How the 'Palestinians' wiggled out of a peace agreement
JPost does a good job of putting together Condoleeza Rice's memoirs and the 'Palestine papers' to present a pretty clear picture of how the 'Palestinians' managed to avoid reaching a 'peace agreement' with Ehud K. Olmert. Recall that Rice described what Olmert offered in a
private dinner between the two of them.
Here's what happened next.
Rice recalled her incredulity: “Am I really hearing this? I wondered. Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites? Concentrate. Write this down. No, don’t write it down. What if it leaks? It can’t leak; it’s just the two of us.”
Rice said that she visited Abbas in Ramallah the next day. “I sketched out the details of Olmert’s proposal and told him how the prime minister wanted to proceed. Abbas started negotiating immediately. “I can’t tell four million Palestinians that only 5,000 of them can go home,” he said.”
While Rice is silent on the ensuing breakdown of talks – missing pieces are actually supplied by the Palestine Papers – documents memorializing 10 years of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that were stolen from Saeb Erekat’s office and posted on al-Jazeera’s website last January.
Although Palestinian negotiators spoke publicly about compromise on refugees, privately they spoke of the “right of return” as a matter of individual choice that would have to be extended to each of over seven million people and with Palestinians retaining the open-ended right to try to negotiate additional “returns” beyond any number initially agreed upon in a peace treaty.
Abbas was simply unprepared to accept any offer that did not allow for the “right of return.”
Rice recounted how on September 16, 2008 Olmert presented Abbas with a groundbreaking offer for a two-state solution including a map outlining the territory of a Palestinian state. Rice confirmed reports that Olmert insisted that Abbas sign then and there, but that Abbas “demurred, wanting to consult his experts before signing.”
Olmert, Rice said, refused to give Abbas the map – a fact that the Palestinians have said proves that Olmert’s offer was not serious.
But the Palestine Papers indicate that on September 16, the Palestinians drew-up a map that seems to outline with great specificity the offer made by Olmert, in spite of the fact that they complained he would not give them a copy of the map.
Abbas asked for a meeting the next day with his advisers present.
The meeting the next day was never held – Rice did not say why, but Olmert has since said that he received a call from Saeb Erekat requesting that the meeting be postponed.
The US administration seems to have been unaware that in preparation for the September 16 meeting the PA was trying to generate escape plans from reaching a binding agreement with Olmert, while at the same time avoiding being blamed for not reaching a final status agreement.
“SE [PA Negotiator Saeb Erekat] thinks there are three ways [Abbas] could respond: (1) Give [Olmert] our Framework Agreement on Permanent Status, (2) Issue general communique about Annapolis progress, (3) Simply say no to the offer,” one September 9, 2008 memo from Hala Rasheed read.
“He wants us to think up other ways to respond. Whatever we propose, he wants to make sure that: (a) we are not blamed, (b) [negotiations] are uninterrupted, and (c) no submission is made that we cannot retract.”
A memo to other NSU members dated September 16 from Wassim Khazmo, a communications adviser on the PA negotiating team, revealed that Palestinians intended to treat the September 16 meeting as “ceremonial” rather than directed toward advancing negotiations and possibly reaching a peace agreement.
“In order to avoid the blame game, the President today is going with a positive attitude, where he will ask more questions from Olmert on his offer, and he will tell him that the Palestinians will respond later,” Khazmo wrote.
Khazmo was particularly concerned that Abbas avoid what he described as “Olmert’s media stunts.”
Anyone still think the 'Palestinians' want peace?
I would love to hear Rice's reaction to this.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Condoleeza Rice, Ehud K. Olmert, final status negotiations, Negotiations Support Unit, Palestine papers
Vindicated?
Writing at al-Guardian, the head of the 'investigative team' that leaked the 'Palestinian' negotiation papers to the world media claims
vindication.
Having cleared our name of theft, Ofcom formally laid to rest Erekat's principal claim, stating: "Material facts in relation to the negotiation meetings looked at in the programme were not presented or omitted in a way that resulted in unfairness to Dr Erekat". The statement added: "To the extent there was an infringement of privacy in relation to obtaining and using documents, the infringement was warranted, given the significant public interest, both in the Middle East and globally."
The Middle East desperately needs more truth-telling. To that end, the Ofcom ruling on the Palestine papers could be perhaps the UK's best contribution to the region in some time.
But the truth that was told was a half truth. Yes, the 'Palestinians' and their supporters were told that their negotiators had agreed to compromise with Israel on their demands. But instead of the 'Palestinian' leadership being pressured to come forward and finally tell their people that no deal can be reached without compromises on both sides, the 'leadership's denials were all the people heard about the documents. The 'leadership' then withdrew into its most intransigent position yet.
So yes, the documents were authentic and revealing them could have been justified, but only by media that would have forced the 'Palestinians' to acknowledge the necessity for compromise in order for a 'two-state solution' to be reached. That did not happen and it's not likely to happen in your lifetime or mine.
Clayton Swisher and his team at the Guardian have nothing of which they should be proud in this story.
Labels: al-Guardian, Negotiations Support Unit, Palileaks, Saeb Erekat
'Palestinians' disbanding Negotiations Support Unit
The 'Palestinian Authority' has decided to disband and restructure its
European-funded Negotiations Support Unit, which was the source for the Palileaks documents published by al-Guardian and al-Jazeera. The documents were apparently
stolen from the office of Saeb Erekat by members of the unit, which brought about Erekat's resignation. The unit is to be placed under
'moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen's direct supervision.
But
how's this for outrageous bias in reporting the story from the Jew-haters at AFP?
The files, which Erakat charged had been "deliberately" tampered with, show Palestinian negotiators offering unprecedented concessions during peace negotiations, including on the ultra-sensitive subjects of Jerusalem and refugees, with nothing in return from Israel.
They also show the Palestinian leadership closely cooperating with Israel in its fight against the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, Fatah's bitter rival which rules the Gaza Strip.
As to the paragraph about Hamas, the first obligation of the 'Palestinian Authority' under both the Oslo accords and the 'road map' was to disband the terror organizations. Hamas - in case the boobs at AFP can't figure it out - is a terror organization. There is certainly nothing wrong with cooperating with Israel in trying to disband Hamas. Israel has much more experience than the 'Palestinian Authority' has in fighting terrorists.
The disbandment of the Negotiations Support Unit - which is being mourned today all over Europe and in elitist circles in the Arab world - actually makes the chances of peace slightly (albeit not enough) better. In case you didn't deduce it already from the Unit's being the source of Palileaks, the Negotiations Support Unit had been
urging the 'Palestinians' to take harder positions and not to compromise with Israel. Disbanding the Negotiations Support Unit won't bring peace, but it's a step in the right direction.
Labels: European anti-Semitism, Negotiations Support Unit, Palestinian intransigence, Palileaks
Throwing salt in the 'Palestinians' wounds
The 'Palestinians' awoke this morning to discover that Tzipi Livni, probably the most pro-'Palestinian' Jewish MK from a mainstream party in the current Knesset, has a program for them that's similar to Avigdor Lieberman's: She wants to
transfer them to a 'Palestinian state' in exchange for Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria remaining part of Israel. I suppose that if you're going to make a 'land swap' (a concept I oppose), it makes sense to improve your demography while you're doing it. It's amazing that the 'Palestinian street' didn't see this coming.
They also awoke to discover that Livni's close friend, then-US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, wanted to transfer some of the 'Palestinian diaspora' to
Latin America.
Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration's secretary of state, wanted to settle displaced Palestinians in Argentina and Chile as an alternative to letting them return to former homes in Israel and the occupied territories. Rice made the proposal in a June 2008 meeting with US, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Berlin, according to minutes of the encounter seen by the Guardian.
During a discussion about international funding to compensate refugees – an estimated 5 million Palestinians are scattered around the Middle East – the US diplomat made a startling suggestion.
"Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind. Chile, Argentina, etc (ie, give land)."
The minutes, which are not verbatim, have the initials CR before the quote. Rice was the only participant with those initials.
The proposal seems based on the fact that Chile has a large Palestinian community dating back a century and, like Argentina, has large tracts of sparsely populated land.
It flew in the face of Palestinian insistence that the refugees have the right to return to their ancestral land – a demand Israel has resisted since its foundation in 1948. Carving out a new Palestinian homeland 8,000 miles away in the Andes could theoretically reduce pressure on Israel to return land.
Well, they have to go somewhere, and the Arab countries in which they currently live aren't willing to grant them citizenship, so why not Argentina and Chile? Oh wait - you mean they really believed they were coming back to their former villages that don't exist anymore in Israel? I guess that means they didn't see
this from the front page of Tuesday's JPost:
In a dramatic comment on the refugee issue, furthermore, at an internal meeting that PA President Mahmoud Abbas had with the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit on March 29, 2008, Abbas said, “On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or even 1 million – that would mean the end of Israel.
You just knew that the failure to educate their people for peace would come back to bite the 'Palestinians,' didn't you?
Labels: Argentina, Chile, Condoleeza Rice, Mahmoud Abbas, Negotiations Support Unit, Palileaks, Politics, Tzipi Livni, World Politics
Why Palileaks now?
One of the most interesting questions that arises out of what's already known here as Palileaks is who leaked the documents and why now. Here's some
speculation.
[Former peace processor Aaron David] Miller suggested that the Palestinians may have leaked the documents in an attempt to counter Israeli claims that they are the obstacle to peace.
"You have to ask yourself the question: why have these documents appeared now? The answer is that the Palestinians, as part of a campaign to gain international support and recognition for the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood and to increase pressure not only on the Israelis but the Americans, have chosen to say to the world: look, it's not so hard.
"Previous Israeli governments were interested in a serious negotiation. So why can't we have one now based on the principles that previous Israeli governments have agreed to?"
The Guardian is
coy about the sources of the documents.
The documents – almost all of which are in English, which was the language used by both sides in negotiations – were leaked over a period of months from several sources to al-Jazeera. The bulk of them have been independently authenticated for the Guardian by former participants in the talks and by diplomatic and intelligence sources.
...
After the breakdown of the Camp David talks, which Clinton and Israeli leaders blamed on Yasser Arafat and a lack of technical Palestinian preparation, Palestinian leaders went to great lengths to ensure that the fullest records and supporting documents were drawn up for later talks. Among NSU staff, the Arab-American lawyer Zeinah Salahi drew up many of the meeting records, while others were made by the French-Palestinian lawyer Ziyad Clot, author of a book about the negotiations, Il n'y aura pas d'Etat Palestinien (There will be no Palestinian state).
The role of the NSU in the negotiations has caused tensions among West Bank-based Palestinian leaders and officials, and widespread resentment about the salaries paid to its most senior managers, notably Adam Smith International's Andrew Kuhn, who stepped down from running the unit last year.
But as the negotiations have increasingly been seen to have failed, and the Ramallah-based PA leadership has come to be regarded by many Palestinians as illegitimate or unrepresentative, discontent among NSU staff has grown and significant numbers have left. There has also been widespread discontent in the organisation at the scale and nature of concessions made in the talks.
...
Some Fatah leaders are likely to accuse al-Jazeera of having an anti-PA agenda by publishing the leaked documents, which they believe will benefit their Hamas rivals, backed by Iran — as shown in critical comments about the TV station in the documents themselves.
Relations between al-Jazeera, the most widely watched TV channel in the Middle East, and the PA leadership have often been strained after it has run reports regarded by the administration as hostile – as is the case with regimes throughout the region.
The documents have been redacted to remove details such as email addresses, phone numbers or other information that could identify those who leaked them.
So who disclosed the documents? The 'Palestinians' themselves? The Negotiating Support Unit (which is supported by the Europeans and has taken a
harder line than the 'Palestinians' themselves)? An Arab country that received the documents from the 'Palestinians'?
And why were they disclosed? There's no Julian Assange here who is trying to bring down the 'Palestinian Authority.' Or is there?
Who benefits from this disclosure? Clearly
Hamas does.
Who loses by this disclosure? Aside from the 'Palestinian Authority' - whose constituents were probably totally shocked to discover what their representatives were discussing with the Israelis - other losers are
Tzipi Livni and Barak Obama.
Hmmm.
Labels: Abu Ala, Barack Obama, Negotiations Support Unit, Palestinian Authority, Palileaks, Saeb Erekat, Tzipi Livni
JPost does a good job of putting together Condoleeza Rice's memoirs and the 'Palestine papers' to present a pretty clear picture of how the 'Palestinians' managed to avoid reaching a 'peace agreement' with Ehud K. Olmert. Recall that Rice described what Olmert offered in a private dinner between the two of them. Here's what happened next. 
