Template talk:Religious sites in the Palestine

Source for claim Oslo guaranteed permanent Israeli presence at Joseph's Tomb

Oslo only states that access to the site should be provided by Joint Mobile Units (which in the case, Area A, a Palestinian security vehicle would lead such a convoy). And that plain clothes Israeli guards may be present. Nothing is guaranteed. -asad (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That Israelis "may be present" was guranteed. In other area A's, no Israeli was allowed. Also, the "present situation" was to be "preserved." i.e. a constant military presence. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This template is about Religious Sites in the Palestinian Authority, Joseph's Tomb is in the Palestinian Authority. Jews were allowed access to the site in Oslo with, and only with, coordination and escort by Palestinian and Israeli forces. Please don't make me open up an RfC on this one, just read the text of Oslo that you cited. These are such small details that do not warrant being listed as you have listed it. -asad (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It was in sink with the note about the Masjid Ibrahami. Chesdovi (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Cave of the Patriarchs is in the Palestinian Authority as far as the maps are drawn, but the access to the site is controlled by Israel, it makes sense to add that. Joseph's Tomb is in the Palestinian Authority and access to it is controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Even if Israelis want to access the site, it is not legally possible without coordination by the Palestinian Authority. What you have added is entirely misleading. -asad (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's all true, but a clause enabling a constant Israeli presence at the site was granted. As so it was, until the security situation deteriorated. Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, please read the Oslo Accord annex you cited. It says nothing about a constant Israeli presence. -asad (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well not is as much words, but that's what it amounted to. And it is clear from the fact that Israeli forces were on 2 occasions attacked there. A poor Druish boy slowly bled to death. If they were not allowed there, why were they there? Chesdovi (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care why they were there or what they did there. You just pretty much conceded the source that you cited does not back your claim that they were guaranteed a constant presence. So we should just go ahead and remove it. -asad (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should both stop trying to interpret the accords for ourselves and look at what the secondary sources say: Under the Oslo accords, Israel retained control of several religious sites: Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. This meant an Israeli military presence (and a settler presence in Hebron) in the heart of these Arab cities. Whenever trouble erupted, these religious outposts became the convenient and inevitable focus of Palestinian violence. Holy Land, unholy war: Israelis and Palestinians, Anton La Guardia, Penguin, 2007. There are others aswell, but I finished my fishing for today. ---Chesdovi (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a better source than your wrong one. How about the actual Oslo text:

"Article V

Security Arrangements in the West Bank

b. Jewish Holy Sites

(1) The following provisions will apply with respect to the security arrangements in Jewish holy sites in Area A which are listed in Appendix 4 to this Annex:

(a) While the protection of these sites, as well as of persons visiting them, will be under the responsibility of the Palestinian Police, a JMU shall function in the vicinity of, and on the access routes to, each such site, as directed by the relevant DCO.

(b) The functions of each such JMU shall be as follows:

(i) to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access to the relevant Jewish holy site; and

(ii) to ensure the peaceful use of such site, to prevent any potential instances of disorder and to respond to any incident.

(c) Given the Jewish religious nature of such sites, Israeli plainclothes guards may be present inside such sites.

(2) The present situation and the existing religious practices shall be preserved.

...

Appendix 4

Jewish Holy Sites

Pursuant to Article V of this Annex the Jewish Holy Sites are as follows:

1. Joseph's Tomb (Nablus)

2. Shalom Al Israel synagogue (Jericho)"

-http://www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/heskemb2_eng.htm

There is no mention of Israeli retaining control, at all, whatsoever. No interpretation here.-asad (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The accords do not spell everything out. For instance, what is meant by the "present situation". It does not elaborate. Is it possibly the continuation of the constant Israeli presence at the site which existed before and during the accords were drafted? (Yes.) I will also note that Israelis are forbidden entry in to area A, so the concession that "Israeli plainclothes guards may be present" already shows how the site is being treated separately from the rest of the PA areas, and should be noted on the template. Indeed, if the site had the same staus as the rest of area A, why the nned for Article V? Chesdovi (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the current situation -- which happens to be supported by the Oslo text. It is obvious what ever the present situation was is no longer. This template is about the present situation, which is legally recognized. If you want to speak about who controlled it in the past, you should add that to the article. I hope you are not intent on filibustering on this one. -asad (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a response? If not, I am going to go ahead and revert it back. -asad (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have to say access to the Ibrahami mosque is controlled by Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is in the boundaries of the PA and is controlled by Israel. Joseph's Tomb is in the boundaries of the PA and is controlled by PA. -asad (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)