BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Click on the link to read the rest. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70M0EM20110123 Palestinian negotiators secretly told Israel it could keep swathes of occupied East Jerusalem, according to leaked documents that show Palestinians offering much bigger peace concessions than previously revealed.The documents, obtained by the Al Jazeera television channel, could undermine the position of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose public declarations about Jerusalem are at odds with what his officials were promising in private. Equally sobering for the Palestinian people, who want to create a state on land Israel seized in a 1967 war, is the fact that Israel offered nothing in return for the concessions and turned down their offer, saying it did not go far enough. The leaked minutes of a 2008 meeting between Palestinian, U.S. and Israeli officials showed a senior Palestinian proposing that Israel annex all but one of its major Jerusalem settlements as part of a broad deal to end their decades-old conflict. Al Jazeera said Sunday it had other documents that it would publish shortly showing the Palestinians were also ready to make other massive concessions on the hugely sensitive issue of the right to return for Palestinian refugees. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat went on the defensive, dismissing the documents as "a bunch of lies" during an appearance on Al Jazeera shortly after they were released. In a heated exchange, Erekat was confronted by critics including Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al -Quds al-Arabi newspaper, who asked him who had authorized him or the Palestinian leadership "to give up Islamic holy sites." One document quoted Erekat as telling an Israeli official: "It is no secret that ...we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim in history." He used the Hebrew word for Jerusalem. Ahmed Qurie, the lead Palestinian negotiator in 2008, was quoted as proposing that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa. He also said Israel could keep control of a part of the Old City of Jerusalem. "This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition," the document quoted Ahmed Qurie as saying. He added that the Palestinians had refused to make such a concession during negotiations led by the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 2000. HAMAS INDIGNANT Hamas, the Islamist group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the documents revealed the Palestinian Authority's role in "attempting to liquidate the Palestinian cause." "This exposes the Palestinian leadership, putting it in a position where it will be impossible to win the confidence of the people," said Zakaria al-Qaq, Palestinian commentator. However, another Palestinian commentator said the reaction would be limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Be interesting to see if Hamas can make hay out of it. The regions ripe for bloodshed...as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 This does't make much sense to me. The Palestinian people would have freaked out if it had gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 So as I understand it these papers have the palitinians making major concessions on three huge issues. (1) Settlements - Israel get's to keep almost all their settlemnts in the west bank. (2) Jersusalem - Israel was to get to keep all the Jewish quarter of east Jerusalem and most of the Armenian quarter. (3) The Right of Return for Palistinian refugees. - The Palistinians would settle for only token repatriation. Again huge. As I understand it this basically takes most of the major issues off the board. All settled in Israel's favor. Yet Israel rejected these terms? My take on this is Israel isn't interested in a peace based on the status quoe. Israel is actively winning the peace; year to year, decade to decade they feel they are getting stronger. Why should they settle for a peace which leave any Palistinians in place? That's the message I take from these leaks. So far an Israeli negotiator associated with the old Olmerit government. ( Livini, pro separate Palistinian and negotiated peace; though on Israels terms )... has confirmed the jist of what these leaks reviel.... It's been the Palistinians who have come out and said they are all false and misleading. This is understandable because these leaks show the Palistinians bascially surrendering, and the Israeli's saying not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Give it up, JMS. That would have been your take on it if every Israeli packed its bags and left the country and for the rest of their lifetime gave half their money to the Palestinians in repairation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The question I would ask is did they offer all in one package...and what were the other conditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 This does't make much sense to me. The Palestinian people would have freaked out if it had gone through. Extremists always find reasons to freak out Israel make peace and extremists in Israel shoot Rabin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Give it up, JMS. That would have been your take on it if every Israeli packed its bags and left the country and for the rest of their lifetime gave half their money to the Palestinians in repairation. You got anything to say regarding the facts presented in this thread? Or does your position consist entirely of making up a position, claiming that a poster holds this position, and then attacking the poster for holding the position you invented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Give it up, JMS. That would have been your take on it if every Israeli packed its bags and left the country and for the rest of their lifetime gave half their money to the Palestinians in repairation. Actually you have not one shred of evidence to support your assertion, that my interpretation of events is constant inspite of the realities on the ground. That "my take on it", the current story; doesn't have anything to do with the current story. On the other hand, we do have 100% irrefutable evidence that your take is entirely consistant regardless of the ever more condemning facts which come out of that region. The Israeli negotiators seems to have confirmed that the Palistinians basically surrendered. Israel could have gotten the rights to everything they've taken, all they would have had to do is agree to stop stealing Palistinian land, and put up with the Palistinians in their own country on her boarders; something that three the four main Israeli parties, including the two most popular political parties; seem to endorse. ( Labor, Libni, Lakud ). So the slipper you tried to slide on my foot seems to fit your own foot much better... there Princes. However If "every Israeli packed its(sic) bags and left the country and for the rest of their lifetime gave half their money to the Palestinians in repairation'; and i still say Israeli's haven't done enough; then feel free to resubmit your opinion. ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:36 AM ---------- The question I would ask is did they offer all in one package...and what were the other conditions That's a good question. Yes, it seems the concessions were all offered in one package... The real issue for the Israeli's seems to be what concessions they would have to make. We don't know for sure what these would be but we could guess at a few of them..... The Palistinians gave up most of their territory in Jerusalem, but not all of it. Which likely would mean the palistinians would still want to make what land they had their capital. Joint capitals in Jeruselem has always been a non starter for Israel. The papers say the Palistinians would "allow Israel to keep her settlements in the west bank". there is enough gray area there to drive a truck throught. In the last serious peace talks under Clinton; Israel was going after not just the lands the settlements were on; but also security buffers around those settlements, the land the infrastructure for those settlements was on ( electric, telephone, sewage lines)... and also the roads connecting those settlements.. So it's possible just the settlement land was not enough for Israel. Israel was also looking for permanent military presense in the west bank to secure their roads, infrasturcutre etc. Which these papers don't mention. Lastly Israel wanted the pre-negotiated right to invade the west bank, to secure their settlements if she felt those settlements were under threat. Again I didn't read that the PA "concessions" addressed any of the Israeli issues with regards to the settlements. Right of return being a "token" number of returnee's. Likewise is pretty vague. One sides token could be another sides land slide. My last thought is on the Palistinians side. It's possible that Israel got everything they wanted; but did not think the deal would survive a popular refferendum on the Palistinian side. Perhaps that's why Israel declined it. The PA has said they would put any negotiated deal up for a Popular refferendum; likewise that is the only way Hamas said they would support such a deal. These are all plausable alternatives to my belief that Israel feels based upon recent history; they are better off trying to win the troubles outright and just continue to push the palestinians back as they have done for 60 years; rather than have a peaceful settlment which for Israel might seem more risky than relying on their military superiority....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 So far an Israeli negotiator associated with the old Olmerit government. ( Livini, pro separate Palistinian and negotiated peace; though on Israels terms )... has confirmed the jist of what these leaks reviel.... It's been the Palistinians who have come out and said they are all false and misleading. This is understandable because these leaks show the Palistinians bascially surrendering, and the Israeli's saying not good enough. Considering how the Palestinians aren't even acknowledging that such a deal was offered perhaps Israel didn't feel the Palestinian negotiator had the authority to make such huge concessions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Israel doesn't want peace, it wants land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 What if these leaks are false and are being done to undermine the peace and hurt the Palestiniane negotiators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Considering how the Palestinians aren't even acknowledging that such a deal was offered perhaps Israel didn't feel the Palestinian negotiator had the authority to make such huge concessions? Yep, that is plausable. I mentioned that above. ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:52 AM ---------- What if these leaks are false and are being done to undermine the peace and hurt the Palestiniane negotiators? I have heard this hypothesis. Here is my thoughts on it... First, it's true that these leaks siginicantly hurt the Palistinians negotiators and the PA right down to it's core. It basically highlites that they believe the palistinians have lost. Very unpopular among the hard core Palistinian groups. Problem with the theory Israel might have leaked these documents to "destroy" the PA is it's a two edged sword. The leaks show Israels intransigence; which severely hurts Israel with the international community. Frankly the international community is a larger existential threat to Israel today than are the PA. International solidarity is what made the economically much stronger South Africa conceed to the ANC. That along with perhaps Iran's potential nuclear threat would be what Israel is most concerned with. So I woudln't see Israel leaking these documents.... The leaks cut both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Considering how the Palestinians aren't even acknowledging that such a deal was offered perhaps Israel didn't feel the Palestinian negotiator had the authority to make such huge concessions? Logical point. OTOH, assume it's true. If Israel agrees to these terms, and then, so to speak, the Palestinian Senate refuses to ratify the treaty, then what has Israel lost? Seems to me that if Israel agrees to the proposal, and the Palestinians then reneg on it, then Israel has lost nothing, and has received enormous political capital from the deal. ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:56 AM ---------- What if these leaks are false and are being done to undermine the peace and hurt the Palestiniane negotiators? Undermine the what? Did you just refer to the current condition between Israel and the Palestinians as "peace"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 09:52 AM ---------- I have heard this hypothesis. Here is my thoughts on it... First, it's true that these leaks siginicantly hurt the Palistinians negotiators and the PA right down to it's core. It basically highlites that they believe the palistinians have lost. Very unpopular among the hard core Palistinian groups. Problem with the theory Israel might have leaked these documents to "destroy" the PA is it's a two edged sword. The leaks show Israels intransigence; which severely hurts Israel with the international community. Frankly the international community is a larger existential threat to Israel today than are the PA. International solidarity is what made the economically much stronger South Africa conceed to the ANC. That along with perhaps Iran's potential nuclear threat would be what Israel is most concerned with. So I woudln't see Israel leaking these documents.... The leaks cut both ways. There are some who think it is being done by those who want power in the PA Now the thing is if peace were to come to the middle east would that not start to cut the need for so much US aid pouring into the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Logical point. OTOH, assume it's true. If Israel agrees to these terms, and then, so to speak, the Palestinian Senate refuses to ratify the treaty, then what has Israel lost? Seems to me that if Israel agrees to the proposal, and the Palestinians then reneg on it, then Israel has lost nothing, and has received enormous political capital from the deal. I frankly agree with you. But trying to look at it from a very conservative Israel perspective what Israel has lost potentially is negotiation momentum. The deal seems so one sided only because the PA's concessions are so large. If the Palistinians revoke the deal; maybe Israel feared this deal would become the basis of the next round of talks; talks where Israel's room to manuever would be curtailed by this agreement which was only perhaps acceptable because of thsoe huge concessions which are no longer part of this deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You are ignoring a leak by Hamas to take down Abbas,always look for who gains from leaks You have support for it being a package deal?...link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 There are some who think it is being done by those who want power in the PA It seems to me the only folks who benifit from the demise of the PA is Hamas. It doesn't seem to me that if the current leadership of the PA looses the confidence of the peaple a new group of leaders in the PA would be able to retain power. Now the thing is if peace were to come to the middle east would that not start to cut the need for so much US aid pouring into the area? Every time Israel signs a peace treaty Uncle Sam pulls out his check book. Yeah Israel might eventually loose the 3-4 billion a year we give them if they sign a peace deal with the Palistinians. But that would be down the road considerable from the signing cerimony. Also we would probable hand them a check for 40 billion the day the deal was signed. That's the number they were kicking around whcn Clinton was holding his talks which seemed to be close to settling the troubles before they blew up. So if saving money is the motivation for the leaks, it woudl incriminate a US taxpayer as leaking these papers ( tea baggers?). Cause the status quo for the US tax payer from a financial perspective is likely cheaper than a peace deal. Least over the short term. Again problem with that senario is today, Peace never really seemed emminent. A patriotic tea party freshman congressman wouldn't need to sabatoge peace talks which were not ongoing and didn't really look like they would be ongoing any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 There are some who think it is being done by those who want power in the PANow the thing is if peace were to come to the middle east would that not start to cut the need for so much US aid pouring into the area? I could certainly see that. I would assert that the people who would most benefit from such a leak would be Hamas. (Or someone "of that ilk", like Iran or Syria.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 You are ignoring a leak by Hamas to take down Abbas,always look for who gains from leaks Yes Hamas would make sense. If hurting the PA was their only goal. Still I think Hamas has enough on their plates just handling GAZA and their ongoing troubles with the IDF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Every time Israel signs a peace treaty Uncle Sam pulls out his check book. Agreed. If there's a deal between Israel and the Palestenians, then the the US pours money into the area. On both sides. Look at Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I could certainly see that. I would assert that the people who would most benefit from such a leak would be Hamas. (Or someone "of that ilk", like Iran or Syria.) That's a good one. Iran.. That would really fit. Hamas doesn't seem to have the contacts, skills or awareness to pull off something this subtle. I kind of equate them with survivalists collecting weapons while living in bunkers. Subtle media manipulation at the expense of the PA seems to be beyond them. Least they haven't done so previously in this manor. Likewise I don't think they have any serious proposition for taking power in the west bank. Israel wouldn't allow it, and they know it.... Iran however. they are definitely crafty like this. Just throw a monkey wrench into the entire works. No down side from the Iranian perspective; as they are more than willing to fight the Israeli's to the last Palistinian standing. ---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 10:22 AM ---------- Agreed. If there's a deal between Israel and the Palestenians, then the the US pours money into the area. On both sides. Look at Egypt. Yep, and I'm not complaining. If we could solve/ease the middle east trouibles with a check; best money we've ever spent from my perspective. Nobody cares that It costs the US several billion a year to Egypt in echange for the Camp David Peace deal with ISrael in the mid 1970's. Nobody cares in total we've sunk about 60 billion into Egypt because of that peace. We all just slap ourselves on the back that the peace deal is holding up and count ourselves lucky. Or the 24 billion sunk into the Israel peace deal with Jordan. Love it... If it deverts one war; well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 So as I understand it these papers have the palitinians making major concessions on three huge issues. (1) Settlements - Israel get's to keep almost all their settlemnts in the west bank. (2) Jersusalem - Israel was to get to keep all the Jewish quarter of east Jerusalem and most of the Armenian quarter. (3) The Right of Return for Palistinian refugees. - The Palistinians would settle for only token repatriation. Again huge. As I understand it this basically takes most of the major issues off the board. All settled in Israel's favor. Yet Israel rejected these terms? My take on this is Israel isn't interested in a peace based on the status quoe. Israel is actively winning the peace; year to year, decade to decade they feel they are getting stronger. Why should they settle for a peace which leave any Palistinians in place? That's the message I take from these leaks. see where you get So far an Israeli negotiator associated with the old Olmerit government. ( Livini, pro separate Palistinian and negotiated peace; though on Israels terms )... has confirmed the jist of what these leaks reviel.... It's been the Palistinians who have come out and said they are all false and misleading. This is understandable because these leaks show the Palistinians bascially surrendering, and the Israeli's saying not good enough. OK I don't see where you get the first point from. Apparently the offer was that Israel gets to keep most of their East Jerusalem settlements (doesn't mention the West Back Settlements). Which of course is no offer at all as Israels' non negotiable position has always been that all of Jerusalem remains with Israel. The rest of the West Bank is what they are willing to negotiate over. So this leak attempts to show Palestinians are willing to bend on their demands but in fact encroaches on a non-negotiable area for the Israelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Isreal in the news again?...astonishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Actually you have not one shred of evidence to support your assertion, that my interpretation of events is constant inspite of the realities on the ground. That "my take on it", the current story; doesn't have anything to do with the current story. I have read you for years now and seen how any story that even remotely touches on this issue leads to you coming out and making specific arguments and decrying Israeli villainy. It's tiresome. At least to me. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but as I recall when Israel agreed to 90% of the Palestinian's positions years ago... you said that was tantamount to nothing, because they wouldn't give them what they wanted. Here, you say... hey, the Palestinians... may have, if these leaks are true, offered three large hypothetical concessions at some point in some negotiation that wasn't even necessarily agreed to by the Palestinians... and your argument is... This shows that the Israelis aren't interested in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.