Standing in a dark alley outside her two-room home in a decaying, decrepit building in Shatilla camp in Beirut and with Yasser Arafat's poster plastered on her wall, Un Ahmad, 43, a refugee from Safad, pointed at the muddy narrow passageway that snaked through the camp littered with garbage and sewage.
"Of course I want to return to Palestine. Do you want me to continue to live in these degrading conditions? Anywhere in Palestine is better than this," she said.
Like many refugees living in squalid refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and in Gaza Strip, Um Ahmad dreams of the day she will leave the miserable life of the camp and return to Palestine. She was born in Shatilla camp and has heard about life in the West Bank from her sister who married a Palestinian West Banker and left the life of the camps to a life under occupation.
The first time I visited Gaza in 1994 and walked around the refugee camps in the city, I was shocked at the desolate conditions there.
Shatilla camp was worse than Gaza. It was raining as I walked through the mud and litter. The building complexes were so close to each other they hid the daylight. Electricity cables were hanging low from the buildings that felt they would collapse any minute. It was clear Arafat's Fatah faction was the dominant faction in the camp. Many faded posters of Arafat, some of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and several pictures of dead Fatah founders filled the camp.
Children in ragged clothes played in the mud amidst the filth and mountains of garbage.
"I'm from Palestine, but I don't know where from Palestine," said six-year-old Saleem.
"I'm from Lebanon," Najwa, 8, said.
Old men, some wearing Arafat's black and white Keffiyehs on their heads, sat in front of a small, almost empty shop gazing at nothing in particular, misery and sadness in their eyes. A sense of hoplessness overwhelmed the refugee camp Palestinian residents.
The crowded camp now is home also to Syrians who came to Lebanon for work, some Sudanese and Iraqi refugees and poor Lebanese families who could not afford housing in better parts of Beirut.
The smell of sewage and decay filled the air and sewage swamped the alleys of the camp. A building destroyed by artillery and which was once used as headquarters by the PLO's Liberation Army in 1982 was riddled with bullet holes and served as one of many reminders of the 1982 massacre.
Mar Elias refugee camp, known as the better camp, was somewhat cleaner and its houses were not as tiny or falling to pieces as those in Shatilla. The alleys in the camp were so narrow only one person at a time can walk through them. The air also smelt of sewage.
Um Youssef was an angry old woman. She was angry at the past and the present. She said she was angry because the Palestinians were divided and the leaderships of Hamas and Fatah were too busy fighting each other to think of the refugees and their right of return.
For the Israelis, the Palestinians' wish to return is a lost cause because for them it contradicts the survival of the "Jewish State."
The right of return however is a unifying collective dream for the refugees.
"Palestine is in my heart, I want to return now," said Nadia, 24.
"But for some here in the camp, some of the younger generation, the (Palestinian) cause is not their priority. They want to live and work and improve their economic conditions, this now comes first for some," she said.
"Hunger, deprivation and starvation push them to this," Abu Abed, 61, shouted from his grocery shop across the alley.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Lessons for Future Negotiations: The Geneva Initiative Annexes
Today I attended an interesting conference organized by the Geneva Initiative in Tel Aviv which tackled proposals to reach a comprehensive final settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The discussion focused on conclusions reached by Israeli and Palestinian teams compiled n a 423-page book detailing issues relating to a final status agreement, including borders and security.
The book was presented to local and international leaders as well as think tanks to serve as a base of reference for future talks on a final agreement.
Presentations included maps and detailed information on proposals to reach a final settlement.
Brigadier General Udi Dekel, head of the Negotiations Administration under the former Ehud Olmert government said talks were conducted after Annapolis in a serious manner and the Israelis wanted to reach an agreement before elections but this was not possible mainly because of the Cast Lead war on Gaza Strip.
During the talks which ended with failure to meet U.S. President George Bush's timeline for an agreement by the end of 2008, Dekel said the sides negotiated in secrecy, an essential element for the success of any negotiations, however, the way the talks were structured was problematic because the sides had agreed that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
"It should be that anything agreed should be implemented," Dekel said.
He said that the Palestinians sought to anchor their rights and would not show compromise such as insisting on the fact that they gave up most of historical Palestine and were left with 22 percent, so they insisted on either getting 100 percent of it or nothing. The Israeli negotiators felt that the 2-state solution was used as a playcard by the Palestinians when Ahmed Qurie, head of the Palestinian negotiating team took out the winning card by threatening to opt for a binational state to push the Israelis to make concessions.
Dekel's interesting point, which I have heard from several Israeli negotiators was his comment about how the Palestinian negotiating team was well prepared with maps and documents while the Israelis had nothing.
"We were running around the clock trying to find paperwork...somebody made sure it disappeared," Dekel said.
Several other Israeli negotiators spoke about the impressive work of the PLO's Negotiations Support Unit, which employs articulate, Western educated, young legal and political advisers who draft documents, maps, and have negotiations drafts ready on every single issue. They said Israeli negotiators change with each new government, there is no continuity, and usually old negotiators don't share their documents with the new ones. The Palestinians however, have known Qurie (Abu Ala), Yasser Abed Rabbo, and Saeb Erekat as the only faces dealing with negotiations.
Dekel's Palestinian counterpart in the negotiations and map expert Sameeh al-Abed responded to Dekel's claims by saying that the Palestinians had made compromises and shown flexibility on a number of issues including territory when they presented different maps at the Camp David summit in 2000, in Taba in 2001, and during talks after Annapolis.
"Nobody in Israel or in the United States mentiosn that we presented compromise maps at Camp David because they wanted to blame the Palestinians for not accepting what were not generous offers," Abed said.
"Dekel admits the Palestinian side was prepared. That was because we were serious, while we were negotiating seriously after Annapolis, we felt that the Israelis were not serious because they were not prepared, as he said," Abed said.
Haim Ramon, former Minister of Jerusalem Affairs and Chairman of the Kadima Council discussed Jerusalem. He said in 1967, Jerusalm was 38 square kilomters.
"Jerusalem today is not Jerusalem. We have annexed 43 villages which were never Jerusalem...We are eternalising the lie (that all the annexed territory is Jerusalem). The public should know that Jerusalem is ot Jerusalem. It's a Holy Basin," Ramon said.
"We never spoke about dividing Jerusalem but about returning villages that were never part of Jerusalem," he said.
Like other presentators,Ramon doesn't believe that the present government of Benjamin Netanyahu can begin a dialogue or reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
Yossi Beilin, former Justice Minister and of the Geneva Initiative Steering Committee said it was possible to reach a settlement but the political leaders don't have the political will.
"There's a Palestinian leader (President Mahmoud Abbas) who, even most of the right-wing in Israel, believe he wants peace. He's not a replica of Arafat. There's an American President (Barack Obama) whose a miracle. He said all the right things...but the Obama administration after one year has failed to advance the peace process," Beilin said. He said sadly, opportunities were lost during the past year since Obama came to office.
Rightly so, Beilin pointed out the Israelis' apathy with peace moves. He said the Americans were mistaken in making a full settlement freeze a condition to resuming peace talks "and to give it up was a worse mistake."
Beilin said that Netanyahu's 10-month temporary settlement freeze was a "joke". He said decision-making in Washington, especially the agreement reached with Israel over the temporary settlement freeze while excluding the Palestinians "is very disappointing to the peace camp."
Beilin said Abbas was mistaken if he believes that Obama would set the parameters for him. "The world isn't going to give us solutions, it's either we do the job or nobody will do it for us."
He cautioned that if a negotiated solution was not reached, "Sharon Two will come. A prime minister will come and take unilateral decisions, and take the fence as a criteria...because there's no Zionist leader who believes in a binational state. A Prime Miniter will be coerced into unilateral steps and it will be like Gaza." There will be some attacks and no peace, he warned.
"This is completely idiotic...We can only say (Geneva Initiative proposals) are the only alternative. Never Give Up."
The book was presented to local and international leaders as well as think tanks to serve as a base of reference for future talks on a final agreement.
Presentations included maps and detailed information on proposals to reach a final settlement.
Brigadier General Udi Dekel, head of the Negotiations Administration under the former Ehud Olmert government said talks were conducted after Annapolis in a serious manner and the Israelis wanted to reach an agreement before elections but this was not possible mainly because of the Cast Lead war on Gaza Strip.
During the talks which ended with failure to meet U.S. President George Bush's timeline for an agreement by the end of 2008, Dekel said the sides negotiated in secrecy, an essential element for the success of any negotiations, however, the way the talks were structured was problematic because the sides had agreed that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
"It should be that anything agreed should be implemented," Dekel said.
He said that the Palestinians sought to anchor their rights and would not show compromise such as insisting on the fact that they gave up most of historical Palestine and were left with 22 percent, so they insisted on either getting 100 percent of it or nothing. The Israeli negotiators felt that the 2-state solution was used as a playcard by the Palestinians when Ahmed Qurie, head of the Palestinian negotiating team took out the winning card by threatening to opt for a binational state to push the Israelis to make concessions.
Dekel's interesting point, which I have heard from several Israeli negotiators was his comment about how the Palestinian negotiating team was well prepared with maps and documents while the Israelis had nothing.
"We were running around the clock trying to find paperwork...somebody made sure it disappeared," Dekel said.
Several other Israeli negotiators spoke about the impressive work of the PLO's Negotiations Support Unit, which employs articulate, Western educated, young legal and political advisers who draft documents, maps, and have negotiations drafts ready on every single issue. They said Israeli negotiators change with each new government, there is no continuity, and usually old negotiators don't share their documents with the new ones. The Palestinians however, have known Qurie (Abu Ala), Yasser Abed Rabbo, and Saeb Erekat as the only faces dealing with negotiations.
Dekel's Palestinian counterpart in the negotiations and map expert Sameeh al-Abed responded to Dekel's claims by saying that the Palestinians had made compromises and shown flexibility on a number of issues including territory when they presented different maps at the Camp David summit in 2000, in Taba in 2001, and during talks after Annapolis.
"Nobody in Israel or in the United States mentiosn that we presented compromise maps at Camp David because they wanted to blame the Palestinians for not accepting what were not generous offers," Abed said.
"Dekel admits the Palestinian side was prepared. That was because we were serious, while we were negotiating seriously after Annapolis, we felt that the Israelis were not serious because they were not prepared, as he said," Abed said.
Haim Ramon, former Minister of Jerusalem Affairs and Chairman of the Kadima Council discussed Jerusalem. He said in 1967, Jerusalm was 38 square kilomters.
"Jerusalem today is not Jerusalem. We have annexed 43 villages which were never Jerusalem...We are eternalising the lie (that all the annexed territory is Jerusalem). The public should know that Jerusalem is ot Jerusalem. It's a Holy Basin," Ramon said.
"We never spoke about dividing Jerusalem but about returning villages that were never part of Jerusalem," he said.
Like other presentators,Ramon doesn't believe that the present government of Benjamin Netanyahu can begin a dialogue or reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
Yossi Beilin, former Justice Minister and of the Geneva Initiative Steering Committee said it was possible to reach a settlement but the political leaders don't have the political will.
"There's a Palestinian leader (President Mahmoud Abbas) who, even most of the right-wing in Israel, believe he wants peace. He's not a replica of Arafat. There's an American President (Barack Obama) whose a miracle. He said all the right things...but the Obama administration after one year has failed to advance the peace process," Beilin said. He said sadly, opportunities were lost during the past year since Obama came to office.
Rightly so, Beilin pointed out the Israelis' apathy with peace moves. He said the Americans were mistaken in making a full settlement freeze a condition to resuming peace talks "and to give it up was a worse mistake."
Beilin said that Netanyahu's 10-month temporary settlement freeze was a "joke". He said decision-making in Washington, especially the agreement reached with Israel over the temporary settlement freeze while excluding the Palestinians "is very disappointing to the peace camp."
Beilin said Abbas was mistaken if he believes that Obama would set the parameters for him. "The world isn't going to give us solutions, it's either we do the job or nobody will do it for us."
He cautioned that if a negotiated solution was not reached, "Sharon Two will come. A prime minister will come and take unilateral decisions, and take the fence as a criteria...because there's no Zionist leader who believes in a binational state. A Prime Miniter will be coerced into unilateral steps and it will be like Gaza." There will be some attacks and no peace, he warned.
"This is completely idiotic...We can only say (Geneva Initiative proposals) are the only alternative. Never Give Up."
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Once again, the Palestinians are pushed against the wall
Once again, the Palestinians find themselves on the defensive, and again, Israel has succeeded in blaming the Palestinians for obstructing the renewal of peace talks.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was not opposed to the resumption of peace talks, but after marathon and slow talks since 1993, this time he wants a complete halt to settlements and wants guarantees that negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on lands Israel occupied in 1967. He is not against a limited and agreed swap of lands.
But this is not what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants. The Israeli leader came to power with the following principles: No negotiations over Jerusalem or refugees' right of return, no to a complete settlements freeze and borders are subject to negotiations.
The world hailed what Netanyahu successfully portrayed as a siginicant shift in his position when he accepted a two-state solution. The international community was pleased with his new shift in position regarding a 10-month freeze on settlements excluding Jerusalem, and Washington believes this to be an unprecedented move.
World leaders who followed U.S. President Barack Obama's lead in calling for a complete settlements freeze and pressed Israel to comply, changed their heart when Obama did and accepted Israel's "restraint" on building. Nobody wants to see Netanyahu's right-wing coalition fall, and anyway, they now believe it was a big mistake to start a peace process with asking too much of Israel.
While world leaders were making the shift to accomodate Israel's domestic hardships, Abbas continued to insist on a total settlement freeze and international involvement on setting the borders of the Palestian state.
The international community now says that Netanyahu has bended far enough, that's all he can give, and it was up to Abbas to climb down the tree.
It has always been easier to pressure the weaker side.
Palestinians are now reminded of the times when the world was blaming Arafat for rejecting Ehud Barack's offers during the Camp David summit even after Rob Malley explained no so-called "generous" offers were made.
Abbas will this time come under pressure, or is already under pressure to accept whatever the Americans offer or be blamed for lacking leadership. Abbas can't be accused of fomenting violence or opposing peace, but his leadership skills will come under attack.
An aide to Abbas said the Palestinian leader now wants a state. The United States and Europe say they want to see Israel end occupation that began in 1967, they reject Israel's occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem and want to see a Palestinain state, but they are not ready yet to accept that state.
"If Abbas comes under pressure, he will leave the political scene, and the world will get Hamas instead, the aide said.
The Palestinians' backs are again to the wall.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was not opposed to the resumption of peace talks, but after marathon and slow talks since 1993, this time he wants a complete halt to settlements and wants guarantees that negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on lands Israel occupied in 1967. He is not against a limited and agreed swap of lands.
But this is not what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants. The Israeli leader came to power with the following principles: No negotiations over Jerusalem or refugees' right of return, no to a complete settlements freeze and borders are subject to negotiations.
The world hailed what Netanyahu successfully portrayed as a siginicant shift in his position when he accepted a two-state solution. The international community was pleased with his new shift in position regarding a 10-month freeze on settlements excluding Jerusalem, and Washington believes this to be an unprecedented move.
World leaders who followed U.S. President Barack Obama's lead in calling for a complete settlements freeze and pressed Israel to comply, changed their heart when Obama did and accepted Israel's "restraint" on building. Nobody wants to see Netanyahu's right-wing coalition fall, and anyway, they now believe it was a big mistake to start a peace process with asking too much of Israel.
While world leaders were making the shift to accomodate Israel's domestic hardships, Abbas continued to insist on a total settlement freeze and international involvement on setting the borders of the Palestian state.
The international community now says that Netanyahu has bended far enough, that's all he can give, and it was up to Abbas to climb down the tree.
It has always been easier to pressure the weaker side.
Palestinians are now reminded of the times when the world was blaming Arafat for rejecting Ehud Barack's offers during the Camp David summit even after Rob Malley explained no so-called "generous" offers were made.
Abbas will this time come under pressure, or is already under pressure to accept whatever the Americans offer or be blamed for lacking leadership. Abbas can't be accused of fomenting violence or opposing peace, but his leadership skills will come under attack.
An aide to Abbas said the Palestinian leader now wants a state. The United States and Europe say they want to see Israel end occupation that began in 1967, they reject Israel's occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem and want to see a Palestinain state, but they are not ready yet to accept that state.
"If Abbas comes under pressure, he will leave the political scene, and the world will get Hamas instead, the aide said.
The Palestinians' backs are again to the wall.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Nablus shootings may be a turning point in Israeli-PA security coordination
On Saturday, Dec. 26, Israeli forces shot dead six Palestinians in two separate attacks in the West Bank city of Nablus and northern Gaza Strip. Human rights groups and witnesses said Israeli undercover units extra-judicially executed three members of the Fatah Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Israel says were involved in shooting a Jewish settler on Dec. 24 in the Nablus District.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) said: "Israeli occupation forces claimed that undercover unit fired at the three victims as they refused to surrender. However, investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) conclude that the three victims were executed in cold blood."
(http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2009/129-2009.html)
The Thursday and Saturday incidents in Nablus have very serious repercussions, particularly for the Palestinian government of Salam Fayyad which was blasted and verbally attacked during angry demonstrations and funerals. Angry Palestinians chanted anti-Israeli slogans and demanded ending security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
The Nablus shootings may be a turning point in the security coordination between Fayyad's government and Israel.
Palestinian officials said Israeli authorities tricked Fayyad's government which was already taking measures and arresting people for involvement in the shooting of the rabbi. While the Palestinian security services were busy in Tulkarm area, the Israeli under cover units made a surprise attack in Nablus, a move not coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, and instead of arresting the three Fatah militants, they shot them dead at close range. Witnesses said the three Palestinians were either not armed or did not return fire.
The Nablus killings led to a popular backlash against Fayyad's security coordination moves with Israel and led even some members of his own security forces to question the merits of coordination with the Israelis.
Fayyad considers the incident as "very serious" and has called every American official and General he knows in the United States on their cell phones despite the holidays to demand intervention to put an end, once and for all, to all Israeli raids into Palestinian cities.
The American's, realising the seriousness of the situation, are pre-occupied with seeking clarifications from the Israelis to try to calm emotions and find a way to restore trust. Some have proposed an urgent meeting between Fayyad, senior Israeli defense officials and the Americans to redefine and outline accepted security coordination measures. Fayyad, however, seeking to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Territories again into lawlessness and to preserve his so far successful measures to end armed chaos, is demanding that the U.S. press Israel to end its raids in the Palestinian areas.
It is interesting to note that despite the anger in Nablus at the government's security coordination with Israel and emotional calls for revenge, the normal Palestinians in Nablus are worried about being drawn back to violence and lawlessness.
"People want to live. We don't want to see the return of suffocating, humiliating checkpoints like Huwara checkpoint. It seems Israel wants to take us back to the vicious cycle of violence," a Palestinian housewife from Nablus said.
Meanwhile, the American envoy George Mitchell is engaged in trying to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval on a package that the Americans believe can get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. According to Arab diplomats and Yossi Beilin, as well as an article published last week by the Middle East Forum, Mitchell and the U.S. administration are close to finalising an agreement with Netanyahu for peace talks lasting two years, that will discuss the Palestinian demand for borders based on the 1967 lines and will include an exchange of territory and suitable security arrangements.
According to Haaretz, former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin told the Meretz party leadership that information he got from foreign and Israeli officials confirmed agreement between Netanyahu and the U.S.on the following:
* Timetable: Netanyahu is willing to accept the U.S. proposal to allot 24 months to talks, but doesn't want to announce that the goal is to reach a deal by the end of that period.
* Borders: Netanyahu has agreed that the goal of the talks is to end the conflict and reconcile the Palestinian position of establishing an independent state on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the exchange of agreed-upon territory, and the Israeli position of a Jewish state with recognized and secure borders that will meet Israel's security needs.
* Jerusalem: Netanyahu has agreed that the status of Jerusalem will be discussed in the negotiations, but has not agreed to any preconditions on the issue.
* Refugees: Netanyahu said he was willing to discuss the refugee issue only in a multilateral framework.
* Previous agreements: Netanyahu is willing to commit to all previously signed agreements.
* Arab peace initiative: Netanyahu is not willing to support the plan, but is willing to say both sides are taking into consideration international initiatives that contribute to the advancement of the peace process, such as the Arab peace initiative.
Mitchell is expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the second week of January to complete talks on the terms of reference for negotiations, Beilin said. The Americans believe that such a deal could bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
Senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinians were kept in the dark about the American agreements with Israel.
Other senior Palestinian officials said the agreements fall short of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' demand for starting negotiations from the point they stopped with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert and Abbas had discussed the issue of Jerusalem in some detail. While Olmert said he did not agree to the principle of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, he has agreed to the return of a certain number on humanitarian grounds.
The Palestinian say that a deal with Netanyahu's right-wing government would not be possible, that is why they are demanding U.N. and international support for a U.N. Security Council resolution that determines the borders of the future Palestinian state.
A diplomat in the region said it was critical to get the sides to resume talks and keep the momentum going to prevent falling back into chaos and violence.
“When Mitchell returns in January, President Abbas will have to take tough decisions,” the diplomat said.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) said: "Israeli occupation forces claimed that undercover unit fired at the three victims as they refused to surrender. However, investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) conclude that the three victims were executed in cold blood."
(http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2009/129-2009.html)
The Thursday and Saturday incidents in Nablus have very serious repercussions, particularly for the Palestinian government of Salam Fayyad which was blasted and verbally attacked during angry demonstrations and funerals. Angry Palestinians chanted anti-Israeli slogans and demanded ending security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
The Nablus shootings may be a turning point in the security coordination between Fayyad's government and Israel.
Palestinian officials said Israeli authorities tricked Fayyad's government which was already taking measures and arresting people for involvement in the shooting of the rabbi. While the Palestinian security services were busy in Tulkarm area, the Israeli under cover units made a surprise attack in Nablus, a move not coordinated with the Palestinian Authority, and instead of arresting the three Fatah militants, they shot them dead at close range. Witnesses said the three Palestinians were either not armed or did not return fire.
The Nablus killings led to a popular backlash against Fayyad's security coordination moves with Israel and led even some members of his own security forces to question the merits of coordination with the Israelis.
Fayyad considers the incident as "very serious" and has called every American official and General he knows in the United States on their cell phones despite the holidays to demand intervention to put an end, once and for all, to all Israeli raids into Palestinian cities.
The American's, realising the seriousness of the situation, are pre-occupied with seeking clarifications from the Israelis to try to calm emotions and find a way to restore trust. Some have proposed an urgent meeting between Fayyad, senior Israeli defense officials and the Americans to redefine and outline accepted security coordination measures. Fayyad, however, seeking to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Territories again into lawlessness and to preserve his so far successful measures to end armed chaos, is demanding that the U.S. press Israel to end its raids in the Palestinian areas.
It is interesting to note that despite the anger in Nablus at the government's security coordination with Israel and emotional calls for revenge, the normal Palestinians in Nablus are worried about being drawn back to violence and lawlessness.
"People want to live. We don't want to see the return of suffocating, humiliating checkpoints like Huwara checkpoint. It seems Israel wants to take us back to the vicious cycle of violence," a Palestinian housewife from Nablus said.
Meanwhile, the American envoy George Mitchell is engaged in trying to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval on a package that the Americans believe can get the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. According to Arab diplomats and Yossi Beilin, as well as an article published last week by the Middle East Forum, Mitchell and the U.S. administration are close to finalising an agreement with Netanyahu for peace talks lasting two years, that will discuss the Palestinian demand for borders based on the 1967 lines and will include an exchange of territory and suitable security arrangements.
According to Haaretz, former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin told the Meretz party leadership that information he got from foreign and Israeli officials confirmed agreement between Netanyahu and the U.S.on the following:
* Timetable: Netanyahu is willing to accept the U.S. proposal to allot 24 months to talks, but doesn't want to announce that the goal is to reach a deal by the end of that period.
* Borders: Netanyahu has agreed that the goal of the talks is to end the conflict and reconcile the Palestinian position of establishing an independent state on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the exchange of agreed-upon territory, and the Israeli position of a Jewish state with recognized and secure borders that will meet Israel's security needs.
* Jerusalem: Netanyahu has agreed that the status of Jerusalem will be discussed in the negotiations, but has not agreed to any preconditions on the issue.
* Refugees: Netanyahu said he was willing to discuss the refugee issue only in a multilateral framework.
* Previous agreements: Netanyahu is willing to commit to all previously signed agreements.
* Arab peace initiative: Netanyahu is not willing to support the plan, but is willing to say both sides are taking into consideration international initiatives that contribute to the advancement of the peace process, such as the Arab peace initiative.
Mitchell is expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the second week of January to complete talks on the terms of reference for negotiations, Beilin said. The Americans believe that such a deal could bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.
Senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinians were kept in the dark about the American agreements with Israel.
Other senior Palestinian officials said the agreements fall short of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' demand for starting negotiations from the point they stopped with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert and Abbas had discussed the issue of Jerusalem in some detail. While Olmert said he did not agree to the principle of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, he has agreed to the return of a certain number on humanitarian grounds.
The Palestinian say that a deal with Netanyahu's right-wing government would not be possible, that is why they are demanding U.N. and international support for a U.N. Security Council resolution that determines the borders of the future Palestinian state.
A diplomat in the region said it was critical to get the sides to resume talks and keep the momentum going to prevent falling back into chaos and violence.
“When Mitchell returns in January, President Abbas will have to take tough decisions,” the diplomat said.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Palestinians say it is time to declare statehood
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement he will not run in elections planned for January 24, 2010 has stirred a politicaldebate both within the Palestinian areas, and internationally. Sceptics say he had threatened to resign before and the move was a tactic. But people close to the Palestinian leader insist he is serious this time and the announcement not only reflects his despair, but a shift in strategy and approach.
The moderate 74-year-old Abbas may have reached the conclusion that there needs to be a dramatic shift in strategy in dealing with his internal rivals Hamas who have refused to sign a unity deal to end their violent takeover of Gaza Strip and towards the United States that has failed to convince Israel to pay a price for a final peace witht he Palestinians.
He feels abandoned by Arab states and by the United States. Aides said the Arabs verbally express their support for him but refuse to press Hamas to end the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S. withdrew its demand that Israel totally freeze settlement construction and opted to press the weaker side, the Palestinians, to resume peace talks withour any pre-conditions.
Abbas is not Yasser Arafat, who took up negotiations and supported the fighting during the second Intifada. Abbas' only option has been negotiations alone can achieve statehood.
Abbas' prime minister Salam Fayyad has succeeded in putting an end to armed chaos in the West Bank, and has led a financial reform policy applauded by the international community.
Abbas' options may be limited but may well turn the tables on Israel that wants negotiations to go on forever without results, and the United States and its frantic efforts to restart the negotiating "process" at any cost.
U.S. President Barack Obama had promised to restart peace talks before the end of the year, and if he can't press Israel to give more than a partial freeze, then the Palestinians, as usual, can be leaned on to compromise for the sake of keeping his promise, Palestinians say.
Israelis are asking why is Abbas taking such a maximalist position now, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in power. If Netanyahu's right-wing coalition falls as a result of American pressure to halt settlements, Obama would have to wait for a few months into the next year before a chance to resume negotiations emerges.
The Palestinians have been through this process before and now say gradualism has failed. More voices are being heard calling for the preparation for a unilateral declaration of a state. The move has been delayed since 1999, when under Oslo, the interim peace phases end.
Fayyad, thinking strategicaly, and trying to create new facts on the ground, published in late August a plan that prepares for the creation of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, lands occupied in 1967,by 2011. He is not wasting time to wait for Israel to make moves to end its occupation, which may take forever.
Fayyad is working on building the state, like a businessman, using the bottom-up approach, by building the necessary infrastructure of the state and empowering the Palestinians to peacefully work towards ending occupation.
Fayyad, preoccupied with his mission, has silently engaged the Arabs, the international community, including the United States, and the United Nations, to support and adopt his plan. He is the moderate, peaceful technocrat Israel has grown to fear the most.
Like Arafat, he believes that the Palestinians haev made the painful sacrifice for peace in 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel and agreed to set up a state on only 22 percent of historical Palestine.
Palestinian politicians, who once criticised his statehood plan on either factional or personal grounds, seem to be drawn to it unconsciously as it becomes the only doable option.
"Gradualism is no longer feasible. The Palestinians should now work to prepare for the declaration of statehood," said former Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour.
Western diplomats said Abbas' anouncement not to seek re-election has prompted the U.S. to consider ways of re-engaging him to make him change his mind. One way is to approve a United Nations Security Council resolution that supports the creation of a Palestinian state.
The details of such a resolution are not yet clear, but if such a resolution was adopted, it would act as a pressure tool on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories and move towards a meaningful peace process. Or it may be added to the pile of U.N. resolutions that only collect dust over the years. The position of the United States on such a resolution may make a difference.
In the meantime, if Abbas is pressed further to re-enter a futile peace process, his options would be:
- Announce the failure of the two-state solution, and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, a clear admission of the failure of the peace strategy.
- Unilateral declaration of statehood
- To step down and hold elections in January.
The Palestinian leadership has not yet reached the point of declaring the failure of the two-state approach, but it is considering the unilateral declaration of a state more seriously.
Western diplomats say Obama may be thinking of declaring the United States support for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza if after two years, negotiations fail to end the conflict.
The Palestinains say they can't wait for another two years.
The moderate 74-year-old Abbas may have reached the conclusion that there needs to be a dramatic shift in strategy in dealing with his internal rivals Hamas who have refused to sign a unity deal to end their violent takeover of Gaza Strip and towards the United States that has failed to convince Israel to pay a price for a final peace witht he Palestinians.
He feels abandoned by Arab states and by the United States. Aides said the Arabs verbally express their support for him but refuse to press Hamas to end the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The U.S. withdrew its demand that Israel totally freeze settlement construction and opted to press the weaker side, the Palestinians, to resume peace talks withour any pre-conditions.
Abbas is not Yasser Arafat, who took up negotiations and supported the fighting during the second Intifada. Abbas' only option has been negotiations alone can achieve statehood.
Abbas' prime minister Salam Fayyad has succeeded in putting an end to armed chaos in the West Bank, and has led a financial reform policy applauded by the international community.
Abbas' options may be limited but may well turn the tables on Israel that wants negotiations to go on forever without results, and the United States and its frantic efforts to restart the negotiating "process" at any cost.
U.S. President Barack Obama had promised to restart peace talks before the end of the year, and if he can't press Israel to give more than a partial freeze, then the Palestinians, as usual, can be leaned on to compromise for the sake of keeping his promise, Palestinians say.
Israelis are asking why is Abbas taking such a maximalist position now, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in power. If Netanyahu's right-wing coalition falls as a result of American pressure to halt settlements, Obama would have to wait for a few months into the next year before a chance to resume negotiations emerges.
The Palestinians have been through this process before and now say gradualism has failed. More voices are being heard calling for the preparation for a unilateral declaration of a state. The move has been delayed since 1999, when under Oslo, the interim peace phases end.
Fayyad, thinking strategicaly, and trying to create new facts on the ground, published in late August a plan that prepares for the creation of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, lands occupied in 1967,by 2011. He is not wasting time to wait for Israel to make moves to end its occupation, which may take forever.
Fayyad is working on building the state, like a businessman, using the bottom-up approach, by building the necessary infrastructure of the state and empowering the Palestinians to peacefully work towards ending occupation.
Fayyad, preoccupied with his mission, has silently engaged the Arabs, the international community, including the United States, and the United Nations, to support and adopt his plan. He is the moderate, peaceful technocrat Israel has grown to fear the most.
Like Arafat, he believes that the Palestinians haev made the painful sacrifice for peace in 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel and agreed to set up a state on only 22 percent of historical Palestine.
Palestinian politicians, who once criticised his statehood plan on either factional or personal grounds, seem to be drawn to it unconsciously as it becomes the only doable option.
"Gradualism is no longer feasible. The Palestinians should now work to prepare for the declaration of statehood," said former Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour.
Western diplomats said Abbas' anouncement not to seek re-election has prompted the U.S. to consider ways of re-engaging him to make him change his mind. One way is to approve a United Nations Security Council resolution that supports the creation of a Palestinian state.
The details of such a resolution are not yet clear, but if such a resolution was adopted, it would act as a pressure tool on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian Territories and move towards a meaningful peace process. Or it may be added to the pile of U.N. resolutions that only collect dust over the years. The position of the United States on such a resolution may make a difference.
In the meantime, if Abbas is pressed further to re-enter a futile peace process, his options would be:
- Announce the failure of the two-state solution, and dissolve the Palestinian Authority, a clear admission of the failure of the peace strategy.
- Unilateral declaration of statehood
- To step down and hold elections in January.
The Palestinian leadership has not yet reached the point of declaring the failure of the two-state approach, but it is considering the unilateral declaration of a state more seriously.
Western diplomats say Obama may be thinking of declaring the United States support for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza if after two years, negotiations fail to end the conflict.
The Palestinains say they can't wait for another two years.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Abbas and aides misjudged impact of decision
I met Palestinian President Mahnmoud Abbas in Amman on Saturday, one day after he took the decision to defer forwarding the Goldstone report to the U.N. General Assembly for further action against Israel and Hamas, both found as possibly guilty of war crimes during the recent Gaza war.
Abbas was disturbed by the uproar against his decision fueled by Hamas and al-Jazeera satellite television accusing him of treason for burying the report and withdrawing support for further action.
The Palestinian president tried to explain in an exclusive interview his position, insisting he did not withdraw support of the report but that he simply agreed to go along with the position of all other state members of the Human Rights Council to defer a vote for action in March.
http://www.gulfnews.com/Region/Middle_East/10354432.html
"Two days ago, the Americans, Russians, China and the Europeans proposed a delay until March. We said if the rest of the states accept, we will not object to the delay. We asked the rest of the states, they said they don't mind, so the report was delayed," Abbas said in the intereview.
It was obvious that neither Abbas nor his close aides had anticipated the impact of the deferral decision. The entire Palestinian society, including the Fatah leadership and the PLO's Executive Committee criticised Abbas' decision. This was the first time Abbas faced strong criticism across the board. Voices calling on him to step down are coming from every direction.
People lashed out at Abbas and his top negotiator Saeb Erekat in what seemed like suppressed anger and deep frustration over the failure of peace talks with Israel, futile pace policies over the years, and Abbas' decision-making system.
Abbas' misfortunes came after the Palestinians' strong disappointment with U.S. President Barack Obama's abandonment of his demand that Israel halt all settlement construction before final status peace talks resume.
The Palestinian leader who emerged strong after the Fatah elections lost his standing among his people after agreeing to comply with Obama's demand to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York.
Palestinians are wondering, why can't Abbas say no to America. When Abbas became prime minister in 2003 and since he took over the presidency from Yaser Arafat, Abbas, accused of being America's man has felt he has not been supported enough by the U.S.
Even he is asking: What has America given me? I asked for weapons and equipment for the security forces but they have still not complied."
Abbas' top negotiator Saeb Erekat asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during talks with her in Washington last week why the U.S. was punishing Abbas who was implementing all his obligations required by the roadmap, which include security and incitement.
"What is the president doing wrong," Erekat asked Clinton.
"Nothing," she was quoted as saying by a senior official close to Abbas.
Then, why is it hard for Abbas to say "NO" to America and why is he bearing responsibility for all the mistakes and repetition of mistakes committed by each and every U.S. adminsitration. Why is he not listening to the sound of his own street?
The Palestinian president is expected to address his people in a nationwide speech in which he would apologize for the mistake of agreeing to defer action on Goldstone's report. This was a miscalculated step that is not yet behind him. It's repercussions will spiral and nobody knows where it could lead.
It could be a lesson, but fateful decisions await the Palestinian leadership and Hamas.
Senior Palestinian officials said after the New York summit between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama during which Obama urged the Palestinians to enter peace talks with Israel without any preconditions, that Arab states encouraged Abbas to refrain from angering Obama and to give him a chance.
Abbas will no enter peace talks without a clear basis and end game, and a timeable for implementation, senior officials said.
The Palestinians feel abandoned by the Arabs whose interests in countering Iran precede those of preserving Jerusalem, and they are divided to the point of self-destruction.
The political collapse has accelerated and both Hamas and Abbas need to study what the next steps are, to look inward and ask themselves, now what?
Abbas was disturbed by the uproar against his decision fueled by Hamas and al-Jazeera satellite television accusing him of treason for burying the report and withdrawing support for further action.
The Palestinian president tried to explain in an exclusive interview his position, insisting he did not withdraw support of the report but that he simply agreed to go along with the position of all other state members of the Human Rights Council to defer a vote for action in March.
http://www.gulfnews.com/Region/Middle_East/10354432.html
"Two days ago, the Americans, Russians, China and the Europeans proposed a delay until March. We said if the rest of the states accept, we will not object to the delay. We asked the rest of the states, they said they don't mind, so the report was delayed," Abbas said in the intereview.
It was obvious that neither Abbas nor his close aides had anticipated the impact of the deferral decision. The entire Palestinian society, including the Fatah leadership and the PLO's Executive Committee criticised Abbas' decision. This was the first time Abbas faced strong criticism across the board. Voices calling on him to step down are coming from every direction.
People lashed out at Abbas and his top negotiator Saeb Erekat in what seemed like suppressed anger and deep frustration over the failure of peace talks with Israel, futile pace policies over the years, and Abbas' decision-making system.
Abbas' misfortunes came after the Palestinians' strong disappointment with U.S. President Barack Obama's abandonment of his demand that Israel halt all settlement construction before final status peace talks resume.
The Palestinian leader who emerged strong after the Fatah elections lost his standing among his people after agreeing to comply with Obama's demand to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York.
Palestinians are wondering, why can't Abbas say no to America. When Abbas became prime minister in 2003 and since he took over the presidency from Yaser Arafat, Abbas, accused of being America's man has felt he has not been supported enough by the U.S.
Even he is asking: What has America given me? I asked for weapons and equipment for the security forces but they have still not complied."
Abbas' top negotiator Saeb Erekat asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during talks with her in Washington last week why the U.S. was punishing Abbas who was implementing all his obligations required by the roadmap, which include security and incitement.
"What is the president doing wrong," Erekat asked Clinton.
"Nothing," she was quoted as saying by a senior official close to Abbas.
Then, why is it hard for Abbas to say "NO" to America and why is he bearing responsibility for all the mistakes and repetition of mistakes committed by each and every U.S. adminsitration. Why is he not listening to the sound of his own street?
The Palestinian president is expected to address his people in a nationwide speech in which he would apologize for the mistake of agreeing to defer action on Goldstone's report. This was a miscalculated step that is not yet behind him. It's repercussions will spiral and nobody knows where it could lead.
It could be a lesson, but fateful decisions await the Palestinian leadership and Hamas.
Senior Palestinian officials said after the New York summit between Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama during which Obama urged the Palestinians to enter peace talks with Israel without any preconditions, that Arab states encouraged Abbas to refrain from angering Obama and to give him a chance.
Abbas will no enter peace talks without a clear basis and end game, and a timeable for implementation, senior officials said.
The Palestinians feel abandoned by the Arabs whose interests in countering Iran precede those of preserving Jerusalem, and they are divided to the point of self-destruction.
The political collapse has accelerated and both Hamas and Abbas need to study what the next steps are, to look inward and ask themselves, now what?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Is State with provisional borders Obama's plan?
The sense of "High Hopes" that followed U.S. President Barack Obama's election victory has been quickly replaced with "Big Frustration".
Palestinian negotiators and officials who met Obama and other U.S. officials in New York last week returned home depressed and disappointed.
They came back from those meetings with a vague idea of the outlines of the long-promised Obama peace plan. They say the U.S. administration is pushing for relaunching peace talks without any preconditions, without clear terms of reference and the plan is to get the Israelis and Palestinians to open negotiations on the borders, and lean on the Palestinians to accept a Palestinian state with provisional borders, without an agreement on Jerusalem or the refugees.
A state with provisional borders is an option stated in the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace and has been repeatedly rejected by Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting with Obama was cordial but the Palestinians were told Washington tried but failed to get the Israelis to accept a one-year settlement freeze. The U.S. would nevertheless continue to push for a nine-month freeze. They were also told there is no agreement on clear terms of reference for future final status talks.
"We were told that principles mentioned in Obama's U.N. speech are the new terms of reference. We said at least go back to the roadmap, to (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton's parameters as a basis for peace, for a land swap of some 2 or 3 percent of the land, they said no, go back to the negotiations and discuss the terms," one senior Palestinian official said.
Another Palestinian official said Abbas told Obama he could not return to negotiations on those terms.
The Palestinians are in a new dilemma.
Palestinians today start bilateral talks with the Americans in Washington to try to secure clear terms of reference of future talks with Israel, but they know without American pressure on Israel, they will get nowhere and they will enter into a new vicious circle that will not lead to an end of the conflict or even to stability.
The Palestinian leadership is contemplating not returning to negotiations if they don't get this time clear terms of reference for those talks. They are also considering what type of pressure Obama's adminsitration will exert on the Palestinian Authority if they don't.
If they return to negotiations with nothing agreed and with new settlement construction plans announced every day, the Third Intifada will this time be directed towards Abbas and his Authority, not against Israel.
Palestinian negotiators and officials who met Obama and other U.S. officials in New York last week returned home depressed and disappointed.
They came back from those meetings with a vague idea of the outlines of the long-promised Obama peace plan. They say the U.S. administration is pushing for relaunching peace talks without any preconditions, without clear terms of reference and the plan is to get the Israelis and Palestinians to open negotiations on the borders, and lean on the Palestinians to accept a Palestinian state with provisional borders, without an agreement on Jerusalem or the refugees.
A state with provisional borders is an option stated in the U.S.-backed roadmap for peace and has been repeatedly rejected by Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting with Obama was cordial but the Palestinians were told Washington tried but failed to get the Israelis to accept a one-year settlement freeze. The U.S. would nevertheless continue to push for a nine-month freeze. They were also told there is no agreement on clear terms of reference for future final status talks.
"We were told that principles mentioned in Obama's U.N. speech are the new terms of reference. We said at least go back to the roadmap, to (former U.S. President Bill) Clinton's parameters as a basis for peace, for a land swap of some 2 or 3 percent of the land, they said no, go back to the negotiations and discuss the terms," one senior Palestinian official said.
Another Palestinian official said Abbas told Obama he could not return to negotiations on those terms.
The Palestinians are in a new dilemma.
Palestinians today start bilateral talks with the Americans in Washington to try to secure clear terms of reference of future talks with Israel, but they know without American pressure on Israel, they will get nowhere and they will enter into a new vicious circle that will not lead to an end of the conflict or even to stability.
The Palestinian leadership is contemplating not returning to negotiations if they don't get this time clear terms of reference for those talks. They are also considering what type of pressure Obama's adminsitration will exert on the Palestinian Authority if they don't.
If they return to negotiations with nothing agreed and with new settlement construction plans announced every day, the Third Intifada will this time be directed towards Abbas and his Authority, not against Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)