Israeli “peace plan”: Olmert’s Plan Excluded Jerusalem, Offered Limited ‘Land Swap’

Israeli online daily, Haaretz, published the “map for a permanent solution with the Palestinians” that was previously proposed by the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas.

The “peace plan”, Olmert presented does not include any withdrawal from Jerusalem, annexes all settlements surrounding Jerusalem, and also annexes all settlement blocs to Israel. The plan was never officially presented.

He “offered” the Palestinians areas in the Negev desert and some areas near the Gaza Strip, in addition to a passage between Gaza and the West Bank.
According to the plan, Israel annexes %6.3 of West Bank areas and evacuates isolated settlements located deep in the West Bank.

It keeps the settlement blocs of Maaleh Adumim, Ghush Tzion, Ariel, and all settlements located around the Old city of Jerusalem, and considers East
Jerusalem and its settlements as part of the state of Israel.

The former Prime Minister ‘offered’ the Palestinians 5.8% of “Israel’s lands”, mainly desert areas, in addition to offering a ‘safe passage’ between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The ‘safe passage’ or road linking between Gaza and the West Bank will remain under Israeli control and would always be monitored by the Israeli forces.

He offered transferring 327 kilometers of “Israel’s land’ to the Palestinian Authority; the areas are in the Beit She’an Valley near Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi; the” Judean Hills” near Nataf and Mevo Betar; and in the area of Lachish and of the Yatir Forest.

This means that even when the Palestinians ‘achieve independence’ they will still be subject to search and inspection by the army although they are supposedly moving between different territories of the ‘Palestinian state’.

As for the refugees issue, the plan rejects the internationally guaranteed Right of Return, and only offers allowing a limited number of refugees into the Palestinian territories, and not to their cities and towns wiped out in 1948 by the creation of the state of Israel.

Haaretz said that Olmert and the former United States administration, under George Bush, reached an understanding for the development of the Negev and the Galilee in order to house the settlers who would be evacuated from some West Bank settlements. Some of the settlers would be moved to West bank settlement blocs.

On September 16, 2008, Olmert “offered” Abbas a plan based on talks that followed the Annapolis Summit of 2007. But Olmert told Abbas that handing him the new map is conditioned by signing a ‘comprehensive’ peace deal so that the Palestinians would not use the plan as a starting point for talks on further evacuations.

President Abbas rejected the offer of Olmert and the office of Olmert never even handed him the map of the new plan.

Israel does not view the final status peace deal as an issue that would bring independence and sovereignty to the Palestinian people.

The internationally guaranteed Right of Return and all United Nations and Security Council resolutions calling for the full Israeli withdrawal for all Arab and Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, were fully rejected by Israel.

Ref: Imemc

Read more about the israhell “peace plan”

Ehud Olmert’s “convergence plan”
Olmert mentions a $10 billion price tag to his “convergence” plan, and implies that Washington will fund it. If the U.S. complies, writes Leggett, it “will likely be seen throughout the Middle East as assisting Israel’s bid to take permanent control of large settlement blocs and Jerusalem. The fear is that this would add to regional anger toward the U.S., complicating efforts to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy in other countries.”

Olmert’s convergence plan is intended to establish final borders, already visible in the form of the Wall. In their report “Under the Guise of Security,” [1] Israeli human-rights organizations, BIMKOM and B’Tselem, detail how the Wall has been erected to create prime real estate and hasten expansion of the settlements (which are illegal under international law). Olmert’s agenda highlights what peace activists have long been saying: the Wall is a long-term political border, rather than the “temporary security installation” claimed by Israeli military planners, when testifying at Supreme Court hearings.

…All this represents basic strategy: Israel intends to withdrawal unilaterally from minor areas in order to keep geopolitically strategic ones, especially Jerusalem and other blocs. The intention has always been to undermine Palestinian viability while controlling demographics. Jeff Halper’s “matrix of control” is another name for this strategy. [4] It is no coincidence that the Wall has grabbed the best farmland and most of the water (“Security or Greed?” asks Avraham Tal in Haaretz, April 20), and has destroyed all economic interfaces and market towns (Nazlat Issa, Qalqilya, Mas’ha, A-Ram, Abu Dis and Al-Azariya), while Israel has marginalised the Palestinian transport system.

The political die has been cast, and Israel is officially entering the world community as an Apartheid state, with unilaterally-determined, colonialist borders set in concrete, delineating a non-viable, truncated Bantustan version of Palestine, which will be trapped and stifled in the bear hug of Big Brother Israel. All of which is being accomplished with American and European complicity, contrary to international law and human rights.

Ref: EI

3 Responses

  1. Thanks for writing about this.

    Many in the blogosphere are claiming that the “Annapolis proposal” is yet another example of the Palestinians refusing to accept a peace deal with Israel — but, as this article points out, no Palestinian could have found this offer acceptable, mainly because it excluded East Jerusalem.

    The other example conservatives point to is Camp David. Here again we’re supposed to believe that the Israelis made a generous offer, only to be rejected by Arafat — but the truth is that they only offered 91% of the West Bank and a portion of East Jerusalem. And, of course, they offered virtually nothing to the refugees.

    Anyway, keep up the good fight.

    • Hi, we both know how the pro-Israeli rethoric works and their strategies
      should be well-known by now.

      ISRAEL DO NOT WANT PEACE.
      They want the whole of Eretz Israel land and they want every Palestinian out of this land either by killing
      them or by “transfer”. Every “peace plan” or “peace discussion” has been a display of the power of Israeli
      Zionist doctrine and ideology by the support of the “honest brookers” and former colonial forces, USA/Europe.

      But the Israeli lobby and ideology works in all levels.
      Packaging these “peace deals/proposals” as Israel wants peace while Palestinians do not want that when
      they refuse they try to not only maintain the “peace loving” Israeli image (which every fact stand in contradiction of)
      but more importantly they try to alienate Palestinians and reinforce an image of them as “haters of peace”. Again, every
      fact stands in bold contradiction of this but the Israelis are not interested in those discussions (since they will loose).

      The aim is to sell this packages of “PEACE LOVING ISRAELIS THAT TRY AND TRY” to white people that do not know the facts.
      So that the apartheid regime in place in West bank can go on and on until… well there is nothing left. And ethnic cleanseing with the
      theme melody “we wanted peace all the time but they refused and forced us to kill them and take their land”…

      That´s where you and I come in.
      We know the facts as they know them but they work for us!
      We need to reach out to the same audience as they are with there pro-Zionist rethoric based on lies and propaganda.

      Thanx for taking this struggle on enlightenment on your horizons.
      We are many but must become more. And we are.
      Keep up the good work!

      🙂

      /Aa

  2. You guys are in complete denial. First of all, Jerusalem was to be divided according to Olmert’s offer (he proposed to internationalize the Holy Bassin in which you have the Al Aqsa Mosq and the Temple Mount) but he did propose to give the Arab quarter of the Old city of Jerusalem + the Arab suburbs of East-Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Even Livni criticized him for that. Secondly, the safe passage was to remain under Israeli sovereignty but not under Israeli control. It would actually be under FULL Palestinian control. This solution is not new, it was proposed by Clinton when he displayed his parameters in December of 2000. According to thissolution, the Israeli sovereignty upon this passage would be intangible. The reason this road cannot be under Palestinian sovereignty, is because doing so would cause the division of the Israeli territory. But as you say, Israel doesn’t want peace. Then explain me why Ahmed Quorei, the former Palestinian prime minister who is still part of Abbas entourage said that if Olmert had stayed in power a few more months, there would’ve be peace today.
    I do not support the occupation, and as many left-wing Zionists, I’ve been militating against the occupation since I was a teenager. Nonetheless, for people like you, Israel will always be wrong. There are no good Israelis except maybe those who want Israel to be dimantled and swallowed into a Palestinian state.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: