1- The takeover and annexation of East Jerusalem violate international law. From the outset, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War was, and continues to be, illegal according to international law, in particular UN Security resolutions 242 and 338. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank and therefore, resolutions 242 and 338 are applicable to this area.
2- Jerusalem is designated as one of the issues to be discussed in talks on "final status" under the Oslo Accord signed between the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel. The recent Israeli cabinet decision to expand Jerusalem violates the September 28, 1995 Interim Agreement ("Oslo 2") which explicitly states: "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" [XXXI(7)]. This clause aims to guarantee that unilateral decisions are not taken and enforced by either party during the Interim Period, such as the plan to expand Jerusalem.
Moreover, as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, both parties agree that "remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest" are components of final status talks [Article XXXI(5)]. Israel is obligated to negotiate with the PNA on the status of Jerusalem at a specified time, as opposed to acting unilaterally to change the character of the city prior to final status talks.
3- Israel’s decision tampers with the demographic character of Jerusalem. Underlying Israel’s decision is a questionable intention to artificially change the existing demographic character of Jerusalem to ensure a Jewish majority in the city. It therefore serves to preempt and prejudice the outcome of the final status negotiations on Jerusalem. Such a decision, allegedly based on "municipal and administrative" grounds, serves to place into question the Israeli government’s motive.
4- Timing. Israel’s decision serves to divert and undermine current efforts to reach an agreement on further redeployment in the West Bank. It puts into question Israel’s goodwill and commitment to the peace process and may derail the stalled talks between the two parties.
The terms of reference for the Middle East peace process must be based on the "land-for-peace" formula as stipulated in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.