From: Steven Robinson <srobin21@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:47 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Reaction to the leaked Palestine papers
To: RadGreen <rad-green@lists.econ.utah.edu>, progchat_action@yahoogroups.com, ProgressivePolitical@yahoogroups.com, Out of the frying pan <Out_Of_The_Frying_Pan@yahoogroups.com>, BV <bangla-vision@yahoogroups.com>, BBG <Bush_Be_Gone@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Jeffrey <JGSHURT69@aol.com>
Reaction to the leaked Palestine papers
Palestinian negotiators have angrily dismissed accounts as lies,
fabrications and half truths
By Chris McGreal in Washington
The Guardian
Monday 24 January 2011
Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb
Erekat has dismissed accounts of negotiations as lies, fabrications and half
truths. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
As Palestinian negotiators named in the secret accounts of negotiations with
Israel angrily dismissed them as lies, fabrications and half truths, there
was an equally hostile backlash over their offer to let the Jewish state
keep its settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and other concessions.
The two leading Palestinian negotiators named in the documents, Saeb Erekat
and Ahmed Qureia, reacted furiously to the leaks. Erekat called them a
"bunch of lies". Qureia claimed that "many parts of the documents were
fabricated, as part of the incitement against the Palestinian Authority and
the Palestinian leadership".
But a former colleague of the two men on the negotiations team, Diana Buttu,
called their secret proposal in 2008 to let Israel keep all but one of the
Jewish settlements within Jerusalem shocking and "out of touch" with the
wishes of the Palestinian people.
She called on Erekat to resign and said that the concessions effectively
mean that Israel's strategy of continuing to expand Jewish settlements is
delivering it a greater share of Jerusalem.
"It is highly, highly problematic because it rewards Israel for its
settlement activity," she said.
"It highlights to me that we'll never be able to get anything from
negotiations. You've got one party that's incredibly powerful and another
party that's incredibly weak and my own experience is that we got nowhere
during negotiations.
"I've no reason to believe it's any different now, 18 years after the peace
process started. The Israelis are stronger than they were 18 years ago and
the Palestinians are weaker. It is clear that there is a rising level of
desperation [by Palestinian negotiators] and complete lack of any connection
to the reality Palestinians face."
But former US negotiators said that the concessions made by the Palestinians
were the logical result of adhering to the principle laid down by then
president Bill Clinton at the 2000 Camp David talks that Israel would have
sovereignty over those parts of Jerusalem that were predominantly Jewish,
including settlements in the occupied east of the city.
Martin Indyk, Clinton's national security adviser on the Israeli-Palestinian
question and a former US ambassador to Israel, said: "My reading is there's
nothing more here on Jerusalem than [Yasser] Arafat agreed to in Camp David.
The principle was very clear from Camp David on, that what's Jewish in
Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty and what is Palestinian will be
under Palestinian sovereignty. That was the specific concession that Arafat
made at Camp David."
Buttu disputes that account, backing the assertion in the documents by
Qureia, the lead Palestinian negotiator, that "this is the first time in
history that we make such a proposition. We refused to do so in Camp David".
She said that the Palestinians did not previously agree that Jewish areas of
East Jerusalem would fall under Israeli sovereignty.
"It was rejected at the Taba summit [in 2001] which I attended. Nabil Shaath
[former chief negotiator] said that if we accept the Clinton parameters we
would need a GPS in order to navigate which part of Jerusalem is Palestine
and which part of Jerusalem is not Palestine," she said.
Aaron David Miller, who was part of the negotiating team during the Clinton
years and a senior advisor on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the Bush
administration, said that the Palestinian hand was being forced by the
reality of population numbers. "The Palestinians have bought off,
theoretically, on the proposition that what was contained in the Clinton
parameters . that demography will out. I think the Palestinians would move
toward that position and if they got what they think they need on the issue
of territory and refugees I think they'd be willing to turn that position in
to a real one that would stand the harsh light of day within Palestinian
society," he said.
Miller said the documents show that the Palestinians were serious about
reaching an agreement but that the Israeli leadership, under then prime
minister Ehud Olmert, was too politically weak to deliver.
"At the beginning of Star Wars there's a wonderful phrase: a long time ago
in a galaxy far, far away. When I read these documents that's essentially
what I thought about. What appears is very serious and creative ideas. The
issue has always been the absence of will, leadership and the right
political environment to actually do the deal," he said. "We're talking
about negotiations that didn't have legs. Ehud Olmert could never have taken
what developed given his political circumstances and sold it."
Buttu said the revelations are likely to damage the credibility of the
Palestinian leadership.
"Through all of this talk about Jerusalem as the capital, they've never
revealed that they were going to make any concession like this. On Thursday,
Nabil Shaath said East Jerusalem in its entirety is our capital, there are
no concessions on our part. He's talking about no concessions when behind
closed doors there are major concessions that are being made," she said.
But Miller suggested that the Palestinians may have leaked the documents in
an attempt to counter Israeli claims that they are the obstacle to peace.
"You have to ask yourself the question: why have these documents appeared
now? The answer is that the Palestinians, as part of a campaign to gain
international support and recognition for the legitimacy of Palestinian
statehood and to increase pressure not only on the Israelis but the
Americans, have chosen to say to the world: look, it's not so hard.
"Previous Israeli governments were interested in a serious negotiation. So
why can't we have one now based on the principles that previous Israeli
governments have agreed to?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/reaction-leaked-palestine-papers
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment