Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Palestine Papers

Showing posts with label Palestine Papers. Show all posts

Friday, May 20, 2011

Palestine Papers: Mitchell vs. Erekat

"Anyone who was even slightly familiar with the process knows full well that Prime Minister Netanyahu never gave Ambassador Mitchell a chance," resigned negotiations affairs official Saeb Erekat lashed out Thursday.

Well, according to the PLO's own transcripts of meetings between Erekat and Mitchell, it sure looks like it is Erekat himself who frustrated Mitchell:

GM: But if you have good faith negotiations …

SE: They have a different interpretation of good faith, if you ever dealt with the Israelis.

GM: I would agree with Israel if you were negotiating and bringing actions against them [going to international bodies] it would be in bad faith.

SE: If they don’t take illegal measures, I would have no complaint. You think I complain for nothing! You know even rabbits have defence mechanisms. Let say they throw more families out of their homes. They defied you on this, and the UN.

GM: You can go for a public statement. The ICC is a different thing.

SE: I might go to the General Assembly.

GM: You would go to the GA if two families are thrown out?

SE: Maybe if it’s 50 families.

GM: Let’s not get diverted.
...

GM: How would the process begin?

SE: It’s been happening. Netanyahu tested you – what can be done. He’s getting the message. You should tell him you’re not going to have the cake and it too, if you want Lieberman and the settlements. And you’re not going to get me to sit with him under these circumstances. We know Bibi. He’s nervous. That’s why he is making a campaign now ‘asking’ AM to be a leader.

GM: So no talks with him while settlement activity continues.

SE: Yes. You asked me yesterday and I said that.

GM: So why are we having a discussion over the language?

SE: That’s a good question.

GM: So even if we give you the your ToR language, there will be no negotiations without the freeze?

SE: Yes.

GM: Then please rip out and the text I read out. [RD and KE hand GM papers] So you want us to give you the outcome. You’re saying there won’t even be negotiations. That’s your position.

SE: As long as BN continues as I said. They can send YD and AG to talk to us.

GM: So we reconsider the whole approach – why talk to both sides?

SE: It’s important. To get them to make decisions.

GM: But they need to make decisions with you, not us. And you’re not taking the same position as before. You negotiated without a freeze all the time.

SE: I told DH while you were out: don’t fool us. All the promises over the years – not delivered. The last time it was Bush, with Frasier and Selva. They did not deliver Before that Clinton and before that Baker.

GM: It was never promised. They said they would make an effort.

SE: They promised us last time they will be the judge.
...

GM: In all candour, your assessment of the political situation in Israel is totally wrong.

SE: I know the Israelis. If someone sneezes in Tel Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho. We know what it take, after 19 years. They cannot decide if they want two states. They want to keep settling in the areas of my state.

GM: But they will settle more if you continue this way.

SE: Then we announce the one state and the struggle for equality in the state of Israel. If our state will not be viable and will have the wall we will fight against apartheid. You either have a decision for peace or a decision for settlements. You cannot have both. Maybe as people keep saying that we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but we were never given an opportunity, not my grandparents or my parents, like I am not being given an opportunity.

GM: You’ve expressed your frustration over the last 19 years. But I tell you there has never been a president on this issue like this one. You are denying him the opportunity to create the state that you want. By saying one state you are telling him to get out, even though you negotiated with every Israeli government before under different administrations.

SE: We’re beat. We’re like a horse without rations who can’t walk.

GM: So then summon all your energy.

(h/t Serious Black)

Abbas never responded to Olmert's peace offer in 2008

An important document analyzes the Palestine Papers and shows, once again, that the Palestinian Authority has never had any serious interest in peace.

Here's the executive summary:

Earlier this year Al Jazeera released the “Palestine Papers” -- nearly 1,700 files of documents authored by Palestinian negotiators and advisors, memorializing a decade of Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East has carefully reviewed the Palestine Papers,including those documents concerning the comprehensive peace offer Israeli Prime Minister (“PM”)Ehud Olmert made in 2008.

There has been a good deal of “hype” and sensationalism surrounding the media coverage of the Palestine Papers. Therefore, it is important for the public to read the documents for themselves when making any assessment of the course of the actual negotiations.

Some news reports and articles about the Palestine Papers have “fail[ed] to differentiate between official positions and explorations or polemical rhetoric during the course of negotiations . . .” as former chief Palestinian negotiator Dr. Saeb Erekat wrote in a recent article. In the words of Dr. Erekat, the “‘Palestine papers’ have not revealed a single official agreement or document that offers concessions.” (Id.) We agree.

In spite of claims by some commentators that there were “far reaching proposals” on each side, the Palestine Papers indicate that Palestinian Authority (“P.A.”) President Mahmoud Abbas did not make a counter-offer to Olmert’s “package offer” and so ultimately the possibility of a final status agreement in 2008 was allowed to die.

(h/t Noah)

Palestine Papers: Erekat admits he's a liar

I missed this little gem that was picked up by Foreign Policy a couple of weeks ago - another Palestine Paper conversation that inexplicably did not make it into The Guardian or Al Jazeera..

In a meeting between Saeb Erekat and Yossi Gal from Israel's foreign ministry, the conversation starts this way:

SE: How have you been?
YG: Not too bad, can't complain, how about you?
SE: I'm lying, I've been lying for the last weeks.
YG: Between jogging?
SE: No, no, lying, lying. I was in Cairo, I was in Jordan, I was in America. Everybody is asking me what is going on Israel, what is Olmert going to do?
YG: And you are telling everyone we are on the verge of success.
SE: And I always tell them this is an internal Israeli matter, a domestic Israeli matter and I keep lying. If somebody sneezes in Tel-Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho, and I have to lie. So that's my last week -- all lies.
YG: As a professor of negotiations, you know that white lies are allowed now and then.
SE: I'm not complaining, I'm admitting -- and sometimes I don't feel like lying.
YG: Well, around this table we won't be lying.

(h/t tweet by jmalsin)

PLO dismantles negotiations unit - funded by Europe

From Ma'an:

The Palestine Liberation Organization has decided to wind up its Negotiations Support Unit after damaging leaks about the concessions it was prepared to make to Israel, an official told AFP on Monday.

The decision by the PLO Executive Committee will take effect next month, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Committee member Ahmad Majdalani told AFP that the unit would be restructured and placed under the direct supervision of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

Formed in 1999 to provide technical assistance to the Palestinian negotiating team, the unit had received funding from a number of European governments, particularly Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

The leaked papers reveal how exactly the NSU was trying to manipulate world opinion and influence the US towards their position and against Israel.

Is it appropriate for European countries to fund a group whose entire purpose is to go against Israel in negotiations? Would they have funded an Israeli negotiations unit? Why is it not considered a conflict of interest when some members of the Quartet are openly supporting one side in negotiations?

Furthermore, are these countries reviewing the papers to see if their money was spent appropriately?

When the PLO, through the NSU, says that there is no such thing as a Jewish people - does that reflect the intent of the Scandinavian and British funders of the NSU?

There are a lot of issues that the leaks bring up, and these issues are being ignored by the media.

Palestine Papers: PLO doesn't consider attacks on Jews "terrorism"

In the Palestine Papers we find some draft language created by the US to implement the Tenet Understandings in 2002, especially in the areas of PA responsibility for security.

Here is one of the original paragraphs, and the PLO's suggested revision:

Even though this was written during the height of the Palestinian Arab suicide bombing spree in Israel, the PLO specifically excises any reference to terrorism.

Even then, the "moderate" PA could not admit to the US that the attacks against Israeli civilians were the textbook definition of terrorism.

Guardian admits spinning PalPapers quote - but where are the other corrections?

From Just Journalism:

On the first day of The Guardian’s Palestine papers expose, on Monday 24 January, when Palestinian negotiators were attacked as ‘weak’ and ‘craven’, a quote from then foreign minister Tzipi Livni appeared in a box, titled, ‘What they said…’. It read:

‘The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.’ Tzipi Livni, then Israeli foreign minister

However, the newspaper on Saturday acknowledged that the full quote shows that Livni was characterising the Palestinian perception of Israeli policies, and not the policies themselves. What she actually said was:

‘I understand the sentiments of the Palestinians when they see the settlements being built. The meaning from the Palestinian perspective is that Israel takes more land, that the Palestinian state will be impossible, the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.’
By cutting the quote to exclude the first part of Tzipi Livni’s sentence, The Guardian portrayed the Israeli politician as brazenly admitting a policy of making a Palestinian state impossible.

That's great, but it is a drop in the bucket of Guardian misquotes from The Palestine Papers, a pattern that can hardly be accidental.

Here are some:

The Guardian headlined an article "Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal." yet the papers said no such thing. Instead they said that the PLO has no problem with how Israel defines itself, a position they have said publicly, but they would never accept that definition. In fact, they would never accept that there is something called "the Jewish people."

In that same article, they claimed that "Israeli leaders pressed for the highly controversial transfer of some of their own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state." In reality, the Israeli leaders were saying that they did not want to have villages divided into two states, and the villages should be in one state or another. Moreover, the Guardian misuses the word "transfer" which is usually meant to indicate moving people from their homes.

The same article mischaracterizes Livni a third time by writing

[I]n an extraordinary comment in November 2007, Livni – who briefly had a British arrest warrant issued against her in 2009 over alleged war crimes in Gaza – is recorded as saying: "I was the minister of justice. I am a lawyer ... But I am against law – international law in particular. Law in general."

She made clear that what might have seemed to be a joke was meant more seriously by using the point to argue against international law as one of the terms of reference for the talks and insisting that "Palestinians don't really need international law". The Palestinian negotiators protested about the claim.

In fact she was referring to putting a reference to international law in the Terms of Reference of a joint statement at Annapolis - not saying she was against international law altogether, as the Guardian implies. They also put the "Palestinians don't really need international law" as a Livni quote, when it was a paraphrase in the actual memo, again referring to the joint statement.

Three misquotes in one single article. Three examples of willful deception onthe part of those who read the actual memos. And The Guardian has yet to correct any of them.

Palestine Papers: Arguments about "two states for two peoples"

In the preparation for Annapolis, the Israeli and Palestinian Arab negotiators discussed what a joint statement might look like. Tzipi Livni wanted to say that the end-game is two states for two peoples - and the Palestinian Arabs objected, for reasons that they themselves detailed.

Here are some sections of the discussion:

Tzipi Livni: Two states is the ultimate goal of the process. But also part of the TOR [Terms of Reference document they are drafting.] Each state is the answer to the natural aspirations of its people.

Saeb Erekat: [Raises roadmap language regarding unequivocal duty to accept each state as is. Reads from the roadmap.]

TL: To say the idea that two nation states contradicts the roadmap..…

SE: [But we’ve never denied Israel’s right to define itself.]
If you want to call your state the Jewish State of Israel you can call it what you want. [Notes examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia.]

TL: I said basically that our position is a reference to the fact that each state is an answer to the national aspirations of their people.

Akram Haniyeh: There was an article in Haaretz saying that Palestinians would be stupid if they accept this [i.e. the Jewish state].

TL: Someone wrote the Palestinians?

Ahmed Querei [AA]: I want to say two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Tal Becker: That’s all? [Sarcastically.]

AA: Yes that’s our position. Two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is what we want to have. This small sentence.

TL: I just want to say something. ...Our idea is to refer to two states for two peoples. Or two nation states, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security with each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination...

AH: This refers to the Israeli people?

TL: [Visibly angered.] I think that we can use another session – about what it means to be a Jew and that it is more than just a religion. But if you want to take us back to 1947 -- it won’t help. Each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory. Israel the state of the Jewish people -- and I would like to emphasize the meaning of “its people” is the Jewish people -- with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3007 years... [The Palestinian team protests.] You asked for it. [AA: We said East Jerusalem!] …and Palestine for the Palestinian people. We did not want to say that there is a “Palestinian people” but we’ve accepted your right to self determination.

AA: Why is it different?

TL: I didn’t ask for something that relates to my own self. I didn’t ask for recognizing something that is the internal decision of Israel. Israel can do so, it is a sovereign state. [We want you to recognize it.] The whole idea of the conflict is … the entire point is the establishment of the Jewish state. And yet we still have a conflict between us. We used to think it is because the Jews and the Arabs… but now the Palestinians… we used to say that we have no right to define the Palestinian people as a people. They can define it themselves. In 1947 it was between Jews and Arabs, and then [at that point the purpose] from the Israeli side to [was] say that the Palestinians are Arabs and not [Palestinians – it was an excuse not to create a Palestinian state. We'’ve passed that point in time and I'’m not going to raise it. The whole conflict between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is not the idea of creating a democratic state that is viable etc. It is to divide it into two.] For each state to create its own problem. Then we can ask ourselves is it viable, what is the nature of the two states. In order to end the conflict we have to say that this is the basis. I know that your problem is saying this is problematic because of the refugees. During the final status negotiations we will have an answer to the refugees. You know my position. Even having a Jewish state -- it doesn’t say anything about your demands. …. Without it, why should we create a Palestinian state?

...There is something that is shorter. I can read something with different wording:
That the ultimate goal is constituting the homeland for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people respectively, and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory.

The joint declaration at Annapolis did not include any wording about the Jewish people, but afterwards President Bush said "The [final peace] settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people...The United States will keep its strong commitment to the security of the State of Israel and its existence as a homeland for the Jewish people."

By the way, the Guardian definitely saw this memo, because it was the one that they and Al Jazeera misquoted as saying that Livni said she was against international law. (She didn't.)

Palestine Papers: PLO denies that there is a "Jewish people"

My latest Palestine Papers scoop can be seen at NewsRealBlog.

You'll like it.

Palestine Papers: Jews legally own land in the territories

Here's another EoZ scoop that the Guardian could have broken - but decided not to.

In another bombshell document that the Guardian and Al Jazeera did not believe is newsworthy, in 2008 the PLO wrote a paper describing the legal rights of Jews to lands that they owned prior to 1948.

The intent was to have a position ready in case Israel brought the issue up in negotiations. It was not presented to Israel.

It is astonishing to read paragraphs like these from the PLO:

Jews who owned land have the right to have their land restored to them or to be compensated, if restitution is not materially possible. Jews are entitled to compensation for other material and non-material losses, including lost profits, lost income, etc. caused by their displacement and dispossession.

Of course, they hold this position because they do not want to appear hypocritical with their demands from Israel. (The PLO also includes an annex to list legal arguments that Jews do not have any rights to the land anymore, in case they need to use those arguments publicly.)

Some of the parts are fascinating. For example, it describes (and implicitly supports) the bigoted British policy of severely restricting the rights of Jews - and only Jews - to buy land before 1948:

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

Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan and Egypt essentially confiscated Jewish-owned land, against international humanitarian law:

The Custodian [of Enemy Property] held and administered Jewish-owned in the West Bank until 1967 according to the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance (as opposed to administering the land like absentee property according to the powers and rules of IHL).38 Some of these assets were used by the Custodian for public purposes, such as the establishment of refugee camps, the rehabilitation of refugees, and the setting up of army camps and marketplaces. In other cases, the property was leased to private individuals, who used the land for agricultural, commercial or residential purposes, depending on its characteristics.

...
By the Order Providing Regulations for the Administration of Jews’ Property in the Areas Subject to the Control of the Egyptian Forces in Palestine, No. 25 (issued in 1948, published in 1950), Egypt appointed a Director General to administer property owned by Jews who fled in 1948. The Director General used the parcels for public projects, including refugee camps for Palestine Arabs, or leased them for private uses.41

Finally, the document describes some specific lands indisputably owned by Jews - even according to the Palestinian Arabs.

[L]and located on Mount Scopus...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

...By 1946, the JNF acquired 72,300 dunums in the Gaza district, which encompassed more than present-day Gaza.

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.

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.

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

The JNF lost land in the Dheisheh refugee camp in the West Bank as well, and this matter has been postponed for the eventual [peace] talks for over a decade.

Now, why wouldn't The Guardian or its partner Al Jazeera want to write about a paper that details Jewish legal rights to lands in the territories?

Could it be that these "news" organizations are more interested in manipulating the news rather than reporting it?

This paper doesn't merely hurt the PLO, as most of the papers that made The Guardian's pages were intended to do, but the entire Palestinian Arab national movement - and that's a big taboo in the newsroom of The Guardian. (Not to mention the inconvenient fact that Great Britain made laws specifically banning land sales to people based merely on their religion. Slightly embarrassing, no?)

This is one of the Palestine Papers stories they wanted to remain buried.

(Other Palestine Papers scoops here.)

Palestine Papers: PLO distinguishes between "Wailing Wall" and the Kotel

One of the more interesting papers released in the "Palestine Papers" is something called The End Game, which is a presumably US (or perhaps Israel)-written outline of what a final agreement would look like, along with PLO comments. Meaning that it was meant to encapsulate "what everyone knows" the final agreement would be like. It was written in April 2008.

Here's one section of the main document:

The Capital of the State of Palestine will comprise essentially of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem including the Holy Site of Al-Haram over which the State of Palestine will have sovereignty 9. Israel will have sovereignty 10 over the Western Wall 11, the Jewish Quarter and parts of the Armenian Quarter 12. The City of Jerusalem will be an open city, Capital for both Israel (Yerushalayim) and Palestine (AlQods)13.

The PLO's notes:

9 The sentence, as drafted, is both overly vague and problematic. The proposition that Arab areas will be Palestinian while Israeli settlements in “East Jerusalem” will be Israeli suggests that the Israeli definition of municipal Jerusalem is the starting point. This runs counter to the Palestinian position (and numerous UN resolutions) that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank is illegal and that the base line of 1967 must also apply in East Jerusalem.

The PLO position on Jerusalem is that East Jerusalem, along the 1967 borders and within its pre-occupation municipal lines shall be the capital of Palestine, and West Jerusalem shall be the capital of Israel. This articulation of the position is intended to define the Palestinian Capital in the agreement with Israel to include the Old City and its surroundings. Any possible future expansion of the city post-statehood will be subject solely to the discretion of Palestinians.

Meaning that the PLO, for all its supposed flexibility, was not giving up any part of the Old City, but perhaps just granting access to some Jews to their homes and holy place under Arab rule.

10 The Wailing Wall is part of the western wall of the Haram Al-Sharif, which must be under Palestinian sovereignty. Therefore, granting Israel sovereignty over the western wall or sections thereof would run counter to that. Israel’s primary interests are to preserve the religious significance of and Jewish prayer rights at the Wailing Wall, which can be met by other means short of granting sovereignty over the Wall to Israel (e.g., prayer/access rights, administration rights over the surface of the Wailing Wall, etc.)

Pretty self-explanatory and it again shows that the supposed flexibility of the PLO did not extend to the sovereignty of the Kotel.

Now, they try to cut down the size of the Kotel (short for Kotel HaMaaravi, "Western Wall," the Hebrew name of the Wall for at least a thousand years:)

11 Should be the “Wailing Wall” rather than “Western Wall”. The entire Western Wall is 470 meters long, whereas the Wailing Wall portion, on which Jews practice their religion, is just 60 meters long. It should be noted that prior to the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 the length of the Wailing Wall section of the western wall was 28 meters. Following its occupation of East Jerusalem, Israel demolished all the houses of the Maghriba uarter adjacent to the wall in order to expand the area of the Wailing Wall to its current length of 60 meters length and to create a plaza in front of it. It should also be noted that currently there are many Palestinian houses attached to western wall from the northern edge of the Wailing Wall to the northern edge of the western wall.

The Arabs are pretending that the open plaza of the Kotel is the only place that is holy to Jews, when in fact the entire Temple Mount and supporting walls (as well as all of Jerusalem!) are holy. In the PLO's formuation, the Kotel ha-Katan (which is actually holier than the section of the wall visible on the plaza) as well as other places that Jews worship would become Jew-free - just the way the Mufti wanted it.

12 The Jewish Quarter nowadays is comprised of the historical Jewish quarter, along with the Palestinian Maghriba quarter and other Palestinian houses that were demolished by Israel. “Parts of the Armenian Quarter” is overly vague and, as such, opens the door to the further expansion of the Jewish Quarter. Furthermore, most houses currently occupied by Jews in the Armenian Quarter were seized illegally by settlers.

What is the "Palestinian Maghriba" quarter? It appears to refer to the supposed Mughrabi quarter, which was defined after 1967 as the section in front of what is now the Kotel plaza. Before 1967 I cannot find any mention of this supposed "quarter," let alone any mention of it being "Palestinian."

For the past several hundred years Jerusalem had four quarters (hence, the name "quarter"). As Encyclopedia Britannica wrote in 1888:

There are now four quarters: —that of the Moslems (including the Haram) on the north-east, the Jewish quarter on the south east, the Armenian quarter on the south-west, the Christian on the north-west. The quarters are bounded by David (or Temple) Street, running east from the Jaffa gate, and by the street running north and south immediately east of the Holy Sepulchre (called Marat el Yehud on the south and Tarik Bab el 'Amud on the north).

Britannica goes on to show that the PLO's attempt to limit Jews to the Jewish Quarter is against history as well:

The quarters are not, however, exclusively occupied by any nationality, many rich Jews having houses in the Armenian and even in the Moslem quarter. In the 12th century the present Moslem quarter was occupied by the Jews, and called the Juiverie.

Even the enlightened, intelligent and moderate PLO negotiators prove here their bigotry and tendency to lie.

Palestine Papers: Fake letter from "Palestinian businessmen" to Obama

In the trove of so-called "Palestine Papers," we find a draft letter that was supposedly written by anonymous "Palestinian businessmen" was written to then-President Elect Obama.

The letter was obviously drafted by the PLO, as it echoes similar letters ghost-written by Abbas to Obama in the same time period.

This is a cynical ploy, akin to presenting a petition with fake names. It is a good example of the deception that the PLO uses when trying to influence world leaders. Even more cynical is that the fake "businessmen" can tell baldfaced lies to Obama without being called out for being liars - something that the PLO negotiators cannot do directly. Some are highlighted below.

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

Of course, the Palestinian Arab economy has boomed since Netanyahu has been in office. And the relevance of "East Jerusalem" and "refugees" to "businessmen" is never quite explained.

This is nothing but cynicism and an easy excuse to promote lies.

Palestine Papers: How the PA tried to write an Obama "peace plan"

In May, 2009, the Palestinian Arab negotiating team tried a new tactic: They wrote their own "road map" together with the Arab League and tried to make Obama adopt it as if it was his idea.

SE: We are working hard on one thing: the Regional Road Map (RRM). I have shared it with Russia (Lavrov), Javier Solana, Spain (Moratinos), UK (Miliband), French, Germans. The Jordanians made comments; they want to identify their role in Jerusalem. Egypt wanted to change “Rafah” to “all crossings” and wants to change the term “terrorism.” We are still waiting on comments from Syria, we should get them by the 14th. They have said they will have stylistic, not substantive changes.The Saudis said the RRM is excellent but want to add Morocco. Solana also said it is excellent. This time we are involving the Chinese and Japanese. Mitchell heard about it and said he needs a copy before Obama receives it so I gave him a copy.

We are breaking the Arab behavior of going to America and telling him what we need. Instead we are telling Obama that we can help. We can help in Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. And Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan all need to tell Obama how they can help him. I went to Kurdistan. If other countries think they can use Hamas as a card we will do the same with them. We are not running a charity. Iran is playing games; they are using Hamas as a card.

We are taking the RRM and telling Obama we consulted with everyone on earth, now it’s your plan not ours. Make it your own. We can tell all the Arab countries, we got this document from Obama, are you in, yes or no? Put your money where your mouth is. We are instituting a zero tolerance policy for bullshit.

There are 4 new elements in the Obama administration: 1) They are pushing for the two-state solution as an American national interest, 2) they are saying the two-state solution is the only solution 3) their strategy is not a Palestinian-Israeli track, but a comprehensive regional peace, a matrix of interests and responsibilities 4) they are urging Palestinian institution reform and Fatah reform.

Rami Dajani: Is there a risk that Obama will say the RRM is a great start but then start dissecting it, like it seems he is doing with the Arab Peace Initiative (API)?

SE: whether we like it or not, Obama will take the approach we don’t want of taking baby steps. But if we give the RRM to him, it might open up his thinking. We will tell him, if you take baby steps you must define an end game and a definitive end date, and demand a complete settlement freeze.

Azem Bichara: Will you present the RRM publicly?

SE: No, not publicly. It’s Obama’s plan, we worked on it for him for free.

Azem Bichara:There is lots of buildup to Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, how can we help with that? Should we write an Op-ed before AM’s meeting outlining our ideas?

SE: Do one in my name. Prepare for me a good press conference after AM’s meeting. We need to issue a statement right after Netanyahu’s meeting.

Look at the comments from Jordan and Moratinos and tell me what you think, what we should incorporate. We don’t want Jordan involved in Jerusalem.

Also, change the title. Maybe something like “RRM for a Comprehensive Peace.” But get rid of API [Arab Peace Initiative] in title.

This was right before Obama's Cairo speech.

Palestine Papers: PA trying to get rid of Netanyahu

Here is another theme of the "Palestine Papers" that The Guardian did not believe is newsworthy: The PA is using the negotiations - and refusal to negotiate - as a way to get rid of Netanyahu and to bring back Livni.

When Netanyahu first started forming a government, Saeb Erekat tried to use his supposed intransigence as a weapon to get the US to go against him. From a February 27, 2009 meeting with George Mitchell:

It seems they are moving towards a government with 65 seats. Livni told Netanyahu her conditions for coalition: two states and political negotiations. AM [Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas] cannot demand less than Livni. We want to continue the political process and negotiations. We are committed to that. But if Israel doesn’t recognize the two-state solution and continues settlements, it will be the last nail in AM’s coffin if we send him to negotiate.

...If Netanyahu forms a government with a party that has 15 seats, with an official platform of ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Muslims and Christians who are Israeli citizens … if Barack Obama wants a policy of reconciliation with the Muslim and Arab world … with your kids dying all over the region.

You have a choice. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. You have either the cost-free way: pressure us to negotiate, which means AM negotiating with Netanyahu under continuing settlement and without recognition – this would be the last nail in AM’s coffin, or you have another choice: take the Annapolis statement: two states, and negotiations over all core issues. If the Israeli government doesn’t include in its mandate the two-states and negotiating on all issues including Jerusalem … [hands GM paper submitted to the EU via the Czechs] We are committed to peace and negotiations for two states, but we won’t engage without this.

Netanyahu will go to President Obama and tell him “Iran.” He will say he is committed. Then he will build settlements in E1 and elsewhere – like he did in Har Homa. You cannot be expected to demand less of Netanyahu than what Livni demanded.

In a later meeting with the Negotiations Support Unit, Erekat talks a little more frankly about his strategy with to split Obama from Netanyahu and get him to wholeheartedly take the Palestinian Arab side.

Hamas is a tool for Netanyahu, he is counting on them to stay the course. And Hamas is counting on Netanyahu to stay the course. Netanyahu’s only card is Palestinian division, and also Ahmadinejad. Everyone can see how Israel is using Ahmadinejad’s comments. Ahamadinjed should be saying we want to add Palestine to the map, not removing Israel from the map. He doesn’t serve our cause with his holocaust denials.

As far as contact with Israel, its business as usual. I talk with Amos Gilad and other generals. Uzi Arad and I mutually do not want to meet with each other. I want to wait to see what they present to Obama. Netanyahu is saying he doesn’t want a two state solution. It is not us who are saying we don’t want to negotiate. Anyone who says they don’t recognize the two-state solution rejects final status negotiations. The question everyone should be asking Netanyahu is, “will you talk about Jerusalem, refugees, etc., Yes or No?”
...
Azem Bichara: There is lots of buildup to Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, how can we help with that? Should we write an Op-ed before AM’s meeting outlining our ideas?

SE: Do one in my name. Prepare for me a good press conference after AM’s meeting. We need to issue a statement right after Netanyahu’s meeting.

Alex Kouttab: Do you have any concrete idea of what Netanyahu is going to propose to Obama?

SE: He is going to say “we will remove road blocks, outposts, etc. but if a settler child needs a new bathroom, we will build it.” But he will continue to build E1 and demolish homes. He is a master of ambiguity.

At this point, the PA's main card with the US has been their conviction that Netanyahu was going to remain publicly against a two-state solution.

Then Netanyahu publicly said he would support a two-state solution under specific conditions.

This put the Palestinian Arabs on the defensive:

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh
1) AM must deliver a speech and he should use the opportunity of the graduation of the Arab American University in Jenin to deliver it from there.

2) We need to have a diplomatic campaign across the world to explain what was misleading
and false in BN’s speech and what our positions are.

3) We have to give BN a hard time in the international arena.

4) We need to summon the Consuls General and brief them so they will deliver the message
to (their) respective capitals before BN goes to Europe.

5) We must not give the impression that we are dealing with this Israeli government. This is a very wise decision. Limit interactions to a minimum and to the most urgent. We need to
focus our time away from negotiations and on our internal affairs.

We don’t need a spokesperson, we need a media machine. We want to launch this campaign
– not have the journalists come to us or wait for us. We have to think of our objective: What
is the purpose of this? A) isolate BN, B) make him resign, or C) or make him change his
position.

Erekat to George Mitchell, October 20, 2009, shows the PA's new intransigent position regarding Netanyahu:

Either they are partners – 67 border, swaps – anything short of that, that’s it. This is a defining moment for the government. Don’t listen to him [BN]. He’s dead, if he has no engagement with us.

And then the next day:

[Erekat]: We cannot have resumption of negotiations with this government. We will punish Netanyahu. He can’t survive without a process with us. We won’t give him leverage of taking us for a ride and continuing settlements while we negotiate. Am I clear, David? This is the decision of the leadership – the PLO executive committee and the Fatah central committee. They won’t allow it. Period. Finito.

David Hale: Your staying in this position means no direct negotiations.

SE: No direct negotiations if there is no freeze and an exclusion of Jerusalem.

DH: So what do you propose?

SE: I know what I’m talking about and I see where things are heading. ... So no Palestinian decision-making body will change this position on the freeze. Not after Goldstone.

... We're also in touch with Israelis and Jewish groups – not [just] J street or just the Labour party. We don’t see Netanyahu as the end of the world – the Lieberman/Netanyahu cabinet. If we go for negotiations with them we will kill the others.

There's a lot more in that last memo that we will get to soon.

(h/t Kramerica)

Palestine Papers: PA says "refugees" must be resettled in Arab states

I found where Al Jazeera put all of the "Palestine Papers" and, in response to the Guardian's absurd assertion that they have already published everything that is newsworthy, here is exhibit A showing otherwise:

On July 2, 2008, the PA produced a "talking points" memo about how the so-called "refugee" problem would ultimately be solved. Presumably this was meant to be used in negotiations with the US and Israel. But by its nature, it is not an off-the-cuff comment of negotiators floating trial balloons to the other side, but an official (if unpublished) position of the PA.

First of all, the PA makes it very clear that they do not want to be the place that some 7 million "refugees" will move to live:

The viability of the future Palestinian State is closely linked to the evolution of the Palestinian population that will live within the future State’s borders. In this regard, the terms of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue and the number of Palestinian refugees who will be offered to resettle or return to the future State of Palestine is a core parameter required to assess the viability of that State.

The resettlement/return of refugee communities touches numerous issues such as housing availabilities, access to water, education and social services, employment opportunities, infrastructure, environment etc. The ability of the Palestinian State to meet refugee needs and ensure an efficient functioning of these services will ultimately determine its viability.

Unlike Israel in 1948, which opened its doors to Jews all over the world even though it was severely restricted in resources and cash, the PA is not going to start an open-door policy. In other words, they don't seem to care nearly as much about their fellow "Palestinians" living in stateless misery as Israel does about Jews.

While the PA will still insist on the theoretical "right to return," it recognizes realistically that other Arab states are going to have to offer citizenship:

The Palestinian/Arab peace proposal regarding Palestinian refugees is to find a “just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UNGA resolution 194”. The goal is to reach a multilateral solution that will be accepted by all parties. For the resolution to be a success, Israel, host States (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) and third countries will have to offer attractive options to refugees. Therefore, the viability of the Palestinian State also greatly relies on the ability of these stakeholders and the international community to provide with concrete relocation options to Palestinian refugees.

All of this is obvious, but the PA is publicly silent on the issue. Instead of laying the framework to get these Arab countries to gear up for their ultimate naturalization of their Palestinian Arab population, the PA's public position has been the opposite of what this paper states.

In fact, only a few months earlier, Mahmoud Abbas told The Daily Star of Lebanon:

"We would not accept any settlements that would lead to a demographic change in Lebanon. This is totally unacceptable ... We won't accept a settlement that obliges Lebanon to naturalize even one Palestinian."

It is impossible to believe that Mahmoud Abbas was not aware of the contents of this talking points memo. Which means that either he was lying to the Lebanese, or he was lying to the Americans.

Either way, it shows that he is a liar.

Wikileaks adds some support to "Palestine Papers"

From a Wikileaks cable, July 2008, at the height of the negotiations between Kadima and Fatah that have been discussed in the "Palestine Papers:"

Saeb Erekat said the GOI and PA are working on all permanent status issues, noting that the two sides “are farther along than we were at Camp David or at Taba.” He said the negotiators will need President Abbas and PM Olmert to “make the hard political decisions.”

Erekat said the PA is committed to finishing a permanent status framework, defining solutions to all permanent status issues, by the end of 2008. He said he is committed to meeting Israeli security requirements, but wants to do so through a mutually-agreed third-party security force rather than an Israeli military presence in the future Palestinian state.

This is entirely consistent with what we have read in the parts of the "Palestine Papers" we've seen. It indicates that both sides were more flexible than they were in 2001.

The highlighted part hints at an intriguing idea: Mahmoud Abbas may have been purposefully kept out of the loop of the negotiations, allowing the PA negotiators a lot of latitude to find common ground but keeping plausible deniability and veto power if necessary. In this way he could maintain his public rejectionist rhetoric.

In that same cable we also see that

Fayyad said the PA feels unsupported by Arab states, despite their favorable rhetoric.

I've pointed this out for years - the Arab leaders' support for "Palestine" has never been sincere but largely rhetorical. This has only escalated since the Fatah/Hamas split, which Fayyad also touched on:

He argued that unless the PA regains control of Gaza’s crossings, “Gaza will be gone forever.”

Al Jazeera continues to allege facts that aren't in the PalPapers

Whether or not the "Palestine Papers" truthfully reflect what happened in closed-door negotiations, what is clear is that The Guardian and Al Jazeera are reporting their own spin rather than facts.

"Electronic Intifada" founder and NYT darling Ali Abunimah writes in Al Jazeera:

PA lobbying blocked Shalit swap

The PA blocked potential prisoner swaps that would have freed thousands of Palestinians and Shalit.

Analysis of secret minutes of meetings between top Israeli and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials revealed in The Palestine Papers shows that strenuous PA lobbying likely torpedoed the deal in mid-2008 with the result that far fewer Palestinian prisoners have been released by Israel.

But he brings no proof to this. He points to memos that show that the PA was unhappy with Israel releasing Hamas prisoners for Shalit, saying that Hamas would be strengthened. Israel agrees that a swap would help Hamas politically but Livni continuously pushes back saying that they want Shalit and there is no way to avoid that unfortunate consequence. They go on to find ways to strengthen the PA simultaneously by releasing Fatah members from prison - which they even did.

Abunimah brings no memos that indicate that the PA's efforts stopped any Shalit deal. In fact, the very idea is absurd. Israel would never scuttle a deal to get Shalit back because of PA objections!

If one is to believe the spin given to the Palestine Papers by The Guardian and Al Jazeera, the PA had no power and Israel ran roughshod over every one of their requests. Yet now Al Jazeera is claiming that the PA had veto power over an issue that is hugely important to Israel and only peripherally related to the negotiations.

Abunimah writes his counter-factual screed to blame the PA for blocking the release of thousands of Hamas prisoners. Yet these same memos show that 198 were released just by the PA asking Israel to do so, and giving nothing in return. (Abunimah calls them "symbolic.")

The release of these papers proves what we have seen time and time again. Conspiracy theorists will spin their stories regardless of facts and common sense, and the PalPapers are simply a treasure trove of new data to be twisted to fit already-existing fantasies.

Conspiracy theory: Netanyahu released PalPapers to get Abbas killed

A great conspiracy theory is published as an op-ed in the pro-Fatah Palestine Press Agency.

The author argues that the release of the "Palestine Papers" must have been orchestrated by Bibi Netanyahu. Here's the bizarre thinking that leads the author to this conclusion.

Netanyahu is threatened by Abbas because Abbas is managing to build a nation on his own. Abbas is also a threat because Israel can no longer point to him and say that all Palestinian Arab leaders are terrorists, because Abbas has been doing his nation-building in a peaceful way. He is a Palestinian Gandhi, which is evidently Israel's worst nightmare. His peacefulness, and the recent diplomatic successes in getting South American nations to recognize "Palestine," is what drives Netanyahu crazy.

So Netanyahu wants him killed.

The best way to get Abbas killed is to get one of his people to murder him, of course. And the way to do that is to tell Palestinian Arabs that Abbas is willing to compromise with Israel and is not being honest with them.

Israel therefore collaborated with Al Jazeera, which already has these faked papers in hand but was waiting for the right moment to release them. Their Israeli friend Bibi convinced them that now was the time, and they happily did as their Zionist masters demanded. Now he only has to wait for the inevitable assassination.

The perfect crime!

Of course, to believe this story, you must accept as a given that Arabs would naturally assassinate their leaders when they are perceived as being too conciliatory towards Israel.

Now you can burn your own Al Jazeera/Zionist flag!

From AP:

Palestinian Fatah supporters burn banners fashioned to look like Israeli flags, with an Al-Jazeera logo at their center instead of a Star of David, during a rally in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011.

Do you think you are missing out on the fun because you don't have one of those nifty Al Jazeera Zionist flags?

Well, you are in luck!

Firas Press has been using a similar flag to illustrate the "Palestine Papers" articles, so here it is, suitable for printing - and public burning!

Another public service for our Arab friends by EoZ.

UPDATE: An email correspondent mentioned that I need to include this video:

Fatah accuses Qatar of telling Israel about 2002 weapons ship

Fatah's anger at Qatar for allowing (or encouraging) Al Jazeera to release the "Palestine Papers" is increasing.

Their latest charge is that Qatar was behind Israel's capture of the Karine A weapons ship in 2002.

The Karine A, it will be recalled, was a ship that was purchased by the Palestinian Authority and loaded with weapons they bought from Iran. The cargo included such peaceful, moderate items as Katyusha rockets, anti-tank missiles, anti-tank mines and pure explosives, with a total value of some $15 million. People involved in the shipment were sprinkled through all levels of the Palestinian Authority hierarchy, from Yasir Arafat down to the Palestinian Naval Police.

Fatah leader and member of its Revolutionary Council, Bassam Zakarneh, told a press conference that Qatar had tipped Israel off about the ship - and this paved the way for the "assassination" of Arafat!

Interestingly, Arafat had denied having anything to do with the Karine A, and Zakarneh's statement seems to confirm that the PA really was behind it and that Arafat was lying.

And while the world is misinterpreting the "Palestine Papers" as to how moderate and flexible the PA is, it is worth remembering that the Karine A episode happened after substantive "peace" negotiations with Israel and proved that the PA's desire for peace was nonexistent.

Latest PalPapers lies: Michael Brull, ABC (Australia)

The number of anti-Israel lies in the left-wing media concerning the Palestine Papers is astounding, and they are likely to continue. Here are a few from Michael Brull of "Independent Australian Jewish Voices" writing in ABC Online:

The interesting thing about what the Palestine Papers reveal is also in relation to public relations and private diplomacy. The standard theme of Israeli propaganda after negotiations collapsed after the 2000 Camp David negotiations was that Israel had offered the Palestinians everything, but the intransigent and ungrateful Palestinians had rejected it all, proving that the Israelis had no partner for peace. The Palestinian leadership never bothered with public relations, and it was largely left to academics and left wing Israeli negotiators to reveal that this story was far from the truth. For example, after the Camp David proposals, the two parties negotiated at Taba (negotiations ended unilaterally by Israel). Israel’s chief negotiator at Taba, Shlomo Ben Ami, said if he were a Palestinian he would have rejected the Camp David proposal. The Palestine Papers include maps of the Camp David proposal. They show clearly how Ariel and Maale Adumim are used to dissect the West Bank into three non-contiguous cantons, with settlements dotting the landscape, connected by roads, further dividing Palestinian towns and areas from each other. Perhaps this will finally put an end to the favourite Zionist myth of Israeli generosity, met by Palestinian intransigence and rejectionism.

This is only one part of a longer story that the Palestine Papers reveal.

Here's the map that Brull says that the Palestine Papers reveal:

If you look at the small type on the bottom of the maps, you will see that their source is "Jerusalem Task Force, Orient House". These maps have been public for years, and they were made by a Palestinian Arab organization. They were not "revealed" by the Palestine Papers, and Brull is using Al Jazeera's copying of an old map as a way to bash Israel.

And the maps are a complete lie.

Dennis Ross, who was there, said no map was drawn, but he shows the fake Palestinian Arab version of the map, along with what the Camp David offer really looked like:

The real offer - which was sweetened significantly at Taba - was already for a quite contiguous state.

Now that we see that Brull is not averse to lying, we can find more gems in his screed.

He goes through his Palestinian Arab version of history:

Israeli historians confirmed that the Palestinians who did not flee were driven out of Palestine through a mixture of measures including Zionist terrorism, psychological warfare and outright expulsions.

He of course does not mention the percentages of Arabs who fled versus those who were forced out. No one knows the actual numbers, but the vast majority were not expelled. Most Arabs never saw an Israeli soldier and fled because of wild Arab rumors of atrocities that never happened or that were vastly exaggerated. The wealthier Arabs left almost immediately after the partition vote, as they did in the 1930s, expecting to return after the fighting ended - and leaving their poorer cousins behind without leaders. And some (but not most) were indeed told to leave by Arab leaders themselves.

There is a third category that Brull ignores, though: those that stayed and became citizens of the state. An option that was simply not available for Jews in the Old City or Gush Etzion. Those people prove his claim that those "who did not flee were driven out" to be, again, a lie.

If there was one side that adopted the concept of "ethnic cleansing" from the start and continued throughout the 30 years of Mandate history, it was the Arabs - at Tel Chai, Petah Tikva (failed attempt), Hebron, Gaza, Jenin, Shchem/Nablus, Jerusalem's Old City (beginning in 1936), Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet HaAravah and the 4 Gush Etzion Bloc kibbutzim. [h/t YM]

Israel proceeded to conquer the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine in 1967.

Whenever you see the words "historic Palestine" you know that you are dealing with a liar. Historic Palestine includes part of Jordan and Lebanon, parts that today's "Palestinians" have no desire for. For the same reasons they had no desire for a state in the West Bank while Jordan controlled it.

It goes on from there. The article is filled with half-truths and lies. Brull is rabidly anti-Israel and he uses the release of the papers as a reason to get op-ed space that simply uses the papers as a peg to bash Israel.

And Australia's ABC is more than happy to host the lies.