Palestine Papers: Mitchell vs. Erekat

From Ma'an:

"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)

Read More

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)

Read More

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)

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.)

Read More