HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833.jpg

2.49 MB

Extraction Summary

9
People
3
Organizations
5
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Book manuscript / memoir page (evidence in house oversight investigation)
File Size: 2.49 MB
Summary

This document appears to be a page from a memoir or manuscript by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, marked with a House Oversight stamp. It details high-stakes internal discussions among the Israeli negotiating team (likely at the Camp David Summit in 2000) regarding sovereignty over Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Old City. The text describes Barak's consultations with advisors like Danny Yatom and Amnon Lipkin-Shahak before presenting their 'red lines' to President Bill Clinton.

People (9)

Name Role Context
Ehud Barak Narrator / Prime Minister of Israel
Leading the discussion, making final decisions on negotiation stance, meeting with President Clinton. (Implied by hea...
Amnon Lipkin-Shahak Advisor/Minister (referred to as Amnon/Amnon Lipkin)
Advocated for retaining sovereignty over Temple Mount but not running Al-Aqsa mosque.
Bill Clinton US President
Mediating negotiations; narrator goes to see him to update on the Israeli position.
Yasser Arafat Palestinian Leader
Negotiating counterpart; discussed regarding a base in the Muslim Quarter.
Danny Yatom Advisor
Urged practical solutions regarding Jerusalem boundaries.
Eli Rubinstein Attorney General
Agreed on ceding outer villages to minimize Arab population under Israeli rule.
Shlomo Ben-Ami Negotiating Team Member
Tasked with drafting a paper based on the discussion.
David Ben-Gurion Historical Figure
Referenced regarding the 1947 partition plan.
Menachem Begin Historical Figure
Referenced regarding past decisions.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Likud
Political party mentioned in relation to Eli Rubinstein's sympathies.
Labor
Political party mentioned in contrast to Likud.
House Oversight Committee
Source of the document (via footer stamp).

Timeline (1 events)

Circa July 2000
Strategic discussion on Jerusalem boundaries and sovereignty.
Camp David (implied by context of negotiating with Clinton/Arafat)

Locations (5)

Location Context
Central topic of negotiation boundaries and sovereignty.
Specific site where Israeli sovereignty was deemed non-negotiable by Amnon Lipkin.
Site where Israel should not have administrative control according to Amnon Lipkin.
Location in Old City where Clinton suggested giving Arafat a base.
Area of Jerusalem under discussion.

Relationships (2)

Ehud Barak Political/Diplomatic Bill Clinton
Barak reports directly to Clinton about internal Israeli deliberations.
Ehud Barak Superior/Subordinate Shlomo Ben-Ami
Barak asks Ben-Ami to draft a paper.

Key Quotes (4)

"Amnon’s bottom line was that we could not give up Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount... he called 'the cradle of Jewish history.'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833.jpg
Quote #1
"This is as grave a decision as when Ben-Gurion accepted the partition plan in 1947"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833.jpg
Quote #2
"We can’t pretend we don’t see the iceberg."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833.jpg
Quote #3
"Clinton said that would be a critical"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,798 characters)

/ BARAK / 76
many as possible of the Arab inhabitants to come under the authority of the
Palestinians, and as few as possible under our rule.” Amnon’s bottom line was that
we could not give up Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which, although
he was a non-observant Jew, he called “the cradle of Jewish history.” But equally,
we couldn’t and shouldn’t “run the Al-Aqsa mosque.” He was also in favor of
agreeing to what Clinton had asked of me: giving Arafat a base in the Muslim
Quarter of the Old City. His one caveat was that we should not do any of this
unless it was part of a genuine, final, peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Danny Yatom urged us to move beyond our emotions and look for a practical
solution. “We all know how the boundaries of Jerusalem were drawn,” he said,
referring to the post-1967 expansion of the city. “They’re not holy. It is important
to get down to our real red lines.” Eli Rubinstein, the attorney general, agreed.
Even though he was an observant, Orthodox Jew, and more sympathetic politically
to Likud than Labor, he concluded that we needed to include “as few Arabs as
possible” under Israeli sovereignty, and to cede the outer villages to the
Palestinians, adding: “This is a moment of truth.”
It was nearly five hours before I brought the discussion to a close. “This is as
grave a decision as when Ben-Gurion accepted the partition plan in 1947; the
declaration of the state; or the most tense moments of the Yom Kippur War,” I
said. “Or the decisions which Begin took in this same place.” Of course, Begin
hadn’t even been willing to enter into discussion on Jerusalem. But we were in a
different situation. If we were going to get a true end to our conflict, the question
of Jerusalem had to be addressed. “We can’t delay the decision. We can’t avoid it.
We will have to decide.” My own red line was the same as Amnon Lipkin’s:
“sovereignty over the site of our First and Second Temples.” Even shared
sovereignty elsewhere within the Old City seemed to me a step too far at this stage,
but I didn’t rule it out as part of a full peace. “Without disengagement from the
Palestinians, without an end of conflict,” I reminded our negotiating team, “we’re
heading toward further tragedy. We can’t pretend we don’t see the iceberg.”
I asked several members of the team, under Shlomo Ben-Ami, to draft a paper
based on our discussion. Since I knew that Clinton, and Arafat too, could do
nothing of substance until I’d resolved how far to go on Jerusalem, I went to see
the President. I told him about our session. I said that we were now crystallizing
what had been said into a formal position, and I hoped to be able to return in a few
hours with “the furthest point we can go.” Clinton said that would be a critical
362
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011833

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document