepping up Qassam rocket attacks on Israel [from the Gaza Strip] ‘Palestinians will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,’ says Deputy Defense Minister Vilnai says. Hamas in response: We are facing new Nazis.

The article reports: ” ‘Holocaust’ is a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War Two. Many Israelis are loathe to countenance using the word to describe other contemporary events. Israeli air strikes on the coastal territory, controlled by Hamas Islamists, have killed at least 32 Palestinians, including five children, in the past two days. Israel said it was responding to rocket fire by Gaza militants, which killed one Israeli in the southern border town of Sderot on Wednesday, and it threatened to launch a larger-scale offensive unless the barrage stopped. ‘The more Qassam (rocket) fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves’, Vilnai told Army Radio. Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said of Vilnai’s comments: ‘We are facing new Nazis who want to kill and burn the Palestinian people’.” This article is posted on YNet’s website here.

Now, the reporting is being criticized — though not this article in YNet. Reuters and the BBC (both British news outlets) are taking the brunt of the rage.

The Spectator, another British media, has published this reaction: “This reported remark by deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai caused widespread shock and absolute horror. For an Israeli minister to use the word ‘holocaust’ to describe a limited war of Israeli self-defence, when for Jews of all people the ‘Holocaust’ means one thing: genocide — and this at a time when the calumny of the ‘Jews as Nazis’ is rampant around the world, putting Israel and the Jewish people at risk — was simply beyond belief.

It was indeed without any credibility — because Vilnai never said it. It was an appalling mistranslation by Reuters, the source of the BBC story.

Vilnai said: ‘The more Qassam (rocket) fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger “shoah” because we will use all our might to defend ourselves’.

Reuters translated the Hebrew word ‘shoah’ as ‘holocaust’. But ‘shoah’ merely means disaster. In Hebrew, the word ‘shoah’ is never used to mean ‘holocaust’ or ‘genocide’ because of the acute historical resonance. The word ‘Hashoah’ alone means ‘the Holocaust’ and ‘retzach am’ means ‘genocide’. The well-known Hebrew construction used by Vilnai used merely means ‘bringing disaster on themselves’.

As a subsequent Reuter’s story reported, ‘Vilnai’s spokesman said: “Mr. Vilnai was meaning ‘disaster’. He did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide”. Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Arye Mekel, added: ‘Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai used the Hebrew phrase that included the term “shoah” in Hebrew in the sense of a disaster or a catastrophe, and not in the sense of a holocaust’. But this grotesque mistranslation has given Hamas a propaganda gift which they lost no time exploiting: Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said of Vilnai’s comments: “We are facing new Nazis who want to kill and burn the Palestinian people”.’ This reaction in The Spectator to the initial reports of Vilnai’s remarks is posted here.

Meanwhile, even the Jerusalem Post is reporting that “Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i said Friday that ‘as long as the rocket attacks escalated, the Palestinians are bringing upon themselves a bigger Shoah [Holocaust]‘.” This article in the JPost is published here.

“Whoever killed Mughniyah was once again playing with the most dangerous fire of all: He undermined Israel’s security. If it was Israel, one has to ask whether there was any shred of sense in this move. If it was not Israel, our famed intelligence agencies would do well to prove this quickly, before the next disaster. Was the security of Israel’s citizens improved? Was terror dealt a permanent blow? History, with its multitude of previous assassinations, teaches that the answer is no. The chain of ‘terrorist chieftains’ liquidated by Israel, from Ali Salameh and Abu Jihad through Abbas Mussawi and Yihyeh Ayash to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi – all “operations” that we celebrated with great pomp and circumstance for one sweet and intoxicating moment – have thus far brought only harsh and painful revenge attacks against Israel and Jews throughout the world, as well as infinite replacements no less effective than their predecessors, and sometimes more so. From assassination to assassination, terror has only increased and become more sophisticated.

“We have never really demanded an accounting from those responsible for these liquidations; we have merely been excited by their ‘achievements’. How we enjoy wallowing in these childish tales of heroism! …

“First, the partying: It is depressing to see the pseudo-victory celebrations. What, for heaven’s sake, is there to celebrate, other than the oldest and most primitive feeling of all – revenge? The parade of generals and pundits who were interviewed in every possible platform, putting their heads together and dispensing cunning smiles, inflated with their own self-importance, along with the generations of terror victims who were called on to express the joy of their personal revenge, and the deciphering of hints – here is Ehud Olmert smiling in the Knesset and Ehud Barak standing tall in Ankara – all of these painted a picture of unparalleled grimness. Even devoted fans of the genre need to think about the morning after. Even for them, vengeance for the sake of vengeance, an eye for an eye, in the best spirit of our biblical values, cannot be the be-all and end-all. Moreover, a society that rejoices and takes pride in its media victory after every assassination is a society in bad shape, while a war on terror that only encourages ever more vicious reprisals is a lost war…”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954787.html

“The situation that arose once the Egypt-Gaza border was flung wide open has apparently not yet penetrated Israeli consciousness. While politicians and the media are waiting with bated breath for publication of the Winograd report on the Second Lebanon War, a new situation is taking shape on the Egyptian border that might eventually result in a new investigative committee. The diplomatic and security situation that arose on the Israeli-Egyptian border once the Egypt-Gaza border was flung wide open has apparently not yet penetrated the Israeli consciousness. But it is time to start asking pointed questions about the events of this week … The border with Egypt was breached in a single moment, with no warning. It is impossible to refrain from asking whether any of our decision makers, or any of those who whisper in their ears, foresaw this scenario and prepared for it. When Vice Premier Haim Ramon boasts of the impressive decision-making process that preceded last fall’s military operation in Syria, his words sound bizarre in light of what is happening in the South. While hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are streaming into Egyptian Rafah and Hosni Mubarak is having trouble reestablishing the border, while Hamas has succeeded in ending the siege of Gaza via a well-planned operation and simultaneously won the sympathy of the world, which has forgotten the rain of Qassam rockets on Sderot, Israel is entrenching itself in positions that look outdated. The prime minister speaks about the need to continue the closure on Gaza, and the cabinet voices its ‘disappointment’ with Egypt – as if there were ever any chance that the Egyptians would work to protect Israeli interests along the Philadelphi route instead of thinking first of all of their own interests. The failure of the siege of Gaza, which the government declared only a week ago to be ‘bearing fruit’, and especially the fear that this failure will lead to a conflict with Egypt, requires the government to pull itself together and prove that it has been graced with the ability to solve crises and to lead, not merely to offer endless excuses for its leadership during previous crises. As hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were streaming into Sinai by car and making a mockery of Israel’s policy in Gaza, the prime minister gave a speech at the Herzliya Conference that sounded disconnected from reality. There is little point in extolling the quiet on the northern border when a diplomatic and security crisis for which Israel has no solution is taking place in the South. The Qassam fire is continuing, the policy of sanctions on Gaza has collapsed and Hamas is growing stronger politically, militarily and diplomatically. It is clear to everyone that reestablishing the border along the Philadelphi route will be impossible without its consent…”
The Haaretz editorial is posted here.

“This report focuses on one claim – one that was also raised during the war, particularly by Arab public figures in Israel, but which has not been the subject of detailed attention. This claim is that military installations were positioned by the Israeli army in proximity to Arab civilian locales. The report is based on the testimonies of 80 Arab residents interviewed by the HRA, documenting 20 Arab communities that were hit by an estimated total of some 660 rockets, killing 14 civilians directly. On the basis of the investigation undertaken by the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA), it emerges that temporary military installations from which missiles were fired into Lebanon during the war were indeed positioned in very close proximity to the Arab locales that suffered the gravest attacks during the war. This is in addition to permanent military installations in existence prior to the war. In some cases, the military installations were established inside the Arab locales. It is reasonable to assume that these installations were targets for Hizbullah rocket attacks; that their placement in the locale exposed Arab civilians to a grave risk that rockets would strike their locales; and that this risk indeed materialized in practice. Equally, the investigation found that Arab locales that were not surrounded by military installations were not damaged during the war, or were damaged to a lesser extent, despite their proximity to the Israeli-Lebanese border. The investigation found that the Arab towns and villages that suffered the most intensive attacks during the war were ones that were surrounded by military installations, either on a permanent basis or temporarily during the course of the war. These installations are located at a distance of just 0.5 – 2 kilometers by air from the civilian community; in some cases, the installations are located inside the town or village. Such short distances are within the margin of error of the rockets fired by Hizbullah. During the war, artillery fire was launched at Lebanon from many of these installations, and particularly from the temporary installations … During the war, Hizbullah declared on several occasions that it was targeting its rockets primarily at military installations inside Israel. Given the findings of the investigation undertaken by the HRA, there is no reason to doubt that the Arab towns and villages were hit due to their proximity to the adjacent military installations. At the very least, it may be assumed that the fact that Israel located certain military installations in or close to Arab civilian centers significantly increased the danger to which the residents of these communities were exposed… By locating military installations in or close to civilian centers, Israel violated the specific obligation imposed by international humanitarian law to refrain from locating military installations within or close to civilian centers. This violation applies even if there was no intention to use the civilian centers as human shields … The HRA investigation found also that not only did the government not present any such request or demand to the residents or the local authorities to evacuate the residents, but it actually asked them to remain in their homes despite the numerous rockets that fell in these communities”.

The Arab Human Rights Association’s just-released report can be seen here.

During the Second Lebanon War, according to the Arab Human Rights Association, “a total of 1,191 Lebanese civilians were killed and over 4,400 were wounded. On the Israeli side, 44 Israeli civilians were killed and 4,262 were injured”.

The report, Civilians in Danger: The Location of Temporary and Permanent Military Installations Close to Arab Communities during the Second Lebanon War , was released at a press conference in Nazareth addressed by Muhammed Zeidan, Director of the Arab Human Rights Association.

The report comes as Israelis are awaiting further damaging conclusions from the Winograd Commission which is investigating the Government’s conduct of the Second Lebanon War.

Also, prominent Israeli-Arab member of Israel’s Knesset, Azmi Bishara, fled the country last spring after security investigations of his phone conversations with people in Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War. From reports, it appears that Bishara is accused by Israeli security of helping target some of the Hizbollah missiles that landed in northern Israel — an accusation that his supporters have rejected.

And, almost at the same time as the report was published, the Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Ra’anan Dinur, told the annual Galilee Conference meeting in Upper Nazareth (a Jewish quarter, or city, adjacent to– and above — the Arab city of Nazaretz) that “The Government of Israel is prepared for the continuation of the plan to strengthen Haifa and the north in 2008-2010 at an overall cost of NIS 1.5 billion”, according to a press release from the Prime Minister’s Office. The cost of the plan has been approximately NIS 2.7 billion up until now. “The Government plan is designed to develop and strengthen the north by reducing gaps between residents of the north and residents of the center. The supplement to the plan will be submitted for Cabinet approval in the first quarter of 2008; it will focus on employment, education and housing”.

Last year, the Arab Human Rights Association issued an important report entitled Suspected Citizens: Racial Profiling against Arab Passengers by Israeli Airports and Airlines, which, the AHRA says, detailed the manner in which discriminatory inspection is imposed upon Arab citizens as a national group all of whose members are spuriously perceived as a “security threat” to the state. A majority of Israeli Arabs airlines passengers have been subjected to what Electronic Intifada called “a distinctive and discriminatory approach on the basis of their national origin –They are collectively, and almost automatically, subject to a security inspection that is not imposed on Jewish passengers, and is based on a security perception that persistently views them as a threat”.

This happens not only in Israel, but also in other countries prior to boarding flights of Israeli airlines, the report found: “An examination by the investigating organizations regarding the source of authority for the use of Israeli security personnel on the territory of foreign countries showed that the inspections undertaken by the Israeli companies are in addition to the local security arrangements. It also emerged that the countries in which these inspections take place do not supervise them, and prefer to ignore their discriminatory nature and the human rights violations committed on their own soil. The demand to reveal the nature of these arrangements was rejected on the grounds that this is confidential information”.

Palestinians — from the occupied West Bank (or Gaza) and holding Palestinian documents — are not allowed to fly out of Ben Gurion at all, but must cross into Jordan through the Allenby Bridge and fly from Amman. Even Arab-Americans were barred from flying into and out of Ben Gurion if they also had Palestinian documents — or if their destination was to the West Bank and Gaza.

People who merely had Arab names are also routinely subject to all these special procedures.

Israeli security procedures rely on such ethnic profiling — which is belived in Israel to be a legitimate security procedure.