Israel feels that outstanding issues can and should be settled directly between the two sides and only through the agreed channels. Attempts to politicise these issues and generate international pressure can only damage the trust between the parties and be counterproductive. However, in view of the significant number of inaccuracies in the Palestinian allegations, Israel feels obliged to clarify the issues raised. As regards other outstanding matters, and in particular those areas in which Israel still waits for Palestinian compliance with the peace agreements, Israel proposes to raise these directly with the Palestinian side in the appropriate fora.

Allegations raised by the Palestinians and the Israeli Government's Response:

• Non-Withdrawal of the Civil Administration and Non-Dissolution of the Civil Administration: The military government has been withdrawn from all areas in which redeployment has taken place. As regards the dissolution of the Civil Administration, the central elements of the Civil Administration have, in practice, been transferred into the overall liaison mechanisms with the Palestinian Authority regarding civil affairs.
• Continued Usage by Israel of the Term "Judea and Samaria" in the place of the "West Bank": The Agreement contains no prohibition against using the term "Judea and Samaria". Nevertheless, it is clear that both sides make use of the term the "West Bank" in the agreements between them and in their bilateral relationship.
• Non-Recognition by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a Single Territorial Entity:  The provision of the Agreement cited in the Palestinian document is intended to ensure that the integrity and status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip shall not be affected by the provisions of the Agreement, i.e., by the transfer of responsibilities to the Council and the establishment of different security regimes in various areas. It also underlines the fact that the status of these areas is not to be changed during the interim period and that any attempt to do so, such as, for example, through annexation or a declaration of statehood, would be a breach of the Agreement.
• The Need to Implement the Further Redeployment:  In the Note for the Record attached to the Hebron Protocol, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to implementation of the first phase of the further redeployment. In accordance with that commitment, Israel has declared its willingness to transfer a total of 9% of the West Bank to Palestinian authority as the first phase of the further redeployment process. This redeployment is to be implemented imminently.
• Official Incitement and Hostile Propaganda Against the Palestinian Authority: This claim is general and comes without any evidence or examples. However, Israel has strong claims against the Palestinian authorities with respect to the fact that they have not done enough to prevent incitement against Israel (even in the official media).
• Creating Facts on the Ground Which Could Affect the Permanent Status Negotiations on the Subject of Settlements:  In the Declaration of Principles as well as in the Interim Agreement, there is nothing which limits Israel regarding Israeli settlement. The status of the settlements is to be discussed within the framework of the permanent status negotiations. The Article cited (Article XXXI) is intended to prevent unilateral activities which would change the political status of the territories (for example, annexation or declaration of a Palestinian state), and is not relevant to the question of settlement.
• The Need to Respect the Obligations Relating to Normal and Free Movement of People, Vehicles and Goods within the Territories and between them, and Cancelling the Closure:  Israel's authority to declare a closure on the West Bank and Gaza Strip is specifically recognised in the Security Annex to the Interim Agreement (Article IX, paragraph 1.d). The paragraph cited by the Palestinian document (paragraph 2) is subordinate to paragraph 7 of the same Article (Article 1) in the Security Annex, which states that nothing in this Article will detract from Israel's responsibility and authority according to the Agreement. It should be remembered that the closure was put in force in the wake of a spate of suicide bombings which claimed the lives of over sixty people, Israelis and others, including Palestinians. Moreover these bombings occurred as previous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians into Israel were being relaxed and one was the specific result of the exploitation of a transfer point for goods from Gaza to Israel. At present time there is in fact no closure per se. Approximately 62,000 Palestinians have received permits to enter Israel. This number continues to increase each month, and the flow of goods to and from the Palestinian areas is unimpeded. Security checks have become more efficient, enabling trucks carrying commercial cargo to load, unload and move on the roads without any undue delay or hindrance.
• The Free Movement of People, Vehicles and Goods in the West Bank: The provision of the agreement cited in the Palestinian document dealing with free movement of people, vehicles and goods is subject to a specific proviso: "without derogating from Israel's security powers and responsibilities."
• Israeli Violation of the Protocol on Economic Relations:  The general intent of the Protocol on economic relations is to enable the free movement of people, vehicles and goods between the West Bank and Gaza and Israel. However, not only is Israel's right to determine certain limitations on the movement of people, vehicles and goods recognised in this Protocol, but Israel's right, for reasons of security and safety, to place the West Bank and Gaza Strip under a full or partial closure is specifically recognised by Article IX.1.d of the Security Annex of the Agreement. This paragraph states clearly that this right shall not be prejudiced by any other provisions of the Agreement.
• Israel is confiscating the identity cards of Palestinians living in Jerusalem and "expelling" Palestinians:  Israel has not revoked the residency of any Palestinian who is legally resident in Jerusalem. These Palestinians, like any other individual who has lived in Israel continuously can continue to do so without loss of any benefit to which he or she is entitled. It should be noted that Israel, like other countries, has both citizens and permanent residents (who do not hold citizenship). Permanent residents may request citizenship in accordance with the provisions set forth in the citizenship law. Those who have not sought citizenship are subject to the normal rules which apply to all other permanent residents living in Israel. The Supreme Court has determined, in accordance with the Entry to Israel Law and its regulations, that permanent residence is a matter of "presence." Therefore, when a person uproots the centre of his life from Israel and establishes it elsewhere, the right to permanent residency is lost. It must be emphasised that these provisions apply equally to all permanent residents of the State of Israel and not just to residents of Eastern Jerusalem. These provisions have been in effect for many years and no change has been made in them recently. The reason that this issue has recently arisen is that since the peace agreements have been signed, people who left Israel years ago are coming back. In accordance with the above provisions, those individuals who established the centre of their lives elsewhere, for example by acquiring permanent residency or citizenship in another country, are no longer entitled to permanent resident status in Israel.