Peter Beinart: Obama Betrayed Ideals on Israel (excellent read)

[shaayecanaan]

Newsweek just published Peter Beinart's long-awaited piece after his seminal article two years ago. Its well written and definitely worth a read.

Its very hard to summarise without doing it an injustice, but certainly this paragraph contained details that I wasn't aware of previously:-

U.S. officials wanted the two sides to discuss borders and security simultaneously. But the Israelis refused, and as a result, the talks sometimes verged on the absurd. At a September 15, 2010, meeting at Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem, Mahmoud Abbas tried to hand the Israeli prime minister the position papers and maps that the Palestinians had given Ehud Olmert, documents that envisioned Israel annexing 1.9 percent of the West Bank in return for equal territory inside the green line. Nine days later at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York, Erekat tried to hand the same documents to Netanyahu’s chief negotiator, Yitzhak Molho. Both times, the Israelis refused to read the documents, or even touch them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/peter-beinart-obama-betrayed-ideals-on-israel.html

[babylonsister]

1. Obama bad, but not even mentioned in your excerpt?

And no, I haven't read it, but I will...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125121414

snip//

Obama supporters felt he strengthened his position on Israel. Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J-Street, a dovish pro-Israel Jewish advocacy group, said the president was effective in deflecting Republican attacks by showing his support for Israel and that he’s in control of the Iran situation.

“I think it’s very important the president was on offense,” said Ben-Ami. “The president has a really strong case to make that he has a powerful pro-Israel record to run on, and those who are looking to say otherwise are doing it for purely partisan political gain.”

[bahrbearian]

3. Kow Tow to the Repugs?

[Enrique]

4. actually the article starts with that

it starts by describing the benefit gained from the AIPAC speech, but then goes on at great length and lays out the cost of the accommodations.

[King_David]

20. A lot of people do not consider J-Street 'pro-Israel.

Including prominent Democrats and Jewish leaders.

Illustration :

'Opposing J Street U’s admission was not a means of shutting out disparate opinions on Israel. The vote does not serve to stop the group’s activity or prevent them from continuing to work with organizations like Hillel.

Instead, it was a way to make sure that the makeup of the JSU accurately reflects the JSU’s membership. It was a way of ensuring that an organization whose leaders were at the center of the divestment campaign does not command double its share of influence in the JSU.'


http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/63819/cal-jewish-groups-right-to-deny-j-street-u-admission/

(They most certainly do not represent the Jewish street any more than the Naturei Karta does )

[Ken Burch]

51. So "deflating Republican attacks" is more important than standing agaisnt injustice?

Yeah...winning the election...that justifies EVERYTHING...

Some people(I assume not you, of course)will argue that it justifies cheering for an Israeli war against Iran...even though no possible good can come from such an war and even though thousands of innocent people will die in it.

[bahrbearian]

2. Oh goodie we get to go to war , Because Obama didn't want to hurt Bibis little feeling

Stop giving Israel $$$$ for its military.

[babylonsister]

5. #1, we won't stop giving $ to Israel. #2, do you really think we/Obama wants

to go to war? Seems to me he's intent on avoiding that by whatever means necessary.

[bahrbearian]

6. I don't bluff !

[babylonsister]

8. "Obama urges Israel to give diplomacy a chance with Iran in AIPAC speech"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101467856

[azurnoir]

7. we have 8 months separating us from the election

the pressure on Obama will be tremendous but starting a war with Iran will most likely lose him the election, there is little way Bibi can get around that

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. I would not be so sure about that

Presidents of both parties have used wars to rally electorates. I see no reason to believe that Obama would not do the same.

If Iran does something stupid enough, it could give Obama the excuse he needs to shoot Tomahawks or launch airstrikes. Mine the Straights of Hormuz, attack shipping could draw an immediate military reply. Alternatively, it could be slow buildup and then he could claim that Iran crossed a line in the sand. My guess that would involve nuclear weapons or equivalent.

New wars are often popular. I see no reason why if one flared up that Obama would lose the election over it, especially with the current crop of repuke candidates. I could see him going forward with at least airstrikes as a way to cement a victory.

[azurnoir]

16. What in your would Iran have to do to be "stupid enough" to justify a war

for the American public? and do you believe Obama is looking for an excuse to start a war?

and while you may be right about POTUS's from both parties using wars in the past FDR and Bush2 come to mind both times America was directly attacked prior to the start of those wars

IMO none of the current crop of GOP candidates is electable, they're all too crazy

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Mine the Straights comes to mind

Attack shipping in International waters might be enough. Clean military response like Tomahawks or airstrikes as well as sinking their mining/attack vessels could be done a low risk. He would be seen as being decisive and willing to use military power by those who are wavering. I don't see a boots on the ground kind of thing, but high tech standoff attacks by the US.

I was thinking of when LBJ was POTUS

We agree about the current GOP crowd...but a brokered convention could result in a new face and a reasonably close race.

[shira]

9. So you, Beinart, and your political allies believe that it's okay....

...for Abbas to step away from the Olmert offer without a decent counterproposal?

I'm assuming so. It wasn't even mentioned in the article. Which makes the article crap due to omitting key information that pretty much blows up his entire argument.



Yeah, like that.

Anyone who knows anything at all about these peace talks knows Abbas just wants to pocket more concessions before he once again refuses an offer without a decent counterproposal in response. That news will of course remain quiet. Then the peace talks will resume at some later point and the show will go on, it'll be Israel's fault again, yada, yada.....

Abbas will never go public for Western consumption with his absurd plans about RoR. The world won't go for that, so he's playing games and many are allowing him to do so, or they're just useful idiots.

[azurnoir]

10. shira once again Olmert himself says that Abbas did not refuse Olmert "stepped away" from being PM

days after the offer was made, the current PM Netanyahu had already said he would not honor any agreement Olmert made with the Palestinians and if the offer from the Israeli government was sincere why will they not agree to it now?

[shira]

11. Big deal. Did Abbas counter with anything reasonable at all, or did he just quietly walk away?

I'm not playing this semantics game. You can do it if you wish.

And once again Netanyahu had nothing to do with this. If Abbas really wanted to keep things going he would've gone public with a genuine counter-offer, demanding that the powers that be try to help them bridge the gaps.

We both know very well Abbas can't go public with his RoR lunacy. The Western world will not buy into that and it would expose the Palestinian leadership as frauds wasting time with peace talks.

Funny enough, here you are again. Incapable of admitting it's mostly the PLO's fault. You can't even admit they should have counter-offered with something reasonable. Once again, that's detrimental to the cause. Complete unity is required. To criticize the PLO is to betray the movement.

[azurnoir]

13. shira the OP states that Abbas and Erekat tried to give the current PM and his rep

offers they would not even view them, something far more recent than an incident from nearly 4 years ago, IMO your scratching for excuses for this behavior from the current Israeli government

[shira]

22. You're now avoiding the Olmert proposal w/Abbas' lack of a counter-offer....

Every time you're proved wrong, rather than admit you're wrong you go with the double dog or quadruple dog defense.

You're wrong about the Olmert offer (the actual context here that's missing in the article) and you now want to jump to Sept 2010. If corrected on that, I'm certain you'd latch onto something else. You only stop when you claim "that's your opinion", when the facts are against you.

Again, you can't ever admit the PLO or its supporters they're at fault and to blame. You're looking for any reason to avoid doing that by going on the offense against Israel and its supporters.

Come on, admit that if you were to ever blame the PLO for anything that would be detrimental to the cause.

You can do it.

Please.......

Just once.

[azurnoir]

28. why will Israel not extend or even discuss it now? why the now you see it now you don't?

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 10:49 AM - Edit history (2)

shira you go on and on about Olmerts offer despite being shown the reasons it was invalid repeatedly

and it was almost 4 years ago you can continue to use what a Olmert 'offered' Abbas right before he resigned and months before the election of his successor
whom had said he would not honor any deal Olmert made with the Palestinians and in addition to that according to the article

Not only was Netanyahu a longtime champion of settlement expansion, but during his own election campaign he had refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state and made it clear that he considered peace talks aimed at creating one a waste of time. As his top aide, Ron Dermer, explained in May, “There is no way now where you have on the Palestinian side a willingness to make the sorts of compromises that will be required for a deal on the core issues but yet despite that the previous government decided to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate and to focus on that and to bang their head against the wall.” Netanyahu’s national security adviser, Uzi Arad, added, “It will be difficult to reach a true Israeli-Palestinian agreement that does away with the bulk of the conflict. I don’t see that in the coming years.”

you can go on and on blaming the Palestinians if it makes you feel better or superior or whatever but I will deal with what is happening right now

[shira]

30. Stop. Now you're dredging up your past failed attempts to dismiss Olmert's offer.

Please, no more of this round-and-round-we-go crap. Digging up stuff you've been corrected on many times. Don't even pretend that didn't happen.

Abbas walked away from the Sept 2008 offer without a reasonable counter-offer. This was months before Netanyahu. He did not come out publicly or privately to the West to announce "that the 2 sides are close and let's wrap something up before Olmert's gone. We go public then and put pressure on Netanyahu not to honor the agreement." He didn't say that all he needed was a little more time. He left Olmert out to dry.

Let's discuss that, okay? No more smoke and mirrors or deflections.

You say you're for peace and 2 states.

So why did Abbas (someone you trust far more than any Israeli official in government) just walk away w/o a counterproposal? I want stuff from that time period, not apologetics well after the fact. How do you defend Abbas?

[azurnoir]

33. my only supposed "failure" here

is that you keep bringing up Olmert in some attempt to distract from what is actually the present case and that is a PM that had said prior to his election that he would not honor any deal Olmert made with the Palestinians, unless you will also claim that the entire offer would have been instituted immediately Netanyahu would have been PM prior to its implementation in any event

[shira]

34. Great, so you can't defend the past. We all know that already...

You're incapable of blaming Abbas and his cronies.

So let's move on.

WRT the present case, what are the Palestinians offering WRT refugees? They're stalling. They could offer the world, but without a reasonable refugee solution, they're just negotiating for 1 state. We all know 2 states with RoR means 1 state.

As to Netanyahu, he had nothing to do with Abbas giving Olmert the cold shoulder from mid September 2008 until Feb. 10, 2009. That's 5 months. Nothing. No word whatsoever in response.

Netanyahu would never have been elected if a peace deal was cut. With peace, who needs Netanyahu? He's irrelevant here. Kadima would have ran on a completely different platform, boasting that only they made peace with the Palestinians after all these years. They'd claim Bibi is against the peace deal they cut, that he's anti-peace. The world would stand behind Kadima and blast Bibi. Netanyahu wouldn't have a chance.

Even if Bibi won in February, there'd be no way he could get away with dishonoring a finalized peace deal. Israel would never live that down. You guys would have a field day. Every hater in the world would say, "finally the mask is ripped off". Instead of peace, it's obvious Israel wants war. Yada, yada....

You're out of excuses.

[azurnoir]

35. keep trying however

not honoring a"finalized" peace agreement in this case would have been all too easy as Olmert stepped down do to corruption charges as to claims about Bibi being antipeace may I refer you back to the OP?

[shira]

38. Yeah, right. You've got nothing. n/t

[azurnoir]

41. its not what I don't its what I still have

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

access to DU2 archives which allowed me access links from years back more easily than a Google search

so here ya go

Shaul Arieli of the Council for Peace and Security, which developed a map with a final border as part of the Geneva Initiative, said Israel's capacity to swap territory with a future Palestinian state is more limited than what Olmert reportedly proposed.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-olmert-s-plan-for-peace-with-the-palestinians-1.1970

Nabil Abu Rdainah, Abbas's spokesman, told the official Palestinian news agency WAFA that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan showed a "lack of seriousness."

Under the proposal, Israel would return to the Palestinians 93 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.

Olmert presented Abbas with the proposal as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578

Netanyahu: I won't carry out an Olmert-Abbas peace deal if elected

Opposition leader favored by polls to sweep elections if held today rejects proposal to divide Jerusalem, says would toss out agreement between current PM, Palestinians

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3533242,00.html

Livni tells France's Kouchner: I oppose Olmert's peace plan

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told her French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that she opposes the agreement in principle that outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert has offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation," Livni, the prime minister-designate, told Kouchner on Sunday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/livni-tells-france-s-kouchner-i-oppose-olmert-s-peace-plan-1.285402

eta Olmert resigned 8 days after presenting Abbas with this plan, there is little way this plan would have been finalized in 8 days, much less implemented.

[shira]

47. Now you're talking...

You found some good stuff I'd either forgotten or didn't know about. Specifically, the 4th quote and the 'ETA' part near the bottom of your post. Well played. You did your work and I'm complementing you.

Despite your best effort, that's all irrelevant. Nothing there lets Abbas off the hook. The Annapolis talks went on for a year. Before that there was the 2000 talks that ended at Taba. Over a year of negotiations and 20 years since Oslo began, and still we're in the dark about what Abbas wants WRT refugees?

He's playing games.

We know he's still for RoR. How do we know this? It's all over Palestinian media as something he will never budge on. Israel could agree to everything outside of RoR, but it's that one issue that makes or breaks the deal.

Even if Olmert had more time and Kadima, Likud, and most Israelis supported all other points aside from RoR, there still wouldn't be a deal. Abbas won't drop RoR. Ever. He says this a lot in Arabic on PA television. He talks constantly of one state and rewards and glorifies terror and terrorists. There's absolutely nothing Israel can do about that. Israel cannot be blamed for Abbas' intransigence.

[azurnoir]

48. well a couple of things here first Livni who was the front running candidate for Kadima did not

support Olmerts deal and secondly

all of the links came from debates I had on the subject with you, so I guess you forgot

its ok

[Ken Burch]

53. Why is the response to Olmert's "offer" more important than the offers Abbas & Co. made recently?

You do realize, in fixating on the Olmert era and refusing to deal with the point azurnoir made about the more recent offers that you sound as if you're openly ADMITTING that neither Livni nor Bibi would never make any deals with the PA.

That's a pretty damaging comment to make about your side.

If you didn't mean that, then why ARE you acting as if the more recent PA proposals simply don't matter?

[Ken Burch]

54. Again, why is the Olmert offer more important than the more recent PA offers that azur mentioned?

You're beginning to sound like you were Olmert's campaign manager or something.

What makes him so much more special than anybody other possible Israeli PM?

[shira]

56. Ken, read the above exchange again. My point is that the PA has never once...

...given the Israeli side a set number of refugees as a requirement in order for there to be peace. The reason being, they want RoR. They haven't kept refugees in camps over 60 years for nothing.

That said, no other details matter b/c without giving a reasonable set in stone number, the PA is essentially negotiating a 1-state settlement. Two states with RoR = 1 state.

Israel shouldn't have to tolerate that.

As for Livni, Olmert, Netanyahu, etc... it doesn't matter what they offer. No other details matter if the goal is 1-state.

[Ken Burch]

52. once Livni and then Bibi were in power, what was the point?

Neither ever wanted this to end. Both were too committed to appeasing the neofascist wing of the settlers.

[shaayecanaan]

12. I think we really need a sticky on this board...

as I get tired of dealing with the same bullshit claims time and time again.

Olmert's offer was a counterproposal. It was a response to Abbas' 2008 proposal detailed in the Palestine papers where he offered Israel the chance to retain all their East Jerusalem settlements, in exchange for them returning Ariel and Maale Adumim.

In the same way that Ehud Barak's offers at Taba were instantly annulled by the next incoming government, so too was Olmert's offer abrogated by Netanyahu, who made it clear he had no intention of honouring those offers, or even making any final status offers. The problem with Israeli prime ministers is that they only seem to want to enter into peace negotiations when they are near the end of their political lives.

It appears that in fact Abbas has been making "counterproposals", if Beinart's article is correct, and that Netanyahu has been throwing them back in his face.

[azurnoir]

14. There's a smilie I've been trying to figure out for the longest

it involves a deceased equine and would IMO fit this perfectly

[oberliner]

17. This post is total BS

The Palestine papers do not say what this post claims they say.

There was no such formal offer made by Abbas in 2008 (detailed in the Palestine papers or anywhere else for that matter).

The totality of this post is completely false as anyone who has actually looked at those documents can easily verify.

I think we need a sticky on this board to warn people not to accept information at face value from posters who make assertions that are not supported by reality.

Abbas: Concessions in Palestine papers came from Israel, not us

PA president says that the documents leaked by Al-Jazeera purposely reverse the Israeli and Palestinian positions.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-concessions-in-palestine-papers-came-from-israel-not-us-1.338882

[shaayecanaan]

24. Your post is total BS...

There was no such formal offer made by Abbas in 2008 (detailed in the Palestine papers or anywhere else for that matter).

Well, if you want to split hairs, then Olmert's offer to Abbas wasn't formal either. Olmert refused to put his offer in writing, and the only record of the offer was Abbas' "napkin map" that he managed to hastily scrawl on a scrap of paper.

The offer was made, whether "formal" or not. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of pervasive dishonesty that is problematic on this board.

PA president says that the documents leaked by Al-Jazeera purposely reverse the Israeli and Palestinian positions.

Do you actually believe that? That al-Jazeera doctored the papers to reverse the positions (so that presumably Tzipi Livni offered Saeb Erekat the "biggest Jerusalem in history&quot ? Please.

I half-expected the reply to my last post to consist of the other lie that Olmert's offer represented 98% of the West Bank - a dishonesty that is only tenable if you completely exclude greater Jerusalem from any calculation.

There seems to something of a "fatigue strategy" employed by people on this board to simply repeat the same lies over and over in the hope that casual observers will simply believe them and that other people will get tired of correcting them.

[shaayecanaan]

26. Further

a copy of Abbas' 1.9% map (which is presumably the same map that Abbas is trying to hand to Netanyahu) can be found here:-

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/a_tale_of_two_peace_offers

It should be noted that at least Abbas has a peace proposal - certainly no one is speaking of a Netanyahu map.

[shira]

31. If Abbas made an offer, what was the number of refugees....

How many are supposed to return according to this formal proposal?

1,000 or 250,000? 1 or 5 million? All?

Let's see this bottom line number of refugees the PLO requires in this so-called formal proposal. The PLO can be generous on every other issue, but it wouldn't matter one bit. Without something reasonable on RoR, negotiations are an utter waste of time. Why should Israel negotiate a one-state deal with the PLO? That's essentially what the talks have been about without a set number of refugees from the PLO. Right?

You write about pervasive dishonesty on this board. So let's go. No BS, lies, or fatigue strategy.

I'll wait...

[shaayecanaan]

36. The Palestine Papers speak of a "very low number" and a "symbolic number"

but does not reveal the exact number that Abbas put to Olmert.

However, Olmert in his memoir says he was able to agree with Abbas on "a limited number of refugees", but that the sticking issue was territory:-

Mr. Olmert said the two sides had agreed on key principles: the state of Palestine would have no military; an American-led international security force, not Israeli soldiers, would be stationed on its border with Jordan; Jerusalem would be shared, with its holy sites overseen by a multinational committee; and a limited number of Palestinian refugees would be permitted back into what is now Israel, while the rest would be generously compensated.

The two agreed that Israel could keep some land in the West Bank on which settlements had been built, but disagreed over how much. Mr. Olmert wanted 6.5 percent of the area but would go as low as 5.9 percent; Mr. Abbas offered 1.9 percent.

In a separate interview, Mr. Abbas confirmed most of Mr. Olmert’s account. Both said they hoped at the time that American proposals would settle the differences.

“We need the Americans to bridge the gaps in a fair way,” Mr. Abbas said, speaking a week ago in Amman, Jordan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html?pagewanted=all

So it would seem that the refugees weren't an insurmountable issue, but that the Israeli insistence on keeping Ariel as well as the other outer settlements was the main impediment to a deal.

[shira]

40. Please show me where Abbas and Olmert agreed to some small number of refugees. n/t

[shira]

23. More BS on top of BS. Who do you think you're fooling?

Point us all to that specific Palestinian "proposal" from 2008, please. See, it doesn't exist. All you have are talking points, many that the PLO denies. I don't want articles from any news sources that deliberately distorted the record against Israel. Remember our exchange in which you were proven wrong WRT refugees? I'll dig it up if need be.

Now as to incoming PM's anulling past agreements, there were no agreements, were there? There was no reasonable counter-offer in each case. Ask yourself why and try answering that one here. All the PLO had to do in 2000 and 2008 was to specify exactly what they couldn't agree with and things they absolutely required. They could have demanded each time for others to help to bridge the gaps. This is assuming their counter-proposals were reasonable, which they're not considering RoR, which is a deal breaker the West would never tolerate. That's the reason they're incapable of going public with specific requirements. Of course they don't need to when they have western apologists and useful idiots making excuses for them and laying the blame instead on Israel.

Abbas made no counter-prosal to speak of. His position hasn't changed one bit since the Annapolis talks. These talks are a complete waste of time. NO ONE, including yourself and certainly not the Palestine Papers knows exactly what the PLO wants or what they could live with. Israel's positions are clear. The PLO is hiding something.

Yeah, definitely sticky this one. If we continue, it'll be fun.

[shaayecanaan]

25. re Refugees and Settlements

http://transparency.aljazeera.net/files/5012.PDF

SE: So we look at what’s doable. The Jordanians will support whatever AM decides.
Egypt, I don’t know – they want to bring Netanyahu in. The Russians want a meeting in
Sochi … The French – I told them stop this, don’t try to bypass the US. You are what’s in
it for us. There is no other way. We have to avoid fragmentation. We asked you to give us
your position on the end game, not a treaty- give us your position. Countries have
positions. Your position is two state solution, Palestinian state, ending the occupation. So
we said 67 borders with agreed swaps. That’s your position, so say it! If you put down such
a paper we will call an emergency Arab summit and get it accepted. Netanyahu will reject.
Either he will change his coalition or there will be elections. Israelis want the two state
solution but they don’t trust. They want it more than you think, sometimes more than
Palestinians. What is in that paper gives them the biggest Yerushalaim in Jewish history,
symbolic number of refugees return, demilitarized state… What more can I give?

DH: Can we be more specific …

SE: On process … will meet with Uzi Arad. You know the paper – the paper I gave to
Daniel, AM wrote it himself. We translated it. AM knows the Israelis well. He understands
Netanyahu. He saw the minutes of his cabinet meeting where he talked about his book
“Under the Sun” and called AM an extremist and a terrorist. AM will not allow Netanyahu 4
to do to him what he did to Arafat. AM is the father of the peace camp, Oslo – and 18 years
later Israel remains the source of authority. His heart aches when he sees families thrown
into the streets of Jerusalem. And Fayyad as well –with the events in Nablus. So these are
the choices. [SE prints copy of paper]. Why can’t you adopt the paper?

http://transparency.aljazeera.net/files/2825.PDF

We proposed that the ratio of swap should not exceed 1.9% from the total area of
the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, and that swapped
land should be located on 1967 borders.
- As for settlements, we proposed the following: Removal of some settlements,
annexation of others, and keeping others under Palestinian sovereignty.
- This last proposition could help in the swap process. We proposed that Israel
annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa). This
is the first time in history that we make such a proposition; we refused to do so n
Camp David.
- We cannot accept the annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev, Ephrat
and Har Homa settlements.

[shira]

29. The first link you provided is from Jan 2010. You realize that's well after Olmert?

I thought we were discussing mid to late 2008.

Nevertheless, here's what the papers say about an Olmert/Abbas exchange according to Erekat....

Sharif Hamadeh (SH): There are conflicting reports about what Abu Mazen and Olmert discussed re: refugees. Can you clarify?

SE: Olmert said 1,000 refugees over 10 years. Abu Mazen said “are you joking.”

SH: Was it Right of Return or Family reunification?

SE: I don?t know. But, if that is being reported, it?s good to say that Olmert agreed to the principle of Right of Return.

SH: AM used the figure 5 million refugees? This is not what we use. We will prepare a memo on terms and methodology for counting refugees so we can coordinate.

Tarek Hamam (TH): Could you shed light on why the issue of refugee arrangements is being discussed in public in the media?

SE: I cannot stand guard on the lips of every Palestinian.

http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/201218205826718715.html


I asked for specifics WRT this awesome PLO peace proposal to Olmert. Now what number did Abbas give to Olmert WRT symbolic RoR for refugees? 50,000 or 200,000? 1 or 3 million? Neither one of us has a clue.

[shaayecanaan]

37. Bullshit. The discussions took place in June, 2008

They were leaked in 2010. Do you even read these documents?

The exact number that Abbas gave to Olmert isnt known. The only thing we do know is that it was low, and that Olmert and Abbas were able to agree on this issue. Abbas also said that it was unrealistic to expect the Israelis to take anything like a million refugees.

In any event, we know from Olmert's own account that he and Abbas were able to agree on refugees, but not on territory. Or do you not believe Olmert any more?

[shira]

39. The top of that link says Sept 2010. And it refers to Senator Mitchell...

...who came in with Obama months after the Olmert proposal, as well as the settlement freeze Obama called for after taking office. Read more carefully.

How do you know the number of refugees was low?

As to Olmert and Abbas agreeing, it was allegedly in the principal of RoR, not the numbers.

Where does Olmert say that he and Abbas agreed on refugees?

I think you're making all this up. Either that, or you're basing your knowledge on worthless blogging websites.

[shaayecanaan]

42. According to Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' starting position in June 2008 was 150,000...

or 15,000 a year for ten years. Olmert's position was 5,000 or 1000 a year for five years.

http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/100311-plo-paper.pdf

(c) Refugees: The Israeli side proposed the following:
- The return of 1,000 refugees to Israel annually and for a period of five years.
These would return for humanitarian reasons.
- Return to the State of Palestine would be an internal Palestinian affair.
- an international compensation fund would be established, on which Israel
would be a member.
- Israel rejected to bear any liability for the calamity caused to the Palestinian
refugees.
- Israel would bear a special liability for the compensation of refugees.
On the other hand, the Palestinian side stated the following:
- Solutions for the refugees’ properties would be discussed.
- The right to return is safeguarded by the international law and UN General
Assembly Resolution 194.
- The return to Israel of 15,000 refugees per year for 10 years, renewable
thereafter at the agreement of both parties.
- Return to the State of Palestine shall be subject to Palestinian law only.
- An international compensation fund shall be incorporated, whereby all
refugees would be compensated regardless of their choice. The right is for return and
compensation, not return or compensation.
- Host countries would be compensated

Olmert then made an offer of 10,000 or 1,000 a year for 10 years. Saeb Erekat later said to Mitchell that "Olmert accepted 10,000" and that "on refugees, the deal is there".

In any event, the Palestinians were hardly asking for full RoR, as you continue to glibly maintain.

[shira]

49. Those numbers are still vague due to a renewable right...

Now you've found a paper from Saeb Erekat during Netanyahu's term in December 2009, about a year after OCL and well after Olmert.

Ben Dror Yemini took this one on...

There are two problems with this document. Firstly, the document is directed at the Europeans, when Netanyahu was already in power, in order to present the Palestinians as moderates. And secondly, the document contains a land mine which deals with a renewable right. And thirdly, in all the documents, at the relevant time during the negotiations, it is made clear in no uncertain terms that the right of return is a personal right ‘which is not subject to any negotiation whatsoever’, and in other documents the Palestinians even try to define the ‘absorption ability’ of Israel in a scientific manner, reaching a number of 1,016,511 refugees. Some display of moderateness.”

http://cifwatch.com/2011/03/27/post-script-to-‘palestine-papers’-guardian-grossly-misrepresented-so-called-palestinian-concessions/

Even if 150,000 was the number used, this renewable right leaves the door open for more. It's not a set number. All individual Palestinians have this right. Not just the first 150,000 who are lucky.

There's also this...

The memo then offered the following recommendation:

“Only specify the formula by which an agreed solution will be achieved in
the Treaty. This approach is obviously the best political strategic
option for the Palestinians, as it does not require relinquishing the
option of return for millions of Palestinians, but it is also the most
practical approach.” (Id.) (emphasis added).

This vagueness with regard to the actual number of refugees that would “return” to Israel under a
final status agreement appears to have been operative in a March 24, 2009 “President Abbas Meeting
with the Negotiations Support Unit.” In the memo memorializing that meeting, Abbas is shown to
have held the Arab Peace Initiative (“API”) up as the basis for the solution for refugees. He explains
that with regard to refugees, the API does not specify a number:

Also, many people either understate or exaggerate the article on
refugees: either say it is not enough, or interpret it to mean that 5
million refugees will return. Neither is correct. The language is correct
in stating “just and agreed upon.”
http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/document/4507.

[font color = "red"]Abbas leaves the door wide open. The numbers are still vague.[/font]

President Abbas goes on to explain that in his meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
“on refugees” he did not specify a number, but rather:
we said some but not all would return to what is now Israel. (Id.)

[font color = "red"]Again, this is in March 2009, from Abbas, months into Obama and Netanyahu's term.[/font]

Abbas is then quoted as explaining to the NSU that any agreement would be subject to a referendum
that would include all Palestinians in the diaspora, “not only those in the West Bank and Gaza” (id.)
and that:

On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take 5 million, or
indeed 1 million that would mean the end of Israel. (Id.)

Given the Palestinian interpretation of the API (see Section I(B), supra), this seems consistent with
the strategy outlined in the March 19, 2008 memo of “Only specifying the formula by which an
agreed solution will be achieved . . . . while not require relinquishing the option of return for
millions of Palestinians” http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/document/2364.

The PLO is playing games.

[shaayecanaan]

50. Yeah, renewable only upon agreement with Israel

Israel would actually have to agree to take on any additional refugees after the ten year period, which no doubt the Palestinians understand would be an unlikely prospect. The "renewable" part was probably intended as a very thin salve for those additional Palestinians stuck in refugee camps.

The PLO are indeed playing games, but not with Israel. They present a tough face to their public but are faced with a negotiation in which they are very much the weaker party and must make the lion's share of concessions.

Arafat attempted to be honest once, when he remarked after the Oslo accords that the agreement reached was a "bad one, but the best that could be made in a bad situation" - and the public never forgave him for it. Since that time, the Palestinian negotiators have tried to keep their concessions secret, which is understandable in a way.

There are at least two mentions of Abbas giving a number to Olmert, which is variously described as "symbolic" and "very low". We know it was substantially less than a million because Abbas is on record as saying it was unrealistic to expect Israel to take anything like that number. After that, the Palestinians seem not to have put forth any numbers, probably because the issue was going to resolve in Israel's favour and they wanted to hold out until Israel made the necessary concessions on territory. The figure of 150 000 stated by Erekat sounds about right - and its worth noting that Olmert hasn't sought to correct the record in any way either.

It also doesn't make sense to state that Erekat would reveal concessions to the Europeans in order to look moderate, but not to Israel. Obviously, anything that he said to them was going to find its way back to Israel anyway.

[shira]

57. It's still too vague and leaves the door wide open. Here's Abbas admitting...

...that he never gave Olmert a number. From my last post with a link to al-Jazeera's papers:

President Abbas goes on to explain that in his meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
“on refugees” he did not specify a number, but rather:
we said some but not all would return to what is now Israel. (Id.)

Here it is in detail by AM (Abu Mazen aka Abbas):

AM: We discussed all issues and asked all questions in our meetings. For example, on borders, we asked, “what are the borders? Give us maps.” We did not receive an answer until 3 months before the end of negotiations and until Rice said that the 1967 is the baseline. They showed us but did not give us a map. They said 6.5% of the territory for swaps, we said only 1.9% and that is when the built up area of all the settlements is only 1.2%. That issue, had it been addressed and resolved, would have solved all three issues of borders, settlements, and Jerusalem. On refugees, we said some but not all would return to what is now Israel. All refugees can get Palestinian citizenship (all 5 million) if they want to (for example Palestinian refugees in Jordan may not want to while for refugees in Lebanon there is a need). With that Palestinian refugees will no longer be stateless but rather foreigners.

That was in March 2009, months after Olmert's final offer and a few weeks into Netanyahu's term.

Where's this 150,000 number coming from when Abbas admitted he never specified any number?

With that Palestinian refugees will no longer be stateless but rather foreigners.

He's admitting Palestinian refugees will remain in limbo, b/c Palestine won't accept them as anything other than foreigners. The point being, millions of Palestinians are potential returnees to Israel due his proposal being so vague.

Realize also that in the paper you just provided about 150,000 refugees that one of the requirements by the PLO is that each of the 5-7 million refugees has an individual RoR that cannot be negotiated away. How do you circle the square on that one?

Put it all together and the PLO is blowing smoke and playing games. They're still holding out for 2 states becoming 1 state. Same shit for the past 60+ years.

[font color = "red"]ETA in summary:

1. You believe 150,000 would remain a set figure. But Abbas said 'some, not all'.

2. What happens to the other millions of Palestinians whose individual rights (meaning they get to choose) cannot be negotiated away?

3. How about the possible millions of refugees who become foreigners in a future Palestine? They'll still be considered refugees according to the PLO.[/font]

[oberliner]

18. Long Awaited! Seminal! Excellent Read!

How big is the Peter Beinart fanboy community?

Was he this popular when he was writing op-eds supporting the invasion of Iraq?

[King_David]

21. LOL nt

[shaayecanaan]

27. Well, someone seems bitter today...

Did I mention how handsome he was?

[King_David]

32. I guess me and you have very different taste in men ...

[shaayecanaan]

43. You're just jealous because you couldn't get him in a million years (nt)

[King_David]

44. nope, not my type,wouldn' even try.

But go for it , if it will make you happy.

Start by exchanging pics.

That is always a good start.

[King_David]

45. And you know this ?

How?

Kinda juvinille to say that btw.