Palestinians can still negotiate after the UN declaration

[bemildred]

In their frantic efforts to stop the Palestinian leaders from going to the UN, Israeli officials and propagandists present their case in a misleading fashion.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has called on the Palestinians to hold direct talks, and even offered to meet Palestinian officials anywhere if they choose these direct talks instead of taking unilateral action.

On the surface of it, this position seems logical, but if one digs just beneath the rhetoric, it becomes obvious that the position is a continuation of Israel’s policy of obfuscation.

Palestinians have been in direct negotiations with Israel since the Madrid peace conference in 1991. Despite the signing of a five-year interim agreement in 1993, which was supposed to lead to an independent Palestinian state, Palestinians are nonearer a state today than they were back then.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=234799

[shira]

1. Please. Why didn't Abbas come back with a reasonable counter-offer to Olmert in 2008?

Why hasn't Abbas cried to the world that Olmert's offer - which wasn't that far off from the Geneva Initative - was close to what the PA would accept and that the September UN vote wouldn't be necessary if a few reasonable tweaks were made to make genuine peace?

Abbas is going to the UN because he knows his demands are unreasonable. Why waste time negotiating and telling the world you not only want a Jew-free Palestine but also an "Israel" with an Arab majority? The 2-state or 2 Palestinian states solution. Actually 3 Palestinian states if Gaza is its own state.

[shaayecanaan]

3. Because Olmert's offer was itself a counter-offer to Abbas' offer in mid-2008

in which he agreed to hand over everything to the Israelis that the Geneva Accords called for, with the exception of Maale Adumim.

Olmert's offer was a response to that offer. Under his so-called Napkin map, Israel would keep Har Homa, Efrat, Ariel and Maale Adumim. Not a single major settlement was conceded in Olmert's offer, only the disconnected outposts.

By any objective standard, Abbas' offer was far closer to the Geneva Accords than Olmert was.

Napkin Map peace process of 2008

According to the Palestine Papers, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas held a series of peace proposal meetings during the middle of 2008 to September 16, 2008 in which the infamous "Napkin Map" incident occurred. During the first of these meeting, according to the records of the Palestine Papers, the Palestinian Authority proposed an unprecedented land swap. Offering Israel the opportunity to annex all of its illegal settlements in East Jerusalem. Israel, however, offered nothing in return in concessions at that meeting.<12>

During the next attempts to finalize borders, Ehud Olmert offered his own map in which Israel would annex more than 10% of the West Bank. The land in Ehud Olmert's map included the four illegal settlement blocks of Gush Etzion (with Efrat), Ma'ale Adumim, Giv'at Ze'ev, and Ariel, in addition to all illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem (Har Homa). In exchange for those lands, Ehud Olmert's proposed map offered 5.5% of Israeli land as part of the swap. The land offered consisted of lightly populated farmland, which would be divided between Gaza and The West Bank. When Mahmoud Abbas asked to keep a copy of the map for further consideration, Ehud Olmert refused to comply. Mahmoud Abbas was forced to sketch Ehud Olmert's map by hand on a napkin to have a copy for further consideration. This map was then later referred to as the Napkin Map.

The third and final meeting occurred on September 16, 2008. It was during at the tail end of Ehud Olmert's political career as he planned on not running again due to various scandals. During that meeting, Mahmoud Abbas was prepared by the NSU to clarify many questions regarding Ehud Olmert's peace plan. In which Abbas was quoted as asking questions such as "How do you see it addressing our interests, especially as Ariel, Maale Adumim, Givat Zeev, Har Homa and Efrat clearly prejudice contiguity, water aquifers, and the viability of Palestine?" as well as others about the value of the land that they would receive in such a swap in terms of value and size.<12>

[shira]

5. Really? What was Abbas' proposal WRT refugees, for example? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

6. The issue of refugees wasn't extensively discussed by either Olmert or Abbas

the discussions primarily concerned territory.

[shira]

7. Incorrect. Geneva and Olmert are against RoR while the PA won't agree to peace without it.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=217641

You can't keep claiming the PA is closer to Geneva than Olmert's offer. Even if the PA agrees perfectly with Geneva on land issues, the refugee situation alone is a complete deal breaker that pits the PA as far as possible from Geneva.

RoR is not a call for peace or 2 states in any meaningful way. It's a call for war.

[shaayecanaan]

8. Abbas: "We can't expect Israel to take in a million refugees"

"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.

They said 5,000 over five years.

That is even less than family reunification and it is unacceptable.

There also has to be compensation, which has to come from the Absentee Property fund."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205065

You have previously agreed that Israel should accept the surviving 1948 refugees (but not their descendants) which currently would number about 100,000 to 150,000 people. I imagine that is quite similar to Abbas' position.

As for the Geneva Accord, it merely provides that Israel shall take in a number of Palestinian refugees, the number and identity of which shall be at Israel's sole discretion. The Palestinians always understood this to mean that in the event, a number would still be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

[shira]

10. Compromising on 100,000 is giving up on RoR, which Hamas and the PA won't do...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=217641

It's worth noting the PA has never once attempted to prepare Palestinians (in Arabic) for compromise on RoR. In fact, Abbas was recently quoted boasting about how the PA hasn't made one compromise on any issue since 1988. So what he says in english is worthless.

[shaayecanaan]

16. He wasn't speaking in English. He was speaking in Arabic, and to his own side (nt)

[shira]

18. So which statement was a lie and how do you know? Abbas and the PA say publicly they will never...

...give up on RoR while privately it's reported (falsely as you'll see) they will.

So which one is the truth and which is the lie and how do you know?

[shira]

20. Furthermore, this initial wave of 100,000 isn't necessarily the final number accepted by the PA...

In virtually every formulation seen in the Palestine Papers there is a reference to an
agreed number of years during which an initial wave of refugees would be resettled in Israel in
specified annual numbers. However, this initial wave is not the final number. Rather, the
implementation of the Right of Return is left open, with future negotiations to take place between
the Palestinians and the Israelis after the first “return” wave is completed. E.g.
http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/document/2412 . See also Section V, below.

http://christianfairwitness.com/writings/Palestine_Papers_Right_of_return_memo.pdf

[shaayecanaan]

21. The linked paper does not support the assertion made by

"Christian fair witness" (whoever they might be).

The only passage that they might be relying on is this one, and it clearly does not make out what they are implying:-

"Refugees shall be provided with repatriation and resettlement options, including return to Israel, to be implemented in accordance with an agreed annual quota and within an agreed period of time (renewable on the basis of both parties consent), and return to Palestine, as its sole discretion;"

[shira]

23. Start at the bottom of page 12 from the "christian fair witness" report and compare to al-Jazeera's

...record of the Palestine Papers:

http://christianfairwitness.com/writings/Palestine_Papers_Right_of_return_memo.pdf

[shaayecanaan]

25. Again, the linked article does not assert the suggestions being made...

"The PLO has made a historical compromise by accepting to negotiate the implementation of the Right of Return and adapt to some legitimate interests and concerns Israel may have. One of these legitimate concerns is Israel’s capacity to absorb future streams of immigration, which would be composed of Palestinian “returnees” to Israel.

Thus, a reasonable approach commands that the negotiations over the number of Palestinian returns to Israel should take into account Israel’s capacity of absorption. Therefore, the NSU has commissioned an expert to assess the demographic implications of different scenarios of returns on Israel’s demographics. The main assumptions and results of this study are summarized below."

The above two paragraphs make it quite clear that the findings being presented are those of the demographic expert that was apparently retained by the Palestinians to produce this report. It is not a statement of position by the Palestinians.

I find it rather disconcerting that Ms Lautt (who apparently is the woman behind the one-woman show that is "Christian Fair Witness") tries to skew and spin a number of the Palestine papers to support her point of view while ignoring the much more unambiguous statements from Abbas that Israel accepting anything like 1 million refugees is clearly unreasonable.

She's quite entitled to her views, of course, and to reap financial compensation for expressing them, but she should probably attempt to do so with at least a modicum of honesty.

[shira]

26. Page 14 shows the PA using the NSU study in response to Olmert's offer...

There's also this from the link in post #20:

6.2.
- Refugees’ rights are individual rights. As such, every refugee is entitled to his/her rights as prescribed in international law;

- Refugees shall be provided with repatriation and resettlement options, including return to Israel, to be implemented in accordance with an agreed annual quota and within an agreed period of time (renewable on the basis of both parties’ consent), and return to Palestine, as its sole discretion;

That's pretty damning. Rights are individual, not collective, meaning Israel must be open to all 7 million refugees who may wish - as the choice is theirs - to return to Israel. Also, the the quota is 'renewable', meaning more future negotiations after a first wave of refugees, just as the NSU study shows.

And let's be honest, it's no coincidence the PA won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as doing so would deny Israel becoming majority Palestinian after the PA's implementation of RoR. Abbas' very own Fatah doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist in the future alongside a Palestinian state in peace....
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=709&fld_id=709&doc_id=457

The conflict isn't about land, but the very existence of Israel and RoR has always been used as a weapon vs. Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

27. Again, that interpretation is only possible if you ignore

the very plain statements from Abbas when he says that Israel taking 7 million or even 1 million refugees is unrealistic.

"And let's be honest, it's no coincidence the PA won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state"

They are unwilling to do so as a precondition. The Palestine Papers made it clear that they were willing to do so as part of final status negotiations. I recall that Erekat said that they would be willing to recognise Israel as a Chinese state if it meant getting an agreement.

[shira]

28. Can you find Abbas' claim in al-Jazeera's leaked documents WRT Abbas saying it's illogical...

...for Israel to take in 1 million refugees? I'm having a hard time doing so...

[bemildred]

29. Do you ever read? It's right up there.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205065

[shira]

30. No, from al Jazeera's own stash showing the date, context, those involved....

It's okay, I found it...
http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/node/4507

Looks like it's from March 2009, after OCL and well after Annapolis. So once again there's no reason to believe Abbas and his colleagues made some generous offer to Olmert that significantly limited refugees returning to Israel.

[bemildred]

31. Good I knew you could do it. nt

[Ken Burch]

9. The land swaps and permanent IDF garrisons in the Jordan River Valley are unreasonable.

And so is the demand to keep the major settlements in place. And so is the arrogant insistence on recognizing Israel as a "Jewish state"(it should be enough to just get Israel's existence recognized).

A two state solution HAS to mean two states of equal prestige, with NEITHER living at the mercy of the other.

How hard is that to understand?

[King_David]

11. Maybe the people who live in those places locally

should decide what happens to themselves ? You know like democratically.

[Ken Burch]

12. The Palestinians can't have a democracy

if land swaps, acceptance of the permanence of the West Bank settlements(all of which are illegal) and IDF garrisons in the Jordan Valley are imposed on them.

You can only have a democracy if your country isn't living at the mercy of a country next to it. Israel has never lived at anyone's mercy, and never will, having the fourth-largest military in the world.

[King_David]

13. Local people will decide, uprooting Ariel and Maale Adimim is not an option nt

[Ken Burch]

14. What's so sacred about those two places?

800,000 Palestinians were uprooted in 1948.

And it goes without saying that there are no circumstances in which the Palestinian people would ever accept those settlements. Anymore than it was ever going to be the case that ordinary Palestinians would have settled for Begin-and-Netanyahu's proposal for Tibetan-style "autonomy", the kind of autonomy that could be taken away any time the Israeli government wanted to take it away.

All Palestinians were always going to be committed to self-determination.

[shira]

15. What's so sacred about exact 1949 armistice lines for Palestinians?

Remember, Israel agreed to the 1947 partition plan - which was less than ideal - because they just wanted a country of their own.

If the Palestinians just want a country of their own, there's no reason they can't compromise. They could have had their own homeland multiple times over since before 1948. The problem is they want to deny Jews their own homeland.

[shaayecanaan]

17. You've already said that Ariel should be returned to the Palestinians...

and the problem is that Ariel effectively splits the West Bank in half. Israel is holding the entire process to ransom for the sake of an outer suburb with a population of 18,000.

[shira]

19. Just asking what makes the 1949 armistice lines sacred, that's all. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

22. So you wouldnt mind if the Palestinians crossed the Green line and helped themselves...

to a nice patch of land. Or are you saying that the 1949 armistice lines are enforceable against the Palestinians but not the Israelis?

[shira]

24. I'm for land swaps. Palestinians can have the equivalent of 100% of Gaza/WB land b/w 1948-67.

I just don't see why exact 1949 armistice lines are sacred, as Burch implies.

[azurnoir]

2. Thanks for posting this it's a great article

the Palestinian's going before the UNGA does not 'delegitimize' Israel, unless one equates legitimizing a Palestinian state with delegitimizing Israel

more from the end of the article

Threats by Israel that it would stop recognizing the Oslo Accords were quickly withdrawn when it became clear that this would not deter the Palestinians and that, in fact, Oslo does more for Israel (security coordination, areas A, B and C) than it does for the Palestinians.

Despite the overblown Israeli hype, Palestinians in the occupied territories are not holding their breath as to what will happen in September.

Israel and its army will continue to rule Palestinian territories no matter what the international community says. Palestinians can and will have direct talks with Israel regardless of what status they hold after the UN vote.

It is accepted by all concerned that the Palestinian move at the UN will not, by itself, bring about a Palestinian state. But this move, which reflects Palestinian and international aspirations, will strengthen rather than weaken the Palestinian position when it returns to the talks.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=234799

[bemildred]

4. "Everything's going to be fine, just breathe in and out into the bag." nt