It's been a long day for both the 'negotiations' and for me personally. I was not able to post a lot today. Maybe tomorrow.
I want to return to the liveblog in the previous post and point out a couple of things that happened while I was out at two Bar Mitzva's tonight - one of them out of town.
7:29 P.M. Lieberman says Israel did what it could to
keep the talks going. He adds that if Palestinians don't want to
negotiate, Israel should not chase after them. Israel's real political
future lies in the moderate Arab world, he says. (Barak Ravid)
Israel Radio reported tonight whom Lieberman considers the 'moderate Arabs.' Egypt. Okay. Our friends the Saudis. WHAT????
10:36 P.M. The White House and the U.S. State
Department were furious not only at the Palestinians, for taking
unilateral actions, but also by moves in recent days by the Israeli
government. White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest expressed
disappointment at "unhelpful, unilateral actions both parties have taken
in recent days."
The
Americans blame Housing Minister Uri Ariel, claiming that he tried
deliberately tried to sabotage the peace talks by announcing a tender
for some 700 residential units in East Jeruisalem. A senior U.S.
official suspects that this was an old tender presented by Ariel at this
time in order to harm the peace talks.
In
addition, the Americans believe that Ariel attempted to interfere in
the attempts to extend the talks when he came out publicly against
Pollard's possible release. The housing minister said in interviews with
several media outlets that Pollard himself was not interested in being
released in the deal, which would also include the release of
Palestinian prisoners.
Concurrently,
Kerry phoned both Netanyahu and Abbas. Abbas and Kerry agreed to stay
in touch in the coming days, with the Palestinian president confirming
that he was still committed to the peace process and was willing to
continue negotiations until April 29, the scheduled end of the
negotiations.
Nevertheless,
both Israeli and American officials estimated that the chances of
reaching a breakthrough in the talks were minimal. "We have until the
end of April to attempt to extend the negotiations, but the atmosphere
between the sides is not at all good," a senior American said. (Barak
Ravid)
Note that they were apparently not furious about Israel refusing to release the fourth tranche of terrorists. This implies one or more of the following:
1. Israel never committed to releasing 'Israeli Arabs.'
2. Israel never committed to release senior terrorists (like Barghouti and Saadat).
3. Israel never committed to any kind of 'settlement freeze' (we know that one is true).
4. The US agrees that the 'Palestinians' have not been negotiating seriously.
I would say it's all of the above. They are seemingly only furious about Uri Ariel talking about it so much. They have a point. I often which that we'd just act instead of talking about it so much.
10:50 P.M. Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin
criticizes the emergency Abbas-Livni meeting, calling it "a disgrace to
the State of Israel." He also adds that "Israel must stop being the
'sucker' of the Middle East." (Barak Ravid)
If this were Facebook, I'd hit "Like." But this is a serious blow to Netanyahu. Elkin was coalition chairman the last time around. He's not someone serving in his first Knesset. Netanyahu should be thinking long and hard about who is on his side and who from the Likud will break off in the event that an agreement is reached.
11:22 P.M. Palestinian officials say that if Israel
releases the fourth group of prisoners scheduled as part of negotiations
over a framework peace agreement, the Palestinian Authority will not
follow-up on its application to join United Nations institutions.
“As
far as we’re concerned, there were understandings to release 104
prisoners in exchange for not applying to UN institutions during the
nine months of the negotiations,” a Palestinian source close to the
negotiations told Haaretz. “The moment the fourth batch of prisoners
wasn’t released, we saw fit to apply to the international organizations,
and all Israel’s claims that the Palestinians bolted the talks are
false."
The
application to the UN “is the first step, but if there’s progress
regarding the prisoners’ release and later on understandings about the
continued negotiations, the Palestinians won’t follow up the application
to the UN institutions and won’t apply to the International Court of
Justice,” he said.
Palestinian
officials said they intend to continue the negotiations with Israel
until April 29. During the month the sides will try to cobble agreements
on extending the talks, they said.
The
Palestinian negotiators vehemently opposed reports that they had agreed
to a partial suspension of settlement construction in the West Bank.
They also object to Israel’s deciding which prisoners will be freed.
“The Palestinian leadership will not agree to this formula,” a senior
PLO official told Haaretz.
The
continued talks must be based on clear principles, such as the
recognition of the ‘67 borders as a basis for continuing the peace
process and suspending settlements, he said. “Beyond that there’s no
chance of reaching an agreement, even if we continue the process for
years to come,” he said. (Jack Khoury)
Sounds like the 'Palestinians' are trying to defend their honor as they start to back down. The problem is that they're unlikely to back down far enough. They're afraid of their own 'people's reactions. Remember Palileaks?
The PA is particularly worried about remarks made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman last week in which he said that Abbas was an obstacle to peace.
The PA leadership is convinced that Lieberman’s remarks against Abbas reflected the views of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and a majority of his cabinet ministers.
The PA is concerned that the remarks are designed to pave the way for Israeli military action against Abbas and his top aides. PA officials said they did not rule out the possibility that Israel may confine Abbas to his headquarters in Ramallah and prevent him from traveling abroad.
Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, who sent the letters on behalf of the PA leadership, said that there was a “real threat” to Abbas’s life in wake of the Israeli “incitement.”
Yes, Abu Bluff is an obstacle to peace. But it's not up to us to get rid of him - it's up to the 'Palestinians' to get rid of him. Moreover, most Israelis recognize that whoever takes his place is equally as unlikely to be willing to take risks for peace, and so the stalemate will continue.
Arafat was a different case. In Arafat's case, there was incontrovertible evidence that he was financing terror attacks down to making payments per terror attack. That was the evidence that was uncovered by taking the computer hard drives when Israel invaded the Muqata for the first time. We don't have that kind of evidence against Abu Mazen yet. He is financing and encouraging terror but only indirectly by doing things like making payments to and building homes for released 'Palestinian' terrorists. That's at least partly our fault for releasing him in the first place. While we may scream about that, we're not going to kill him for doing it, and we're unlikely to even restrict his travel rights for doing it. That's particularly the case given that there is a President in the United States who is not going to call for a 'new Palestinian leadership' that is not infected with terror as George W. Bush did in 2002. If Obama invites him to Washington, Israel won't create a confrontation by saying no.
Meanwhile, the PA has decided to review its entire strategy toward Israel in light of the continued stalemate in the peace process.
A joint PLO-Fatah committee has been formed by Abbas to reassess relations with Israel and to come up with a new Palestinian strategy vis-à-vis the peace process, said Muhammad Shtayyeh, a senior Fatah official and adviser to Abbas.
Shtayyeh said that the committee would also discuss the future of the PA amid reports that Abbas was considering dissolving the PA if the Security Council does not approve his application for full membership of a Palestinian state in the UN.
The committee will try to complete its work before Friday, November 11, when the Security Council is expected to decide on Abbas’s statehood bid.
“The Palestinian leadership is laying a new strategy that would be endorsed after November 11,” Shtayyeh told the Bethlehem-based Ma’an news agency. “The Palestinian Authority is about to end the status quo and reformulate its relations with Israel.”
Shtayyeh denied that the new Palestinian strategy would be based on dissolving the PA. However, he hinted that Abbas might end the Fatah-Hamas dispute and form a unity government with the Islamist movement.
I'm sure they'll come up with a real serious strategy in five days. Reconciling with Hamas is going to cause more problems for Obama because just like he cannot give money to UNESCO once 'Palestine' is a member, he also cannot give money to the 'Palestinian Authority' with Hamas inside. Hamas is a designated terror organization. And Obama won't try to change that in an election year.
Abu Mazen's strategy is going from bad to worse. I trace the start of his strategy going downhill to Obama's call for a 'settlement freeze' and to Abu Mazen's inability to climb down from the tree Obama chased him up once the 'Palileaks' files came out and showed for the first time that the 'Palestinians' were considering real compromises. The reactions in the Arab world to Palileaks scared Abu Mazen, whose main goal in life now is to die of natural causes.
So yes, he's an obstacle to peace, but Israel's not going to be the one to kill him.
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.
New insights on the 'Palestine Papers' (also known as Palileaks)
The attached is an interesting new study of the Palestine Papers. It shows conclusively that the 'Palestinians' never responded to Olmert's offer, and that they never agreed to surrender the "right of return" -- running counter to the spin that's been all over the media. It's an interesting document that's worth perusing. This is the first I've seen it. For reasons unknown to me, it is being circulated by Saeb Erekat.
The New Yorker's David Remnick is rehashing old arguments regarding what President Obama ought to do about Israel. I won't respond point by point, but to summarize what Remnick can't - or won't - understand, Israelis genuinely mistrust Obama, and by consensus are unwilling to stake their future on the 'Palestinian Authority' maintaining the peace.
Here is a refresher course for those who are new to this blog:
The President has made mistakes on this issue: it was a mistake not to follow his historic speech in Cairo, in 2009, with a trip to Jerusalem. When it comes to domestic politics in Israel, he is in a complicated spot. For some Israelis on the right, his race and, more, his middle name make him a source of everlasting suspicion.
Yes, Obama made a mistake by not coming here in 2009. But that mistake cannot be corrected now. It has been followed by so many mistakes that Obama's polling numbers here are the lowest of any American President evah.
Contrary to the libel of the Left, it has nothing to do with Obama's race (we have Jews who have black mothers and fathers) nor even to do with his middle name. It's the substance of his policies. It's his attempt to disavow promises made to us by previous administrations because they were lead by people named Bush. It's his attempt to act more 'Palestinian' than the 'Palestinians' by insisting on a 'settlement freeze' in Jerusalem that no administration had ever asked for. No Mr. Remnick, it's not his race and it's not his middle name. There are many good reasons why the vast majority of Israelis mistrust Obama. He's blown it with us, and all the fancy oratory in the world will not help him to recover.
Yet he is also a communicator of enormous gifts, capable both of assuring Israeli progressives and of reaching out to the anxious center. A visit to Israel, coupled with the presentation of a peace plan, would also help structure international support and clarify American interests. The Palestinian question is not an internal matter for Israel; it is an international matter.
The 'Palestinian question' is first and foremost an Israeli internal matter and not an 'international matter.' Is Obama going to be sitting on buses here when they start blowing up again (God forbid)? Is Hillary going to be on a plane when the 'Palestinians' fire a strella missile at it when it approaches Ben Gurion Airport? Is Catherine Ashton going to be sitting in a Jerusalem cafe when a 'Palestinian' suicide bomber walks in and blows himself up? Are you Mr. Remnick?
No, none of you are. It is only we who are being asked to take the risk of returning to indefensible borders based on the 'goodwill' of a 'people' (and I have said many times that I do not accept that the 'Palestinians' are a separate ethnic group deserving of either being called a 'people' or being granted a 'state') that continues to this very day to incite their population to murder us because we are Jews. How can that be an 'international matter' and not an internal Israeli matter Mr. Remnick? To be very blunt, is your butt in the sling? Surely not. But mine is, and so are those of each and every Israeli who lives here. As we saw this past weekend, we cannot even be assured of our safety in our own homes, God forbid.
The importance of an Obama plan is not that Netanyahu accept it right away; the Palestinian leadership, which is weak and suffers from its own issues of legitimacy, might not embrace it immediately, either, particularly the limits on refugees. Rather, it is important as a way for the United States to assert that it stands not with the supporters of Greater Israel but with what the writer Bernard Avishai calls “Global Israel,” the constituencies that accept the moral necessity of a Palestinian state and understand the dire cost of Israeli isolation.
And what, pray tell, would be in such an 'Obama plan'? Well, earlier in his screed Remnick writes,
If the Administration has been reluctant to put forward a comprehensive peace plan, it’s not because it has any difficulty imagining such a plan. Inevitably, the parameters of a two-state solution would be like those established at Taba, in 2001, and by Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, in 2008.
That would be the same plan that Arafat rejected at Taba, the same Clinton parameters that Arafat rejected in December 2000. Or it would be a modified version - the same plan that Abu Bluff decided did not even merit a response between October 2008 and May 2009 until he realized that the 'international community' wouldn't look kindly on a non-response, and so he and his cohorts started telling the lie that he had in fact given a counteroffer. In other words, it would be the solution that "everyone knows" is the solution. But everyone doesn't know.
Perhaps Remnick missed it, but somewhere between the Wikileaks bombshells and the Tunisian uprising, we had a little story here called Palileaks. If Remnick were right that 'everyone knows' what the solution is, the types of disclosures made by Palileaks would not have forced the resignation of the 'Palestinians' chief negotiator and the disbandment of its negotiations support unit. You see the big story of Palileaks wasn't what was in the documents, but the 'Palestinian' reaction to them, which showed a 'people' that is unwilling to make any compromises to reach peace.
Why should Israelis be open to any initiative from Mr. Obama, Mr. Remnick? Maybe you've got it all wrong.
'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 AbbasAbu 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.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wasn't the only one to resign this weekend. So did 'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washerSaeb Erekat (Hat Tip: Ya Libnan).
Saeb Erakat has submitted his resignation as the chief Palestinian negotiator, according to Mohammed Shtayeh, Palestinian negotiator and a Fatah Central Committee member.
Erakat had previously said that he would resign his post if an investigation into the leak of Palestinian negotiating documents aired by the Al-Jazeera television network proved that the source of papers came from his office.
The so-called Palestine Papers suggested that Palestinian negotiators offered to give up large swaths of East Jerusalem to Israel during talks dating back to 2008 and that they had been willing to offer much larger concessions in private than they were publicly acknowledging.
Saeb apparently figured out what former peace processor Aaron David Miller figured out a few months ago: Peace is not coming.
Palileaks: Jews have rights to land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza
Here's a document that al-Guardian and al-Jazeera - the two sites that published the Palileaks documents - chose not to highlight. And it's a doozer. It's described as
Draft memorandum from NSU [Negotiation Support Unit. CiJ] to Palestinian Negotiating Team that discusses options for dealing with property claims of Jews within the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) acquired before the beginning of the occupation, covering Ottoman and British periods, Jordanian Rule of the West Bank and Egyptian rule of Gaza.
Jews who were habitually resident before 1948 in the areas that became the OPT enjoy a right of return. It should be noted that the right of return extends not only to those persons who held the nationality of the prior sovereign, but also to persons who had a substantial connection to the prior state and who, therefore, were entitled to its nationality.3 The right also extends to the descendents of such Jews.
Furthermore, the right of return is separate and distinct from any property right the holder may also enjoy.4 That is, a person may have a right of return even if he does not own property in the home country. Conversely, a person may not necessarily enjoy a right of return even if he owns property in the country.
As of 1948, there were 500,000 to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Most of them were not nationals of Palestine. Of the 400,000 or so Jews who immigrated to Palestine between the two World Wars, 100,000 were naturalized. So, probably fewer than half of pre-1948 Jews were nationals, but most were probably permanent residents.5 According to international law, Such Jewish Palestinian nationals or permanent residents have a right of residency in the future Palestinian state if they were residents of the areas that became Gaza and the WB.
What they're trying to do throughout this document is to take the same questionable legal principles that have turned millions of 'Palestinians' into 'refugees' with a 'right of return' and to apply them to Jews who lived in Judea, Samaria and Gaza before 1948. Given that pretense, I don't see why only 100,000 of the 400,000 Jews who immigrated to the Palestine mandate between the two World Wars should be deemed 'naturalized.' For 'Palestinians,' the rule is that anyone who had a home in the Palestine mandate between 1946-48 is considered a 'refugee' as are all that persons descendants.
While the initial displacement and dispossession of Jews pre-1948 was the result of a war with, and, later, the policies of, Jordan and Egypt, Palestine, as the successor state, will be responsible for providing remedies for some of the losses sustained by the Jews to the extent that the substance of the loss is within Palestine’s control. Specifically, if asked, Palestine will be under an obligation to allow the return of the Jews who were displaced, and to restore Jewish property that is located within Palestine or compensate Jewish owners for the loss of this property. Palestine would not be responsible for compensating Jews for other material losses, like lost profits or income, or for non-material losses; these would be required from Egypt and Jordan.
As mentioned above, in spite of Israel's recognition of the right of pre-1948 Jewish owners to regain the property they left in East Jerusalem, most of them had to make do with monetary compensation in lieu of the property. With regard to Jewish property in Gaza and the rest of the West Bank, the Israeli authorities' practice has been not to release the property, but to continue administering it. To some extent, then, Israel has addressed the rights of Jews dispossessed in 1948 by recognising their right of repossession and compensating them when it expropriated their properties. To the extent that Israel has done so, the future Palestinian state is therefore relieved of the responsibility. However, under international law, the right of displaced persons to return to their country is not defeated by an offer of compensation, so those rights of displaced Jews may survive, and Palestine may be obligated to implement the right of return that Israel did not.6
Of course, this would mean that the 'Palestinian state' would probably not be Judenrein as the 'Palestinians' continually tell us they wish it to be.
In 1940, in response to Arab concerns regarding Jewish land ownership in Palestine, the British introduced restrictions on land transfers to Jews. Pursuant to the Palestine (Amendment) Order-in-Council of 25 May 1939, the High Commissioner was authorized to prohibit and regulate land transfers.23 Acting on these powers, the High Commissioner adopted the Land Transfer Regulations, 1940, which established three zones: Zone A (16,680 km2), where land could generally not be transferred except to Palestinian Arabs; Zone B (8,348 km2), where land transfers from Arabs to Jews required permission that was generally withheld; and land outside Zones A and B (1, 292 km2), which could be freely transferred.24 According to the hand-drawn map annexed to the Regulations, what became Gaza and the West Bank was entirely Zone A, meaning that land transfers to Jews were, with few exceptions, prohibited.25 Britain apparently repealed these Regulations upon the termination of its Mandate (12 May 1948).26
Obviously, this is all far worse than today's efforts to keep neighborhoods all religious or not religious, Jewish or Arab.
The Custodian/ Commissioner was legally authorised to restore property to its Jewish owners, but the Israeli authorities' practice in the West Bank and Gaza has been not to release property, but to continue administering it. This property has occasionally been used for Israeli settlements in the OPT. At times, willingness was also expressed to take into consideration the injury to the original owners by allocating alternative lands for their use at a low rent. However, the policy of not releasing the property to its original owners and continuing its administration by the authorities has been strictly observed.46
Attempts made by Israeli citizens to have their rights to such property restored have failed,47 and such property has remained in the possession and management of the Custodian of Government Property.
But the 'Palestinians' have just admitted that at least some of the 'settlements' were built on land that is owned by Jews and therefore cannot be regarded as 'occupied territory.' The document lists some of that land.
Little land was purchased by Jews during the Ottoman period in Gaza and the West Bank.50
* One important exception was land located on Mount Scopus, which was purchased from a British national in 1916. Boris Goldberg, a member of Lovers of Zion, paid for the land and took title in his name.51 He gifted the land to the JNF, which gave a 999-year lease to Hebrew University.52 Additional land was purchased on Mount Scopus from Raghib al-Nashashibi, Mayor of Jerusalem, and was used for the Hebrew University. Hadassah Hospital was also built on land purchased on Mount Scopus.53
...
In Gaza, the JNF did not purchase any major parcels of land. By 1946, the JNF acquired 72,300 dunums in the Gaza district, which encompassed more than present-day Gaza.58
* In 1930, a Jewish farmer from Rehovot, Tuvia Miller, bought 262 dunums of land in Dayr al-Balah in the Gaza sub-district. Miller eventually sold his land to the JNF in the early 1940s. The JNF then allowed settlers from the religious Ha-Poel ha-Mizrahi movement to build the kibbutz of Kfar Darom on the land in October 1946. They abandoned the kibbutz in June 1948.59 * Stein reports a purchase of 4,048 dunums in Huj (Gaza sub-district) in 1935 but does not indicate the identity of the Jewish purchaser.60 Note, however, that the Palestine Partition Commission reported that, by 1938, only 3,300 dunums in Gaza were owned by Jews.61 * In 1941, 6,373 dunums were purchased by the JNF around Gaza City, though it is unknown whether the purchase was permissible under the Land Transfer Regulations 1940.62
What they don't mention here is that Jews re-established Kfar Darom after the 1967 War, and it continued to exist until 2005 when the Sharon government expelled all the Jews from Gaza.
The government of Palestine estimated a population of 3,540 Jews in the Gaza sub-district at the end of 1946. Information has not been found on the circumstances under which these Jews departed from Gaza in 1948.63
Right....
In the case of the West Bank, Shehadeh gives a figure of 30,000 dunums owned by Jews by 1948. During the 1920s and 1930s, the JNF did not seek land in the West Bank because it was not close to other tracts of land it had already purchased and because the West Bank was not as suitable for agriculture. The only substantial parcels purchased or leased in the West Bank were in or around Jerusalem.64
* There were Jewish settlements north of Jerusalem called Atarot and Neve Yaakov, which were evacuated in 1948.65 * A settlement called Bet Haarava, and Palestine Potash, Ltd., both located at the northern end of the Dead Sea, were situated on miri land leased by the government of Palestine and were evacuated in 1948.66 * During the 1920s and 1930s, individual Jews and two Jewish-owned realty companies, Zikhron David and El Hahar, bought land in the hills around Hebron.67 Notwithstanding (and, actually, because of) the Land Transfer Regulations, 1940, which placed nearly all of the West Bank in Zone A, the JNF began purchasing land around Hebron in 1940. It acquired about 8,400 dunums by 1947, some of which was purchased from individual Jews and from Zikhron David and El Hahar. The settlements established on this land were called Kfar Etzion, Masuot Yitzhak, Ein Tzurim and Revadim. The JNF circumvented the prohibition on acquisition of land by Jews by creating front companies. Most of the Jewish-owned land around Hebron was held, as of 1948, by the JNF rather than by individual Jewish owners.68 * Some 16,000 dunums of land were purchased by Jews before 1948 in the Etzion Bloc and Beit Hadassah.69 * Himnuta bought land near Jericho and present-day Ma’ale Adumim. The funding in urban areas usually came from state coffers, while the purchase of agricultural land was paid for by the JNF.70
During the British mandate, the government of Palestine leased miri land on a long-term basis (50 or 100 years) to Jewish settlement organisations.71
By 1948, the concentrations of lands owned by Jews were in the old Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, on the periphery of Jerusalem, and in the Tul-Karem region and the Gaza Strip.72
* Apparently, 80% of Har Homa’s [Jabal Abu Ghneim’s] land is Jewish land purchased in the forties and before.73
That would be the same Har Homa that the 'Palestinians' told Olmert they could not 'give' him during the negotiations between them in the fall of 2008.
They then go on to give legal arguments why it's okay to dispossess the Jews. This one is rich:
Recent arrival of displaced Jews. The right of return is ordinarily invoked by a long-term population, as the basis for a right of return is a strong link to one’s country. It may be said that the Jews living in Gaza/WB pre-1948 were, in the main, recent arrivals who did not have the requisite connection to the land to be entitled to a right of return. In fact, the Balfour Declaration acknowledged that they did not, by stating the advisability of establishing a national home for the Jews.81
That's pretty funny because the 'Palestinian' claim to land in Israel is based on having lived in the British mandate between 1946-48, which is not exactly long-term.
Obama administration making nookie nookie with al-Jazeera
When al-Jazeera opened its English-language network in 2006, it was all but banned from the United States. This likely pleased the Bush administration (which never actively opposed al-Jazeera's entry into the US), but it distresses the Obama administration. And now, the Obama administration is trying to do something about it.
The new policy of engagement has been apparent in recent weeks as a State Department media outreach office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has sought to place Arabic-speaking diplomats on Al Jazeera to lay out Washington's talking points about the protests roiling the region.
State Department officials, including chief spokesman Philip J. Crowley and Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, have gone on Al Jazeera more than a dozen times in the last month. Another recent guest was Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Al Jazeera is crucial because so many households in the Middle East turn to it in times of turmoil, said Dana Shell Smith, deputy assistant secretary for international media engagement, an office created last summer to reach out to such outlets.
"If we are not in the conversation, people will be speaking for us or about us," said Shell Smith, who speaks Arabic. "We need to make sure we are out there speaking for ourselves."
And you thought that's why the US government maintains Alhurra. How silly of you.
A State Department policy review completed in December has resulted in more diplomats and administration officials appearing on Al Jazeera, which reaches about 60 million viewers across the world.
The State Department has assigned staff in media hubs such as London, Dubai and Brussels to field requests from Al Jazeera and other Arabic-language media.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all have appeared on the network's Arabic and English channels in the last year.
But 60 million people is small change for a television network. How many watch CNN? The BBC? Fox (which the Obama administration has boycotted)?
And why does the US have such bad relations with al-Jazeera?
The U.S. government has a tense history with Al Jazeera. Many U.S. citizens got their first exposure to it after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when it broadcast a taped message from Osama bin Laden, its logo emblazoned in the corner of the screen.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld once accused it of spreading "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable" reports about U.S. actions in Iraq.
I guess those things don't bother Obama. I guess al-Jazeera's role in Palileaks -which has put the last nail in the coffin of the 'peace process' - doesn't bother him either.
The 'Palestinian Authority' has filed a complaint against al-Jazeera over the Palileaks papers.
With whom have they filed a complaint, you might ask, as I did?
Palestinian Authority negotiations chief Saeb 'Ereqat says that the PA has filed an official complaint with the International Federation of Journalists against Al-Jazeera TV.
The PA is alleging that the channel had published, for political purposes, documents from the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that had been stolen from the PA office.
New Palileaks letter from fake 'Palestinian businessmen'
Elder of Ziyon publishes a Palileaks document that includes a letter from anonymous 'Palestinian businessmen' that was probably written by the PLO or the 'Palestinian Authority.'
November 10th, 2009
Dear President Obama,
As Palestinian businessmen, we wish to share with you some major Palestiniane’s concerns about today’s deteriorating situation brought about by Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory.in our long-lasting conflict with Israel.
We are grateful for your diplomatic efforts and will to solve the Palestinian-e – Israeli conflict, d. This despite the fact that for almost a whole year, the United States has been unable to impose a settlement freeze by Israel.
Mr. President, nothing sows more distrust in the Palestinian minds than crushing Palestinian homes from which families are ejected for the purpose of replacing them with Jewish settlers. True some Israeli checkpoints have been dismantled; but with more than 500 checkpoints and physical obstacles still in place in both the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, Palestinian business remains fragile. Israel continues to retain control of all borders. Nothing can get into or out of the West Bank or Gaza without Israeli permission. Because of the tenuous political situation, few domestic or foreign investors are willing to invest in the Palestinian economy, and many Palestinian businessmen holding American passports are being denied entry by the Israeli authorities to Palestine.
Israeli restrictions, together with Israel’s fragmentation of the occupied West Bank, remain the greatest impediment to economic development in Palestine and to reaching a two-state solution.
Mr. President, as Palestinian businessmen, our hope and dream is to build a sovereign, viable and thriving Palestinian state, alongside Israel.
But without a political outcome that secures Palestinian territorial rights, including East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and a just solution for refugees, more problems will lie ahead. A settlement freeze is a crucial first step to saving the two-state solution. What is needed is an intensification of your will and a display of greater resolve by taking some bold steps forward to ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Sincerely,
Palestinian Businessmen
rephrase
get more exact number
The words in bold are some of the words that Elder believes are lies - read the whole thing.
According to the poll, conducted just after the series, 99 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem heard about the leaked documents, dubbed the Palestine Papers, but 68 percent did not believe them.
There was little variation across the territories, with 71 percent in the West Bank doubting the documents, compared to 64 percent in Gaza.
However, the majority of Hamas supporters polled believed the leaked papers were real, while most Fatah supporters said they were fabricated.
Both factions agreed the leak of the documents would serve Israeli interests, with 88 percent saying Israel would benefit most from their publication.
Only five percent said the Palestinian Authority would benefit from the leak.
The survey was conducted by Near East Consulting. A random sample of 897 Palestinians aged above 18 were polled. There was a margin of error of 3.4 percent.
I don't believe they're 100% accurate, but on the whole I now believe that they are accurate. There were enough gaps in them between the Israeli and 'Palestinian' positions to more than account for why no deal was struck. And apparently the 'Palestinians' are having trouble believing that their leadership could make any concessions at all.
In an editorial London's Jewish Chronicle rips the daily al-Guardian for the shameless way in which it used the Palileaks documents to cross the line between journalism and political activism, thereby endangering lives (Hat Tip: CiF Watch).
What is very wrong is the way the paper chose to present its story: the distortions, the bias, the agenda, the spin and the breathtaking arrogance of its handing down instructions to the Palestinians of how they should behave. Make no mistake: the Guardian's presentation was, as David Landau puts it, "intended to poison the Palestinians against their leaders". And to poison the world against Israel. Take the quote from Saeb Erekat, in which he was reported to have made an offer to Israel of "the biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history". This was used to attack the Israelis for their intransigence.
"Israel spurned Palestinian offer of biggest Yerushalayim in history'' ran the headline. Nowhere was the preceding sentence from Erekat to be seen: "Israelis want the two-state solution but they don't trust. They want it more than you think, sometimes more than Palestinians."
Erekat himself was acknowledging the Israelis' desire for a solution. But because such a view does not fit with the Guardian's agenda, his words were brazenly distorted. The paper's editorial then attacked the Palestinian negotiators for being "craven", arguing that their apparent willingness to make concessions was a betrayal of the Palestinian people.
So it was hardly surprising, although still shameful, that on Wednesday it gave its main comment space to Hamas to threaten "practical measures" to "regain the initiative".
Al-Guardian's behavior was no better than al-Jazeera's. But al-Jazeera has the excuse that it is an Arab network spouting the line of the Emir of Qatar. Oh wait - al-Guardian has a largely Muslim readership and is spouting the line of David Cameron. How could I forget?
Khaled Abu Toameh has got it right. Whether Abu Mazen and Saeb Erekat are 'peace partners' for Israel is irrelevant. What really matters is whether the 'Palestinian people' are 'peace partners.' The reactions to Palileaks clearly show that the answer to that question is "no."
It is no secret that most of the Arab governments do not represent their constituents, at least in regard to making peace with Israel. If Arab leaders seem to be more "moderate" in their views toward the Middle East peace process than their people, it is because these leaders have been telling Westerners what they like to hear.
Even if the Palestinian Authority may be a peace partner, what about the Palestinians?
Has anyone thought about asking Abbas and Erekat what the Palestinians living in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan think about their willingness to offer Israel major concessions?
The Al-Jazeera revelations have seriously embarrassed the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, mainly because they show that Abbas and his negotiators have been telling their people one thing and Israelis and Americans something completely different.
Abbas and his negotiators have been promising Palestinians that there would no concessions whatsoever on core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees. But, as The Palestine Papers have shown, their message to the Israelis, Americans and Europeans has been the exact opposite.
Now, in wake of the Al-Jazeera revelations, the Palestinian Authority leaders are trying to distance themselves from these statements. Now, Abbas and his negotiators have to prove to their people that they are not "traitors" who sold out to Israel.
...
The Palestinian Authority has understandably, and perhaps justifiably, convinced some Israelis and many of its Western supporters that it is a partner for peace. Statements attributed to Abbas, Erekat and Qurei show that they have been saying all what many in Israel and in the West like to hear.
If anything, Al-Jazeera's sensationalist revelations show that Arab regimes are still afraid of telling their people the truth.
It is nice to hear Erekat and Qurei talk to Israel about giving up most of east Jerusalem: with such positions they can be described as true peace partners. But the question that needs to be addressed is not whether Abbas and Erekat are peace partners, but whether the majority of Palestinians would be willing to accept far-reaching concessions like the ones offered by the Palestinian Authority.
American 'Palestinians' have urged 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen to quit. No, not because he is corrupt and incompetent.
The Palestinian community in the US issued a statement calling on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior PLO members to resign over the "selling of Palestinian rights to Israel."
This is from a New York Times article on how what's going on in Egypt is being viewed in Israel (Hat Tip: Daily Alert).
Though the peace, Israel’s first with an Arab partner, has remained cold — Egyptian civil society still boycotts Israel — the relationship is viewed here as critical. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, confers regularly with Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak; they met most recently on Jan. 6 in the Sinai resort of Sharm el Sheik for what another official described as strategic discussions.
“Egypt is not only our closest friend in the region,” Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a veteran Israeli politician and former defense minister known for his close ties to senior Egyptian officials, told Army Radio on Wednesday, “the cooperation between us goes beyond the strategic.”
Israeli officials and analysts said they believed that Mr. Mubarak’s government was strong enough to withstand the protests, at least as long as it had the backing of the Egyptian Army.
But with Mr. Mubarak, who came to power in 1981, now an ailing octogenarian, Israelis were in any case looking ahead to a transition of some sort in Egypt, amid a sense of a shifting regional equilibrium.
...
Israelis were not yet envisaging a future without the peace treaty with Egypt. Mr. Eran said that almost any government in Egypt would want to maintain the pact, even at a low profile, because so much is hinged on it, including Egypt’s relations with, and aid from, the United States.
At least in the short term, Israelis did not see a need for panic. At the same time, officials here were cautious about making long-term predictions. After Mr. Mubarak leaves the stage, one said, “We have no idea what will happen.”
I wish I could share Eran's relative optimism. I can't. Most of Egyptian society - as Isabel Kershner points out in the Times - still hates us. It goes without saying that the Muslim Brotherhood would abrogate or ignore the treaty. But Egypt's great white hope - Mohamed ElBaradei - was known for his contempt of Israel when he was at the IAEA. The way I see it, we are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to Egypt, and any outcome is likely to leave us facing open hostility - or at least even less cooperation than exists today - to our south. And the answer to my "what can go wrong" question is "lots."
The fundamental problem is that although we made peace with the Egyptian leadership, we never made peace with the Egyptian people, who were left out of the process. That is true in Jordan as well, and as Palileaks has shown, it would be true if we made peace with the 'Palestinian Authority' today. In the long run, we are probably better off that Palileaks is the last nail in the coffin of the 'peace process' with the 'Palestinians.'
Pinchas Inbari looks into al-Jazeera's motives in leaking the Palileaks documents.
* Al-Jazeera, the powerful Qatari satellite television station, has been publishing documents leaked to it from the PLO Negotiations Support Unit.
* The release of the documents has caused great damage to the reputation of the PA and the PLO negotiating team. Sa'eb Erekat noted that while the PA was en route to triumph as it gathered international support for the recognition of a Palestinian state and for isolating Israel, al-Jazeera cut short this triumph and "instead of delegitimizing the occupation, they delegitimized us."
* The PA's success in gathering support for statehood recognition was turning Hamas rule in Gaza into a liability. Once Ramallah is recognized as representing a state, the international community might turn against the separate entity in Gaza and seek to end the problem.
* For years al-Jazeera has sought to advance the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood against the Arab regimes. The problem it faces is that the sources of the current wave of Arab unrest are actually local and have nothing to do with pan-Arab ideals or with the Palestinian problem.
* Now, after al-Jazeera has brainwashed Arab minds with charges of PLO treason, no declaration of statehood can be expected. Neither will there be a resumption of negotiations with Israel since the Palestinian team will stick to the most hard-line positions possible.
LATMA's tribal update brings you Erdogan's Turkish Honor and Abu Mazen's extraordinary concessions
The Tribal Update brings you Erdogan's Turkish Honor and Abu Mazen's extraordinary concessions. You will enjoy this (the lottery commercial is a takeoff on a commercial that's on constantly here on both radio and television).
'Palestinians' called Netanyahu acceptance of 'Palestinian state' 'earth shattering'
On June 14, 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar Ilan University, in which he accepted the idea of a 'Palestinian state.' Two days later in Ramallah, 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat met with members of the European-funded Negotiation Support Unit and heads of committees, including Mohamed Shatyyeh, Hibba Husseini, Samih al-Abed and Issa Kassissieh. During the meeting, Bader Rock - legal advisor to the Negotiation Support Unit - said this (Hat Tip: CAMERA).
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
