What happened on September 13

[shira]

What happened on September 13

By Aluf Benn

American special Mideast envoy George Mitchell should make a stop at Tel Aviv's Platinum Tower on his next visit to Israel for a chat with former prime minister Ehud Olmert. He will find it interesting. Olmert will tell him that on September 13, 2008, after he resigned and became caretaker prime minister, he hosted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in his home in Jerusalem and presented him with a detailed proposal for a peace agreement.

In their previous meeting two weeks earlier, Olmert had presented a map of the Palestinian state, but Abbas complained that it was too small. This time Olmert prepared a giant map of the future border and its twisting route, which he drew with the help of an external expert.

Olmert's map proposed that the Palestinians establish their state on 93.5 percent of the West Bank, receiving another 5.8 percent through a land exchange with Israel. The rest would come in a "safe passage" corridor from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip. The map left the settlement blocs in Israel's control - Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion - proposing in exchange lands in the southern Hebron Hills, the Judean Hills and the Beit She'an Valley. According to the Palestinians, Olmert also proposed dividing the no-man's-land near Latrun. All told, Abbas was offered an area equal to the whole West Bank - 100 percent. As for Jerusalem, Olmert proposed dividing sovereignty between the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, and leaving the Old City's "holy basin" and its surroundings without sovereignty, under the management of an international committee with the participation of Israel, Palestine, the United States, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The most original suggestion involved the refugee issue. Olmert did not recognize the Palestinians' demand for a right of return. Rather, he agreed to take in a small number of refugees over five years, "about the number of people that can fit into the Muqata in Ramallah" - that is, between 2,000 and 3,000 people.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100313.html

[shira]

1. article cont'd

According to the Israeli version, Abbas asked Olmert to let him have the map. "If you sign it, you can have it," Olmert told Abbas. He did not want to give the Palestinians a document that would be a baseline for the next round of negotiations and a basis for demanding more concessions from Israel. Abbas responded that he wanted to study the details with a cartographic expert and return the next day with chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and the cartographer for another meeting. Olmert agreed.

But Abbas did not return the next day, or the day after. He did not even call. He severed contact and eventually explained in an interview with The Washington Post that he had rejected Olmert's proposal because the gaps were too wide. According to Erekat, the Palestinians demand full sovereignty over the Temple Mount and are not prepared to hand it over to an international body. They also want to shrink the settlement blocs that Olmert wanted to annex to Israel. But that version was given later, not as a direct answer to Olmert. Only after Olmert left office did Abbas call to say goodbye.

What can we learn from this story? The political reactions are predictable. The right will argue that once again the Palestinians rejected a generous offer and this is more proof that there is no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. Netanyahu's office regards the interview in which Abbas admitted to rejecting the offer as a priceless public-relations asset. The left will argue that Olmert did not offer enough.

Political debate aside, the essential lesson from Olmert's proposal is that the parties' stances have hardly changed since the failures of Camp David and Taba. Nine years of war, diplomatic standstill and thousands killed on both sides have not softened them. The Palestinians have not given in and Israel has not broken. Apparently a compromise can be reached on borders, but Israel does not want Palestinians to return to its territory and the Palestinians want the Temple Mount. Neither side is prepared to give up its national symbols and tell its people that the pledges of the past - "we will return to our villages in Palestine" and "united Jerusalem in Israel's hands forever" - were just illusions.

The second lesson is procedural. Left to their own devices the parties cannot reach an agreement. They need close oversight by an external mediator, preferably American, to bridge the gaps and propose incentives in exchange for painful concessions. That needs to be the role of U.S. president Barack Obama and his emissary, Mitchell.

[Vegasaurus]

2. Olmert made an amazingly generous offer, which was refused, as usual

There will never be "right of return".

The Palestinian leadership can demand it for the next 60 years, and it won't change the fact that NO Israeli government, right or left, will agree to RofR.

[shira]

3. and it wasn't "bantustans"

it's still Israel's fault - Abbas cannot be blamed for rejecting this deal and extending Palestinian misery - only Israel is to blame. Abbas made the correct and wise choice just like Arafat did 9 years ago - after all, it's better to remain at war and blame Israel for your failure rather than assume responsibility and build your own state. Forget the economy, healthcare, civil rights for Palestinians - constant war is better. It's the progressive way.

:sarcasm:

[Fozzledick]

4. Abbas does seem more interested in maintaining the status quo than negotiating statehood

[shira]

5. of course - why would Abbas want to agree to any peace deal at this time? he can wait indefinitely

if there were a peace deal, his corrupt faction wouldn't be trusted to run the government. He'd be out of business. Even if he ran the country in a time of peace, it wouldn't be governed any better than Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, or Syria.

What's the point of running just another failed Arab state neighboring Israel when Abbas can have what he's got now?

[ShadesOfGrey]

6. The UN created Israel so why can't they create a fair Palestine...

state as well? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the rest of the world doesn't need Israel's approval to do so. It would make things easier, but it's not necessary. Get over yourself - RoR is a MUST!!!

[shira]

7. b/c Palestinian leadership won't accept it without strict 1949 borders and full RoR into Israel.

[ShadesOfGrey]

8. So? The Palestinians were the people that were displaced...

to relocate all the incoming immigrants. Don't you think their wishes should be considered? The UN created Israel with the 1949 borders. Why should the rest of the world care that Israel renegged, grabbed more land, and refused to follow UN rules? Ingrates!

[pelsar]

9. your confused....perhaps by choice....

the Palestinians....those that left (obviously it wasnt all, since there are now few million arab israelis) weren't relocated to make room for the incoming jews. They were the result of the arabs attempt to destroy israel and many of its inhabitants....its really just history. i understand that actual facts of the period may not fit your preferred narrative, but never the less, it is the history.....

actually it might have been the arab states that refused to follow UN rules...you know with the attacking and everything.....

[ShadesOfGrey]

10. Well, lets just agree to let the UN settle the whole mess then, eh?

BTW, If the UN allowed someone from another country to come in and take over my house and land in the US, I'd be a little pissed off too. How about you? If they then locked me into a concentration camp, I'd probably start thinking up ways to attack them back any way I could. It's called human nature and it's the result of severe injustice.

[pelsar]

12. ooops you did it...(or your ancestors did....)

if you want to look for analogies...remember the indians, the apaches, sioux, etc ...those guys stuck on reservations.......(not too long ago either....remember wounded knee?...1890, thats only 119+ yrs ago)

do you really want to compare the way the US treated and still treats the indians vs the way israel is with the Palestinians....those who are citizens and those who are not?....and btw.....shouldnt the US be giving those indians their independence by now?- even if they lost their original lands are are forced to living in reservations

so lets agree that first and foremost hypocrisy does exist and is prevalent.- especially in your posts
________

and a minor point...the concentration camps you mentioned....do you have any names or specific locations....or did you just make that up, because it feels good for you? ... i get the impression your one of the: "the means justifies the end" type of person....after all, facts and history don't seem to be of any concern to you....

[azurnoir]

11. On September 13 2009 Olmert had 8 days left as PM

it was an empty offer made by a disgraced politician that would have been up to a successor to implement or not as they chose.

According to Olmert, by the end of 2008, it should be possible to attain understandings with the Palestinians on three issues: borders, security and refugees. However Olmert stressed that the implementation of the understandings is conditioned on the application of the Bush road map and eradication of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructures, and so implementation will take place at a much later stage. "It is important to reach understandings, even if their implementation is delayed," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1021689.html

Aulf Benn casually leaves this out, which makes me wonder if the so called Israeli "left" is in the same place their American counterparts were in 1980 and the same people who had marched for civil rights and equality a decade earlier were having second thoughts when they came to realize that some of the "entitlement" that was being given up was their own, or having 300,000 new neighbors could be "stressful" in so many ways