===============================================================

1. Fall Peace Summit: Background, Interpretations and Reactions

2. Israeli-Palestinian Talks: Principles, Fundamentals or Final Status Issues?

3. Arab League Peace Plan Resurges: Arab Visits to Israel, US Support

4. Loans, Arms and Aid: New Plans for U.S.-Middle East Funding

5. Christian Peacemaking: Evangelical Leaders Write Pres. Bush Supporting Two States

6. Jerusalem News: Catholic Magazine Highlights City; Israeli & Palestinian Negotiators on Shared Sovereignty

===============================================================

Special Note: For weekly updates on Middle East developments, CMEP recommends the Middle East Bulletin, a publication of Middle East Progress (go to: http://www.middleeastprogress.org/). 

This summer has so far seen a flurry of discussion and dialogue about Middle East peace, including high-level US-Israeli-Arab meetings— a welcome change from this time last year when the region was aflame with the Hezbollah-Israel war.  President Bush’s July 16^th speech pledged anew U.S. support for a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel and plans are afoot for a fall peace summit.  The visit to Israel of Egyptian and Jordanian foreign ministers on behalf of the Arab League is notable.  Secretary Rice’s trip, taken together with Secretary Gates, shows high-level U.S. commitment to U.S. goals in the region, at the same time as the Mideast Quartet’s envoy Tony Blair begins his new job.  The possibility that Saudi Arabia will attend the fall peace summit brings added significance to the initiative.    

These are welcome developments coming at a complex time with efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace facing the challenges of a weak Israeli government and fractured Palestinian polity.  The region overall is in as perilous a state as it has ever been. With chaos and violence continuing in Iraq, an increasingly emboldened Iran, weakened popular support for Arab regimes, and extremist elements ascendant, the announcement of a new U.S. Middle East arms/military aid package indicates a continued over-reliance by the United States on military approaches to achieving security and stability.  The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations— that the United States constructively engage with Iran and Syria together with moderate Arab allies, to induce cooperation on Iraq, and take serious action on the Israeli-Arab peace process— remain the best way forward for positive American involvement in the region. 

The scope and content for the fall peace summit has still yet to be clearly defined.  For the conference to have a meaningful impact, it’s vital that the agenda include serious political discussions that could concretely lay the groundwork for comprehensive negotiations.  Only real progress on a political track that reinvigorates the peace process and gives hope to Israelis and Arabs can provide the lasting security that the region so desperately needs. 

“One Last Try?”, M.J. Rosenberg, IPF (Israel Policy Forum) Friday, August 3, 2007

“In today’s Middle East, saving the key issues for last makes no sense.  Tackle the big ones first, see how much progress can be made, and proceed from there.  The bottom line is that the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian situations are too volatile to spend time and effort on baby steps.”

http://www.ipforum.org/display.cfm?id=6&Sub=15

“Turning theory into reality”, Daoud Kuttab, A Palestinian View, Bitterlemons.org, July 23, 2007

“…What is needed is a reversal of the traditional peace process. If a new process is going to work, it must begin with the end game and then work its way toward implementation. After 40 years of occupation, the idea that progress can be achieved with goodwill gestures such as tiny prisoner releases and the removal of a few checkpoints is wildly misguided.  The Arab peace initiative and a score of unofficial Israeli-Palestinian plans have focused on deciding first what the end game should be and then creating the process to suit the solution. The 1967 borders as the natural borders of the Palestinian state (with possible land swaps equal in size and quality) is a logical framework for the parties to accept. If the planned international conference does agree to such a clear-cut agreement, then the Bush administration may yet prove to have the potential to produce a lasting and comprehensive peace.

http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl230707ed27.html#pal2

1. FALL PEACE SUMMIT: BACKGROUND, INTERPRETATIONS AND REACTIONS

The fall peace summit, tentatively scheduled for November, has elicited a variety of interpretations and reactions from the United States and Arab and Israeli leaders (detailed below)—some lauding it as an opportunity to begin tackling the thorny peace issues and others urging that it be limited to Palestinian reform and institution building.  Sec. Rice has used terms such as “substantive” and “meaningful” while an Aug. 3^rd article in the Forward reported that the “administration will not allow the meeting to become a forum for negotiating the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” 

BACKGROUND:

“President Bush Discusses the Middle East”, White House Press Release, July 16, 2007

“…The world can do more to build the conditions for peace. So I will call together an international meeting this fall of representatives from nations that support a two-state solution, reject violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements between the parties. The key participants in this meeting will be the Israelis, the Palestinians, and their neighbors in the region. Secretary Rice will chair the meeting. She and her counterparts will review the progress that has been made toward building Palestinian institutions. They will look for innovative and effective ways to support further reform. And they will provide diplomatic support for the parties in their bilateral discussions and negotiations, so that we can move forward on a successful path to a Palestinian state...”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html

INTERPRETATIONS:

Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Briefing En Route Andrews Air Force Base, U.S. Department of State, August 2, 2007

“…[N]obody wants to show up for a photo op.  The President of the United States doesn't want a photo op, our Arab allies don't want one and the Israelis don't want one. Everybody wants this to be a meaningful, substantive conference which by its very nature I think can stimulate before it happens the bilateral track to move toward it…There's a real sense that it ought to have substance and it ought to be meaningful and it ought to advance the two-state solution, and that's what we'll work on…when you issue invitations that’s an opportunity to solidify the view of what one expects at the meeting so that people know what the intentions are for the meeting. And so I think that’s probably an opportunity, but we haven’t given really very much thought to what – how it ought to look…” 

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/08/90039.htm

Tony Snow, White House Press Briefing, July 17, 2007

“…[I]t was being spun up as a major peace conference where people are going to be talking about final status issues, and that is not the case. And the President made that pretty clear. You can call it what you want. Call it a confab. You guys have thesauruses and you also have extensive vocabularies -- (laughter) -- but the fact is that it will be a gathering where people really do try to get down to nuts and bolts issues of helping build that institutional capability so that the Palestinian government will be in a position to move on to the next phases…”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-9.html

C. David Welch, On-The-Record Briefing: Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of State, July 16, 2007

“…[W]e want to show how we would strengthen our political and diplomatic commitment. And there, the headline in the speech obviously is the President's call for an international meeting in the fall to bring the weight of the United States in the lead and others with us in support of getting at the negotiations that are necessary to build a Palestinian state.  We also want to signal with this speech a commitment to supporting the international effort in that regard. As you know, we've worked within the Quartet to give a new mandate to former Prime Minister Blair as an envoy to address some of the issues necessary in building Palestinian statehood…You notice that in the speech we also gave some mention to the principles that must be addressed in the negotiations. And this speech was not intended to negotiate things in advance or to get into the negotiations themselves, but the United States does have some views and we've laid out some of those ideas…”

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/88516.htm

REACTIONS

ARAB

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al Faysal, Press Availability With Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Department of State, August 1, 2007

"When we get an invitation from the minister (Rice) to attend, when this takes place, we will study it and we will be keen to attend.."We are interested in the peace conference, in one that deals with the heart of the peace process, the issues of peace, the core issues, not one that is just a podium for meetings and talks that do not enrich peace,'' he said (August 1, 2007, speaking in Arabic; source: BBC). 

“…We have listed to Dr. Rice’s explanation about the international peace conference and we think the initiative includes several positive solutions for a sustainable Palestinian state, dismantling settlements, and solving the problems of Palestinian refugees. These elements are in the Arab initiative for peace…”

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/08/89907.htm

“Syria says willing to attend int'l Mideast peace conference”, Reuters, August 1, 2007

“Syria is ready to take part in a U.S.-sponsored international Mideast peace conference to be held later this year, despite the country's stance that Washington is behind instability in the Middle East, Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said on Tuesday…‘Syria will support and participate in any international conference for peace. The objectives, participants and grounds for such an initiative must be made clear,’ Moallem said after meeting Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos in the Syrian capital…” 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=888397&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

“Arab League expresses support for Bush peace conference”, Lamia Radi, Agence France-Press, July 30, 2007

“Arab states on Monday threw their support behind US President George W. Bush's proposal to hold an international conference to revive the faltering Middle East peace process.  ‘We support the convening of an international meeting attended by all parties involved in the peace process to launch direct negotiations on all tracks to reach a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in a specific time frame,’ Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said.  Mussa was speaking after the 22-nation body held an emergency meeting at the ministerial level lasting seven hours to discuss Bush's proposal as well as to hear the results of Jordan and Egypt's mission to Israel promoting the Arab peace initiative…” 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070730/wl_mideast_afp/mideastarabdiplomacy

ISRAELI

“Israeli Foreign Minister Livni meets with Secretary of State Rice”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 1, 2007

“…We are not going to miss the opportunity to promote a dialogue with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian government, a dialogue that can represent the widest common denominator between Israel and the Palestinians with, of course, significant political substance…I believe that this is also an opportunity to the Arab world to support the moderates, to support the bilateral process between Israel and the Palestinians, not to dictate its outcome, and also to support Israel or to encourage Israel to take positive steps toward the Palestinians. And we also believe that the meeting in the fall can support this kind of process. And I believe that the Saudi announcement of today is encouraging…As I said before, there is an opportunity here to discuss with the -- Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian government. And I believe that there's a need to find the widest common denominator between both sides…it's very important to put on the table things which are significant for both sides. But of course, there is a need also to promote a process that will be based on an understanding that we want to achieve something and will (inaudible) coming out of these kind of meetings and sometimes the most sensitive issue, sometime it's not wise to put the most sensitive issue out first…” 

Link to full press conference

2. ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN TALKS: PRINCIPLES, FUNDAMENTALS OR FINAL STATUS ISSUES?

Recent Israeli-Palestinian bi-lateral talks have focused primarily on confidence-building measures, but with plans for the fall peace conference underway, the content of these talks is coming up for question.  PM Olmert has proposed an “Agreement of Principles”, President Abbas has cited the roadmap and the Arab Peace initiative, and one press report indicates that there may even be talks underway on final status issues.  In the most recent August 6^th meeting of Olmert and Abbas in Jericho, Olmert said he came to discuss "fundamental issues"; Abbas said "Many issues which affect the Palestinians in their day-to-day lives will be resolved."  Haaretz reported a senior political source in Jerusalem as saying, "Exchanges between the two sides will become increasingly more substantive, and will deal less with routine matters." 

“Press Availability with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas”, Ramallah, U.S. Department of State, August 2, 2007

[Responding to Qu: Your Excellency Mr. President, to what extent are you willing to negotiate with Israelis about the declaration of principles as Prime Minister Olmert wishes to go and negotiate in the fall meeting based on these principles?] “As for the negotiations with the Israeli part, it is known what principles we base on, which are, in general, the roadmap, which includes two main issues, which are President Bush’s vision and the Arab initiative. These include all the issues that may be discussed for the final status, hence we will be discussing or focusing on means of implementing these principles which were mentioned in the roadmap which have become a UN Security Council resolution. When we end, possibly within the – in a framework agreement or a declaration of principles or anything, the important thing is that we reach in the end all we realize we know what will be the outcome and what is the ceiling where we should reach. For the phases of implementation, these are things that we can agree on.”

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/08/90021.htm

“Report: Olmert, Abbas holding secret talks on final status agreement”, Haaretz Service, July 31, 2007

“Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas are engaged in secret talks on final status issues, Israel Radio quoted the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayyat as reporting Tuesday.  According to the report, the two leaders agreed to open a secret channel to discuss the issues, which include such sticking points as refugees, Jerusalem, and final borders, during their meeting roughly two weeks ago.  The report stated that the talks have yet to produce a breakthrough.  Olmert confirmed last week that he intends to engage in negotiations with Abbas on the formation of a Palestinian state.  Olmert was responding to a Haaretz report, according to which he offered to hold negotiations toward an ‘Agreement of Principles’ for the establishment of a Palestinian state comprised of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank.  Olmert's proposal to Abbas is based on his view that it is important to first discuss issues that are relatively easy for the two sides to agree upon…Abbas, however, told Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin during their meeting in Ramallah last week that an agreement of principles would not be satisfactory. He said the Palestinian Authority is prepared to achieve a final status settlement with Israel by next fall, when an international Mideast peace conference is scheduled to take place.”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=888232

“Olmert's new offer to Abbas: Agreement of Principles toward Palestinian state”, Aluf Benn, Haaretz, July 25, 2007

“Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is offering to hold negotiations toward an ‘Agreement of Principles’ for the establishment of a Palestinian state on most of the territory of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Olmert's proposal to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is based on his view that it is important to first discuss issues that are relatively easy for the two sides to agree upon…If Olmert's proposal is accepted by the Palestinians, the two sides will begin negotiations on the characteristics of the Palestinian state, its official institutions, its economy, and the customs arrangement it will have with Israel. After an "Agreement of Principles," the two sides will tackle the more sensitive diplomatic issues, like final borders and the transit arrangements...”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=886042

3. ARAB LEAGUE PEACE PLAN RESURGES: ARAB VISITS TO ISRAEL, US SUPPORT

The Arab League Peace Plan remains an important platform for dialogue between Israel and the Arab states and it could prove helpful as a framework for discussion at the fall peace summit.  A visit to Israel by the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan on behalf of the Arab Working Group demonstrate an Arab commitment to follow-up on the plan that was lacking when it was first introduced in 2002.  The United States has also recently pledged new support for it in a joint statement with Secretary Rice, the GCC and Egypt and Jordan which noted that the foundation for a two-state solution includes the Arab Peace Initiative (text of peace plan).  

“Press Conference held with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 25, 2007

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib arrive in Israel as representatives of the Working Group established by the Arab League for meetings with Israeli leaders.

FM Livni: “…I believe that this is an historic visit to Israel – it is a formal visit, it is a formal visit, following my formal visit to Cairo and our previous meeting. This is the first joint visit to Israel of members of the Arab Working Group established by the Arab League and I believe that this point in time is a crucial point in time, and there is an opportunity here. I believe that the Arab peace initiative and the dialogue with the Arab Working Group is an historic opportunity for Israeli-Arab relations and, more important, the Israeli-Palestinian process…I believe in the importance of the role of the Arab league in helping to support the Palestinians and the Israelis, in taking the right steps in creating or making the vision of the two-state solution more concrete.” 

Egyptian FM Gheit: “Many thanks. I am very happy to be here as the foreign minister of Egypt on assignment by the Working Group of the Arab Summit to discuss and present the Arab peace initiative…We have presented this matter to Mrs. Livni and have heard many positive responses, which lead us to believe that Israel intends to work seriously towards providing an opportunity to the Palestinians to obtain that state. That was a main aim of this visit…However, we are not called upon to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians only; we will be helping both the Palestinians and the Israelis to negotiate amongst themselves, to reach the goal of the emergence of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel in peace and security for both of them.”

Jordanian FM al-Khatib: “…This serious [Arab peace] offer constitutes an opportunity of historic magnitude – it will provide Israel with the security and recognition and acceptance in this region to which Israel has long aspired. The Arab peace initiative has been endorsed by the vast majority of the members of the international community, including, and especially, the vast majority of the Moslem countries, members of the O.I.C…We are extending our hands in peace and in coexistence, [in a move] that will make Israel a part of this region and will enable our people and the entire region to look forward with hope and to devote their energy and efforts to achieve growth and prosperity and to advance the development and the improvement of life in all of the region…”

Link to full press conference

“Joint Statement Following July 31 Meeting [of the GCC, Egypt, Jordan and the US]”, Office of the Spokesman, U.S Department of State, Washington, DC, July 31, 2007

“…Agreeing on the importance of a just, comprehensive peace to the prosperity, stability and security of the Middle East, the Foreign Ministers reiterated their commitment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and noted that the foundation for such an outcome includes UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338, 1397, and 1515, and the Arab Peace Initiative, to end the occupation since 1967 and establish a Palestinian state that is viable and contiguous and living in peace and security with all its neighbors. They also emphasized the work of the International Quartet in this context …”

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/89855.htm

4. LOANS, ARMS AND AID: NEW PLANS FOR U.S. MIDDLE EAST FUNDING

Below is background on new plans for U.S.-Middle East funding: the recently launched Middle East Investment Initiative, aimed at supporting the Palestinian business sector, new assistance agreements, including a proposed arms sale to the Gulf States and an increase in military aid to Israel and Egypt, and the restructuring of aid to the Palestinians following President Abbas’ dissolution of the unity government.  The arms sale/military aid package has garnered significant attention, prompting debate about U.S. Middle East policy and the need for sustained diplomatic engagement to promote long-term goals of peace, security and development. 

“Middle East Investment Initiative: Launching New Opportunities in the Middle East”, Karen Hughes, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Remarks at the launch of the Middle East Investment Initiative, Ramallah, West Bank, U.S. Department of State, July 25, 2007

“…President Bush made a commitment that America would expand our support for the Palestinian people and the government of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and we are here to launch a unique financial partnership to do just that…This new initiative will provide affordable, longer term loans to businesses that would otherwise not be able to access them. It says to an olive grower who wants to expand operations, or someone with a small information technology company, or a woman who wants to hire her neighbors to help produce and export beautiful Palestinian embroidery, or an aspiring industrialist that America and our partners want to help you to expand your business, support your family, and create new jobs…I know many here feel you have been let down in the past and have trouble trusting words. I’ve talked a great deal about America’s diplomacy of deeds–the concrete ways in which America helps people improve their lives through our support for education, health care, and economic development–and this program is a great example…America wants for the people of this region–Palestinian and Israeli–a future of peace, security, and prosperity. There are those who say, ‘Too little, too late,’ who have given up hope on this region and on peace. Their path is one of continued violence and death and the ongoing humiliation of occupation. America supports a very different future, one of hope and a state of your own–living side by side in peace with Israel–and we extend our hand to help you achieve that future….”

http://www.state.gov/r/us/2007/89314.htm

Also See, State Department Factsheet: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/89541.htm

“Assistance Agreements with Gulf States, Israel and Egypt”, Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of State, July 30, 2007

“In advance of my trip to the Middle East with Secretary Gates, I am pleased to announce a renewed commitment to the security of our key strategic partners in the region. To support our continued diplomatic engagement in the region, we are forging new assistance agreements with the Gulf States, Israel, and Egypt. This effort will help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Syria, and Iran…

Through our Gulf Security Dialogue, we are helping to strengthen the defensive capabilities of our partners, and we plan to initiate discussions with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States on a proposed package of military technologies that will help support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region.  As President Bush mentioned during Prime Minister Olmert's recent visit, we will move soon to conclude a new ten-year military assistance agreement with Israel. This agreement will provide a total of $30 billion to ensure Israel's ability to defend itself.  We are also beginning discussions with the Government of Egypt on a new ten-year, $13 billion military assistance agreement which will strengthen Egypt's ability to address shared strategic goals….” 

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/89600.htm

“U.S. to pour millions into Palestinian aid projects”, Joshua Mitnick, Washington Times, August 1, 2007

“The U.S. is beginning work on tens of millions of dollars worth of aid projects aimed at boosting the Palestinian economy and President Mahmoud Abbas at the expense of Hamas…[Howard Sumka, director of USAID for the West Bank and Gaza Strip] said USAID expects to spend about $190 million over the next year on projects such as road and water infrastructure, health care and agriculture. Within the coming weeks, the agency is expected to award a $20 million contract that will fund about 200 road-upgrade projects aimed at easing double-digit unemployment.  ‘There is a long array of programs we're going to be able to do now that we have somewhat more freedom in the West Bank,’ said Mr. Sumka, who added that most of the money will come from funds that were previously allocated but never spent. USAID is one of the main arms of the U.S. government that is being enlisted to create jobs and resuscitate economic life in the West Bank as a way of building popularity for moderates such as Mr. Abbas, who supports peace negotiations with Israel.  But Palestinians, who are still smarting from nearly 18 months of a U.S. boycott of their government, say there is widespread suspicion that the aid is being used as political leverage to meddle in the rift between Mr. Abbas' Fatah party and Hamas…”  
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070801/FOREIGN/108010033/1003

5. CHRISTIAN PEACEMAKING: EVANGELICAL LEADERS WRITE PRES. BUSH SUPPORTING TWO STATES

The widespread support in the American Christian community, among Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestants for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is well known.  Detailed below is a July 27^th letter to President Bush in support of two states from a group of prominent Evangelical Christian leaders (several of these leaders signed a January 2007 letter to President Bush on Israeli-Palestinian peace, organized by CMEP).  In contrast, leaders of Christians United for Israel sent a letter to President Bush in opposition to a two-state solution, saying “Simply stated, land for peace is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war.  Under the current circumstances, we feel that a two-state solution would be unwise.”     

Full Text of Evangelical Leaders’ Letter and Signers: http://www.esa-online.org/Display.asp?Page=LettertoPresident

“Evangelical Split Over Israel Batters Bush”, Larry Cohler-Esses, The Jewish Week, August 3, 2007

“Evangelical Christians, long seen as a monolith in lockstep support of Israel, publicly fractured last week as two significant evangelical factions lobbied President Bush with criticism of Israel from opposite points of view.  For the first time, Christians United for Israel, a major Christian Zionist group with strong ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied President Bush against the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a solution advocated by Israel, the Bush administration and the pro-Israel Washington lobby itself.  Meanwhile, some 30 Evangelical leaders, including prominent activists and intellectuals, publicly lauded Bush’s stand in favor of two states: Israel and a seperate state in the West Bank and Gaza for Palestinians. They also urged Bush to get involved more actively to make this happen…” 

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14369

“Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State”, Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, July 29, 2007

“In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory.  Now more than 30 evangelical leaders are stepping forward to say these efforts have given the wrong impression about the stance of many, if not most, American evangelicals.  On Friday, these leaders sent a letter to President Bush saying that both Israelis and Palestinians have ‘legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine,’ and that they support the creation of a Palestinian state ‘that includes the vast majority of the West Bank.’  They say that being a friend to Jews and to Israel ‘does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.’ The letter adds, ‘Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.’  The letter is signed by 34 evangelical leaders, many of whom lead denominations, Christian charities, ministry organizations, seminaries and universities…”

Link to article on New York Times website

6. JERUSALEM NEWS: CATHOLIC MAGAZINE HIGHLIGHTS JERUSALEM; ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATORS ON SHARED SOVEREIGNTY

The August 13th issue of the national Catholic (Jesuit) weekly magazine America is devoted to a discussion on Jerusalem.  Fr. Drew Christiansen S.J., the magazine’s editor and a member of CMEP’s Leadership Council, explains, “On the 40th anniversary of the unification of the city, America offers several perspectives on Jerusalem, its history, recent life and future possibilities. Let us all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”  Below is an excerpt from Fr. Christiansen’s main article followed by a list of all of the articles and links to view them in full. 

“Place of Divine Encounter: The Holy See's hopes for Jerusalem”, Drew Christiansen, America, August 13, 2007

“…In 1984, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic exhortation, Redemptionis Anno, articulating a Catholic theological vision of the Holy Land. Unlike that of evangelicals and particularly of Christian Zionists, Catholic respect for the ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and for the memory of the biblical promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants is not decisive in determining the church’s position on the land. Rather, the position of the Holy See has been rooted in international law, which has its own theological warrants in the Catholic tradition, and the requirements of justice for territory claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians…The contribution of Redemptionis Anno is that it provides a universalistic religious perspective from which to regard a land sacred to three religions and to two peoples…Thus John Paul wrote of Jerusalem: ‘Insofar as she is the homeland of the hearts of all the spiritual descendants of Abraham, who hold her very dear, and the place where, according to faith, the created things of earth encounter the infinite transcendence of God, Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of peace for the human family.’  The pope went on to stipulate the need ‘to do everything possible to preserve the unique and sacred character of the city. ‘He explained this meant ‘not only the monuments or sacred places but the whole historical Jerusalem and the existence of religious communities, their situation and future....’…”

”A Voice From East Jerusalem”, Claudette Habesch

“Jerusalem in Jewish Consciousness”, Gerald M. Meister

“Jerusalem, 1967-2007”: A brief introduction to the challenge posed by Jerusalem, Drew Christiansen

“A Plan for a Workable Jerusalem”, Ghaith Al-Omari

“Dignity in Division”: Creative, practical solutions do exist, Daniel Levy

View the articles on America’s website (requires free registration): http://www.americamagazine.org/content/current-issue.cfm

View the articles in PDF format: http://www.cmep.org/SharedJER/America_Magazine_Jerusalem_Issue.pdf

The below article details a recent Washington meeting of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators whose experience has lead them to recognize the necessity of a shared Jerusalem as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.  The article concludes by urging American leadership on this concept of a shared future for the holy city, as something that would not only bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, but also have benefits globally. 

“For Jerusalem, Shared Sovereignty”, Hady Amr and Joel H. Samuels, Washingtonpost.com (Think Tank Town), July 21, 2007

“…Central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been finding a solution for Jerusalem -- and the holy city remains both the symbol and the cornerstone of the conflict between Israel and the Muslim world…At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, one of the concepts that was rapidly and relatively easily agreed upon was the idea of ‘shared’ sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem…The Israelis and Palestinians in the room were mostly veteran negotiators who had watched peace talks fail in 2001 and weren't willing to let that happen again. They had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001816.html

=========================================================================