It’s funny how one distinct storyline is being pushed by media, that of how Palestinians are angry over disclosure of their side being the one that actually wanted the peace, that their side blinked, that their side so desperately needed a win to justify themselves.
And Israelis, off the hook with occasional but expected praise. I must live in a parallel universe :o
What I want to know is…if the Palestinians (the PLO) were bending over backwards in their negotiations, why didn’t Israel take them up on it? Why has the government and its supporters been painting the Palestinians as greedy-gusses with unreasonable demands if, assuming these documents are true, that hasn’t been the case (at least behind the scenes)?
That’s what make Israel looks bad, IMHO.
I wish I had Al-Jazeera on my non-existent cable box. It would be interesting to see the Palestinian-man-on-the-street’s opinion on this matter first-hand, rather than hearing speculations about what they probably are. I mean, I’d probably be pissed if I were Palestinian too, but not for the reasons that are being given. I’d be pissed that ten years ago the whole mess could have been squashed, and yet I’m still living in a bombed-out refugee camp. I’d be furious, actually.
It is being said that Hamas is going to get a lot of steam out of this, since they will be able to point out how much of a sell-out the PLO was. But I would think that the average Palestinian would be willing to do anything just to have a real home and citizenship SOMEWHERE. So if I were Ms. Palestinian, my response to Hamas would be, “Yeah, they may have been sell-outs, but what have you done for us!?”
For those reading along and curious of the context, negotiations between Israel and the PA broke down in December of 2008. This was largely due to the fact that Israel went to war against Hamas in Gaza. Negotiations didn’t just inexplicably stop.
Not true. What United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 actually says about refugees is that the two parties must:
[
Casting “a just settlement” as “The Right of Return” is not accurate. You were probably thinking about United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, not UNSCR 242.
(And I think you mean “enshrined”. Although the UN does do some “enshrouding”…)
FinnAgain: The Palestinians offered to cut right of return to a symbolic 1,000 a year over a ten year period, as cited above. Clearly they didn’t say so in public, but that’s what they offered behind closed doors.
That’s pretty much giving up right of return, or at least 99,8% of it.
They didn’t so much bend over backwards as do reverse cartwheels at supersonic speeds.
I was responding to the claim that: “to say the Palestinians have ever asked for anything more than a symbolic gesture in negoiatiosn with Israel in this respect is wrong.”
Two simple questions (and they’re not supposed to be rhetorical - I actually want to know.)
Is it true or is it not true that the various organizations (PLO, Hamas, Fatah, etc) that they have chosen to represent them explicitly state that their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel?
If Israel were to negotiate a peace deal favorable to the Arabs (creation of a second state, or something else), would these organizations drop the goal of destroying Israel?
The PLO (Fatah being a member of the PLO) has recognized Israel’s right to exist. As far as I can remember, Hamas has not.
I am not sure why it would matter that one political group did or did not drop some rhetoric. The resultant peace deal would give no control by Palestinians over their air space or ports, no control over anything in the way that we would think a sovereign nation would control their borders. Israel would have nothing to fear from Hamas whether they changed their rhetoric or not. The better question is why is it necessary for millions of people and the democratic process to be repressed in the Palestinian territories because of a few words in a charter?
Fatah is a bit more complex. They have, at least, come to stand for some degree of peace and security with Israel… but they also sling the lingo when required as the ‘street’ doesn’t always take too kindly to such talk (as the reaction to these recent leaks demonstrates). It’s a good bit more involved and nuanced than that, but that’s the general situation.
As for peace, I’d wager that Fatah might actually make good on negotiations but Hamas most certainly would not.
It just shows how absurd the whole thing is. Virtually everyone knows what an actual peace agreement will look like and of course it includes land swaps modifying the 1967 line and the Palestinian side giving up most if not all of E Jerusalem (some symbolic presence) and the Right to Return (allowing instead some symbolic number and other face saving concessions in exchange). It also includes Israel having to evacuate some settlements as well. Of course any serious negotiation included those options with the only real questions being what gets packaged around it - how does Israel get reassured that security can be delivered and what else do the Palestinians get in terms which land in exchange, of water rights, revenue sharing, etc. - and how then to sell it to each side’s voters.
Everyone knows this and yet neither side can publicly admit to it. Neither side can stand up to their domestic pressures to look tough until they can present the whole package and sell that they are getting enough in return.
I actually have tons of sympathy for the Palestinian negotiators. The fact is that with the Hamas split, their bargaining power is basically nil - they cannot even legitimately offer a comprehensive peace, as that is no longer in their power to command; any goodwill gestures they make can easily be countered by Hamas provocations, and it is in Hamas’ best interests to avoid any comprehensive peace - which would invariably undercut its influence vs. the PA. Meanwhile, any realistic concessions they make will be seen (as demonstrated) as ‘sell-outs’. They are boxed in.
It doesn’t help that the current Israeli gov’t is the most hardline in years and uninterested in making any concessions.
I think these papers show, actually confirm what has been for a long time just a speculation (usually branded as anti-Semitic; i.e. those who accused Israel of not wanting the peace) that there is a policy in place, regardless of what Government is governing, the policy of continued and never-ending climate of tension maintained for the purpose of grabbing more land and further erosion of human rights of Palestinians. But really, it is not about the land or Palestinians anymore. The activities that Israel engages in against Palestinians and their property are just a vehicle for something of a bigger long term value.
These activities are useful, and in my opinion quite instrumental in three long term initiatives:
Use of this conflict as a vehicle for mounting political, diplomatic and, in some cases, armed conflict with various neighbouring countries (think Iran, Syria and Lebanon)
Use of the conflict for maintainance of its favourite position in the overall US foreign policy and central role specifically with respect to ME (now that Cold War is over)
Use of the conflict for maintain war-like atmosphere in the country of Israel thus enabling certain breed of politicians and their electorate to rule the country since inception (I find this one most disturbing).
At the same time, what is really palatable, but then equally previously speculated, is that US policy makers are too well aware of this; they knew of this dynamic during the talks and choose, deliberately to misinform and mislead US public in collaboration with media to leave an impression that it is in fact Palestinians who are the obstacle to the peace.
Where to go from here is hard to say but I do not see anyone really making any fuss about these revelations. So, I guess, it’s business as usual.
Woah, I don’t agree that it shows anything of the sort. You are I thing assigning far to much malicious and purposive intent and control to Israeli politicians, in addition to I think falsely assuming that they are, in spite of their vicious party differences, really all in cahoots together.
This is not reflective of the reality of Israeli domestic politics, or of politics in the area as a whole. Israel is not the only actor here, and nor is it, or its political class, united in purpose. Neither, for that matter, are the Palestinians, broken as they are into warring halves.
Fact is that the “revelations” have been expressly disclaimed by the Palestinian negotiator who allegedly made them as being taken out of context and not reflecting firm offers actually made; also fact is that the event which broke off negotiations had nothing to do with the PA/Israel negotiations - it was the war with Hamas.
The temptation to take a complex situation and reduce it to a simplistic morality tale with white hats and black hats should be resisted IMHO.
You are piece of work, dude! Newspapers such as NY Times and Globe&Mail concluded main reason for those talks to stop was that Olmert had to step down due to corruption charges (surprise, surprise) and when Netanyahu came on he wanted fresh start.
It is incredible that even under the weight of the FACTS the amount f misinformation and lies coming from you is astounding. It would be in good taste, and respect for this Board in general and GD forum in particular, to just cease with nonsense.
Nobody is taking you seriously anymore, your discussion style and attitude is subject of ridicule and you should just quit.
This post is a bit ironic since you are breaking forum rules here. You’re not allowed to call another poster a liar in GD, and these personal comments are not appropriate in general. In the future please save this kind of thing for the Pit or don’t post it all.
Already cited was the fact that the talks were actually stopped by Abbas, in December of 2008. This is simple fact, you have not disputed it.
Olmert was indicted for corruption charges in August of 2009. This was eight months after Abbas froze negotiations in December of 2008.
Olmert said he would not seek re-election in July of 2008. That was six months before Abbas froze negotiations in December of 2008.
Your claims make no sense.
This does not appear factually correct. From the Washington Post:
That was in 2008. More recently, last year:
Even assuming this account is wrong (and I must say I have found no evidence of it), your account directly contradicts the keystone of your previous post: that Israeli politicians have a common outlook as a class, “… that there is a policy in place, regardless of what Government is governing”, acting towards a common goal of deliberately thwarting peace initiatives. Olmert is not the same as Bibi.