Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Jan. 27 2004:

The Yesha Council of West Bank and Gaza Settlements announced Tuesday it has rejected a deal presented by Avigdor Yitzhaki, director- general of the Prime Minister's Office, to evacuate a number of isolated settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In exchange, the settlers claim the government offered to pass legislation preventing any further evacuations until a final agreement with the Palestinians is reached.

According to the proposed deal, the West Bank settlements of Homesh, Sanur, Ganim and Kadim and the Gaza settlements of Netzarim, Kfar Darom and Morag would be evacuated in the coming period. Yitzhaki subsequently denied on Tuesday afternoon that he offered such a deal to settler leaders.

According to the Yesha Council, hundreds of settlers would be evacuated in the framework of the deal including from settlements other than the seven named, notably in the southern Mount Hebron region.

The objective of the proposed deal would be to allow Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is set to head to Washington at the end of the month, to present U.S. President George Bush with a disengagement plan supported by the right-wing.

Settler leaders who met with Yitzhaki over the past number of days refused to respond to the proposed deal.

"We decided to publicize all the details in order to prevent the continuation of the Oslo process," Yesha Council chairman Bentzi Lieberman during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon. "This process will not save battalions, but will force the deployment of divisions in the wake of the increased terrorism."

Last week, the High Court of Justice issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the evacuation of the uninhabited Hazon David outpost near Kiryat Arba.

The injunction will be in effect until the High Court rules on a broader petition brought by settler groups to challenge the legality of the evacuations.

Hazon David, the site of one tent that functions as a synagogue, is one of nine illegal outposts that have received evacuation orders but have not yet been removed due to appeals submitted by settlers to the Israel Defense Forces and the High Court.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz signed the evacuation orders Sunday to remove three of the nine outposts.

One thing many people fail to recognise is that some (although granted not all) of the land that has been settled was rightfully purchased from land owners of Arab decent. Although I do absolutely agree that government sponsored setllement should be stopped and revoked, the settlements which have been purchased should be allowed to stay. However, this brings another question, of whether the Muslims on that side will be equally heavy handed with the Jewish settlements should they fall under Palestinian controll. By all rights it would be justified, but then Indymedia would have to come to the defense of the legally purchased settlements if they come under discrimination by the Palestinians. In fact, many of the settlements that fall into this category have already been under attack for three years or more. And, these settlements before the intifada were peaceful, provided jobs for Arab workers at good wages, and cooperated with neighbors. Of these, that had a good scenario before this intifada, many of the residents have already left, citing safety concerns. The question remains, can any man, by virtue of his human rights, be assured that land he has puchased will not be attacked, no matter what government he falls under. The unalienable right of a Palestinian to purchase land does not trump an Israeli's right to do so. In a fair market, there are no pre-conditioned laws about what race can own a piece of property. When settlements are discussed, it is important to outline that not all of them are illegal, or government subsidised. Some of them simply picked the wrong side of the border to purchase land on. And since the border itself is in dispute from the Balfour declaration(which gives Israel much more of the West Bank) to the Green Line which has never been officially accepted by anyone but the Palestinians and not really even them, this topic is up for debate for many reasons. It is not a debate with which you can make uncompromising statements, but rather a debate with tousands of legal loopholes and variables each side uses for it's own advantage.

Could Palestinians guarantee a democratic life for all citizens regardless of race once the state is formed? I believe so, but not under the current circumstances. Could Israelis do the same? Considering the balance of races currently within Israel, and the lack thereof on the Palestinian side which is largely ethnocentric, one must look at the demographics and per capita discrimination rates and levy blame to the side where it is due, namely, the ethnocentric Palestinians who are not accepted anywhere else in the Arab world due to this very problem. The vow of Hamas to "Push the Jews into the Ocean," has been repeated by Yassin on numerous occasions. That is a true indicator of who really doesn't want peace. And I somehow am under the impression that Yassin has a vested interest in war considering he would lose his job otherwise. Also, I feel that he does not represent his people to the extent that many of them want their jobs and normal life back and are unconcerned with what religion their neighbor is. Many Palestinians would welcome peace and trade, and even a few settlements, to provide business to the region. In fact, Arabs to the south, from Egypt, are currently enjoying a resurgence in Israeli travel, which is saving their economy.