In light of repeated attempts by the Palestinians and others to present the Israel government approval of the Har Homa project as an alleged violation of the agreements between Israel and the PLO, the following legal points should be noted:
BUILDING IN THE TERRITORIES AND IN JERUSALEM
1. The Declaration of Principles of September 1993, the Interim Agreement of 1995, and all related documents contain no commitment to refrain from the construction of settlements, neighborhoods, houses, roads, or any other such building project. Hence, the approval of the Har Homa project and its implementation do not constitute any violation of these agreements.
2. It should be noted in this context that in the course of negotiations on the Interim Agreement in 1995, the Palestinian side sought to include in this agreement restrictions on the building of settlements. This issue was discussed but was not agreed upon, and no ban or limitation on building -- either in the territories or in Jerusalem -- is contained anywhere in the agreement.
3. To the contrary. Building is permitted, under the agreement, to both Palestinians and Israelis, in those areas under their respective jurisdictions, subject to the provisions of the agreement regarding planning and construction.
JERUSALEM
4. Israel and the Palestinians agreed that the Palestinian autonomy authorities have no powers or responsibility in Jerusalem. Accordingly, their offices and institutions are to be located only in those areas in which the Palestinian autonomy enjoys territorial authority -- namely, outside Jerusalem. It was explicitly agreed that the authority of the Palestinian autonomy would extend over the West Bank and Gaza, to the exclusion of those issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations, including Jerusalem and the Israeli settlements.
5. In agreeing that the issue of Jerusalem is to be part of the permanent status negotiations, the parties recognized Jerusalem as a separate issue, which does not constitute a part of the agreed arrangements for redeployment and transfer of authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Namely, life in Jerusalem, and all this entails, continues, with the status of the city remaining unchanged so long as no decision to the contrary is taken in the permanent status negotiations.
6. Therefore, the approval of building plans within Jerusalem, or the implementation of any construction work, does not constitute a change in the status of Jerusalem; neither does it create a situation which can adversely affect or influence the permanent status negotiations. In any event, the existing agreements do not accord the Palestinians any standing with regard to any actions taken in Jerusalem, and Israel is under no obligation to coordinate such actions with them or to consult with them.
CHANGE OF STATUS IN JUDEA, SAMARIA AND GAZA
7. In Article XXXI (7) of the Interim Agreement, Israel and the PLO agreed that "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations." Since, as noted above, Jerusalem is not included in the agreement as part of those arrangements which apply to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and since there is no change in the status of Jerusalem, this article is not relevant in this context.
8. In contrast, any action taken by either side to alter the status of this area (such as by declaration of an independent state) would constitute a violation of the Interim Agreement -- allowing the other side to decide whether to view the agreement as void, thus releasing that side from its obligations under the agreement.
9. It should be noted that even the letters from the PLO to the President of the Security Council (5/1997/149 of Feb 21, 1997 and S/1997/165 of Feb 27, 1997) make no claim of any violation of the agreements. Rather, they refer to a threat to the integrity of the agreements -- this because there has in fact been no violation.
SETTLEMENTS
10. The position of the Israeli government, since 1967, has been that international law does not forbid the building of settlements on occupied territory, and that the standard rules of international law, including the Hague Rules of 1907, permit the administering authority to utilize public land and to enjoy the "usufruct" as long as it occupies the territory. Israel therefore rejects any claim or decision as to the illegality of its settlements policy.
APPEALS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
11. The very appeal by the PLO to the international community for intervention, particularly to the UN Security Council, is inconsistent with its explicit agreement to settle all issues under dispute directly through negotiation. This commitment is contained in the letter from the PLO Chairman to the late Prime Minister Rabin of September 9, 1993, on the eve of the signing of the Declaration of Principles, as well as in the texts of the DOP and the Interim Agreement which refer issues under dispute to the appropriate mechanisms of coordination, cooperation and conciliation between the parties, without the involvement of outside parties. The PLO's activity in this matter thus undermines the principles of the agreement, reflecting the desire to avoid confrontation and to foster relations built on mutual trust by resolving differences directly between the parties.