Chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat made remarks at a small but on-the-record gathering at the Brookings Institution Tuesday that deserve more notice than they will get. Erekat not only accepted President Obama's negotiating formula of mutually agreed land swaps based on the 1967 boundary as clearly and unambiguously as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the formula last month. He also said that if Mr. Obama invited the two sides to U.S.-mediated negotiations based on that formula, the Palestinians would immediately accept and begin negotiating, provided that Netanyahu accepted on the same basis. This would mean the Palestinians' setting aside their insistence on a cessation of Israeli settlement construction, even though—as Erekat said he reminded U.S. interlocutors during his current visit—this quintessentially unilateral activity is still highly damaging to the whole concept of negotiating a settlement regarding the occupied territories.
As was noted by others in the room, this Palestinian position ought to be getting headlines, but for some reason it doesn't. Maybe the Palestinians need better publicists. Probably the main reason is the messaging prowess and political muscle of apologists for the Israeli government, who have strong political reason to depict the Palestinian leadership as supposedly resisting a peace settlement, as a way of detracting attention from the reality of Netanyahu's government resisting such a settlement. Against the backdrop of the political muscle displayed in the Congressional reception of Netanyahu, Erekat observed that if he says one thing and Netanyahu says something different, he has little chance of his version being accepted. Whatever the combination of reasons, a sort of urban myth has taken hold among much of the American public to the effect that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected Israeli offers that would have given them what they say they want.
The myth has been applied, for example, to the last serious and detailed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, between the PLO and the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert in 2008. Erekat recalled how both sides brought to that negotiating table positions replete with maps based on the land swap concept. The Israeli side proposed a larger amount of swapped land than the Palestinians did, but it was the sort of gap that, with sufficient decisiveness on both sides, could have been bridged. Those negotiations ended amid Olmert's domestic political problems and the Israeli military invasion of the Gaza Strip, followed by an Israeli election and Netanyahu's coalition becoming the government. And yet the lingering belief is that the negotiations ended with the Palestinians showing their supposed lack of interest in peace by rejecting yet another generous Israeli offer.
Erekat is the epitome of the weary veteran negotiator who asks, “What more can we do?” The PLO recognized the State of Israel, fully and formally, back in 1993. Its leader has repeatedly reaffirmed such other requirements as the Palestinians' security obligations. After repeatedly hearing the complaint that there was not a single interlocutor who could speak for all the Palestinians, the Palestinians endeavored to fix that with the recent accord between Fatah and Hamas, only to have that step condemned instead.
The dismay over having seen the can of a peace settlement kicked down the road for so long is palpable. Erekat observed that if the status quo were to continue this would mean it would not even make sense to continue the Palestinian Authority, which was only supposed to be a transition toward a Palestinian state, and which despite its name doesn't really have authority over its territory; the Israelis do. Pretending that the PA really does have authority doesn't fool the people in the territories. “Palestinians don't have a neon 'stupid' sign on their foreheads,” said Erekat. He was equally biting in accurately describing Netanyahu's posture toward negotiations, which has been to lay down conditions that are incompatible with anything resembling a Palestinian state worthy of the name and then to say, “Come here, boy, and negotiate.”
A wonder in all this is that a Palestinian faith in a two-state solution endures despite all the delay and humiliation. It also is somewhat of a wonder that those identifying with the current Israeli government have managed to lead many people to believe that, against all logic, Palestinians supposedly prefer a state of no agreement, with all of the abuse and disappointment that has entailed for Palestinians, over a peace agreement that would give them what they have long wanted: their own state, living in peace and security alongside Israel. The ball of peace is definitely in the Israelis' court, and Benjamin Netanyahu can hit the ball by accepting President Obama's basis for negotiations.
Comments
This article is correct in that it is up to the strong to lead. It is true that time is of an essence now. G-d wants truth and justice to reign from Jerusalem. The idea for the Paris International Peace Conference raised last week by French FM Alain Juppe to PM Netanyahu is encouraging. However another form of meeting is required. The meetings that need to take place ASAP will be chaired by a wise counsellor. Think "Tent of Meeting" / Come to Moses idea. The public could be made aware of the meetings, but the contents and proceedings would remain confidential until certain agreements were forged. The various groups with vested interests in the region should not panic either because the agreements will proceed in a fair and reasonable fashion. Like a good relationship, trust builds over time and it is possible to be methodical and still maintain spontaneity and interest. A political shidduch is required. A guilt laden secret affair is never as much fun as a public marriage. P.S. For all the cynics out there the universe really is stable, ordered, benevolent and expansive. Violence is not innate. G-d does have a plan. Ignore or try and thwart it and see what happens...www.wp2050.com Founded April 2000
The Arab Israeli conflict, of which the "Palestinian" question is part, is to be resolved by UN Secuerity Council Resolution, 242. 242 was designed to bring about an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the naiton-state of the Jewish people, Israel. The resolution, passed unanimously at the Security Council, has then been accepted by ALL relevant parties to the conflict and has served successfully as the basis for all peace talks to date and actual peace treaties between Israel and its Muslim-Arab neighboring states. Therefore, there is no reason to change 242 at mid-stream, only becuase a particular party that has accepted it is now refusing to play by the rules of the game. 242, while expecting of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to withdraw from "territories" captured during the defensive June 1967 Six-Day War, does NOT expect Israel to do so from all territories, nor does it specify the lines to which Israel must withdraw its troops, and only troops. Instead, UN Security Council Resolution, 242, is explicit, however, in expecting Israel to do so to "secrue and recognized boundaries", assuming the warring parties must reach, through negotiations, a decision as to where those "secure boundaries" must be. Also, it must be noted, 242 does not call at all for the setting up of an additional state in the region in order to achieve an accommodation of peaceful coexistence, nor does 242 even mention concepts such as "Palestinians", "Palestine" or a "Palestinian state"; all are elements that have been shoved into the public debate by interested groups AFTER 242 has been accepted by all the parties to the conflict. Sadly, Mr. Obama has now, contrary to internatioanl resolutions, opted to side with those pushing aspects about peace talks that are simply not part of UN Security Council Resolution, 242, namely, the 1967 lines which are simply the 1949 armistice lines broken by those who set out to wipe Israel off the face of earth in June 1967 thus having broken the armistice agreements.
So one negotiator, with no democratic mandate, speaks for the Palestinians? The opinion polls and the election of Hamas that indicate a preference for one state, preferably Islamic in character, between the river and the sea, are irrelevant? If it's understandable why the Palestinians were wary about making a deal with a lame duck Olmert who then waged war on Gaza, why wouldn't Israel be wary of negotiating with a divided P.A., which includes Hamas?I understand frustration over the isolated outposts deep in the West Bank and expansion there, and how that obstructs a two state solution. But it doesn't make sense why construction needs to be frozen in settlement blocs that it's already acknowledged, via negotiation, will be part of Israel.And if the PLO really thought the settlements are reaching the point of making two states unworkable, and this is undesirable, why sit for the first 9 months of the settlement freeze, when they got a good chunk of the preconditions they asked for?
No, not a divided camp among the Palestinian Arabs. The Hamas-Fatah Union is clearly indicative of the single goal all factions among the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel)/Palestine hope to achieve, even if that goal will be reached only in stages: the demise of the UN member state of Israel; the elimination of the single liberal democartic country in the region. And, sadly, some abroad, either due to lack of realization or based on sinister motives, or both actually wish to advance this goal..... The astitute observation of the past, sadly, still stands: when the Arabs put down their weapons, peace will reign. But, when Israel puts down its weapons, there will not be an Israel.