Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Palestine Papers: Secret Papers Reveal Slow Death of Middle East Peace Process
• Massive new leak lifts lid on negotiations • PLO offered up key settlements in East Jerusalem • Concessions made on refugees and Holy sites
The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel's annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.
A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.
The documents - many of which will be published by the Guardian over the coming days - also reveal:
- The scale of confidential concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, including on the highly sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
- How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state.
- The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.
- The central role of British intelligence in drawing up a secret plan to crush Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
- How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel's 2008-9 war in Gaza.
As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.
Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City - the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of President George Bush's Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history" in order to resolve the world's most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.
Intensive efforts to revive talks by the Obama administration foundered last year over Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month partial freeze on settlement construction. Prospects are now uncertain amid increasing speculation that a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict is no longer attainable - and fears of a new war.
Many of the 1,600 leaked documents - drawn up by PA officials and lawyers working for the British-funded PLO negotiations support unit and include extensive verbatim transcripts of private meetings - have been independently authenticated by the Guardian and corroborated by former participants in the talks and intelligence and diplomatic sources.
The Guardian's coverage is supplemented by WikiLeaks cables, emanating from the US consulate in Jerusalem and embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli officials also kept their own records of the talks, which may differ from the confidential Palestinian accounts.
The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem - including Gilo, which is a current focus of controversy after Israeli authorities gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes - has never been made public before.
All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal "neighbourhoods". Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal - and came close to doing so at Camp David.
Erekat told Israeli leaders in 2008: "This is the first time in Palestinian-Israeli history in which such a suggestion is officially made." No such concession had been made at Camp David. But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma'ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".
The overall impression that emerges from the documents, which stretch from 1999 to 2010, is of the weakness and growing desperation of PA leaders as failure to reach agreement or even halt all settlement temporarily undermines their credibility in relation to their Hamas rivals; the papers also reveal the unyielding confidence of Israeli negotiators and the often dismissive attitude of US politicians towards Palestinian representatives.
Palestinian and Israeli officials both point out that any position in negotiations is subject to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and therefore is invalid without a overarching deal. But PA leaders are likely to be embarrassed by the revelation of private concessions that go far beyond what much of their population would regard as acceptable - particularly since Mahmoud Abbas's mandate as Palestinian president expired in 2009.
The PA, set up as a transitional administration after the 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO, is under pressure from a disaffected Palestinian public and from Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement. Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 and has controlled the Gaza Strip since its violent takeover in 2007.
Unlike the PLO, Hamas rejects negotiations with Israel, except for a long-term ceasefire, and refuses to recognise it. Its founding charter also contains antisemitic elements. Supported by Iran and Syria, it is sanctioned as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU, despite pressure for it to be included in a wider political process.
39 Comments so far
Show AllIf this even hits the US MSM I expect they will be discounted because of the "unreliable" source, Al-Jazeera.
VP, It is amazing President after President, talk, more talk and massacres continue, I guess it will never end? Further all these while, the Palestinians MUST negotiate, while Israel can continue building settlements after settlements and destroying Palestinians’ homes. Forget about even handled or level playing field, just simply common senses and no one seems to care?
Can you give me your insight why, especially the US continue to permit the wholesale slaughter?
VP did you mean this?
http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=511
and UN Finding?
http://vodpod.com/watch/4544273-
unhrc-votes-on-gaza-flotilla-
findings-report-untv
The US does not only allow the slaughter; it bankrolls the slaughter.
As to explanations, I have to speculate. But let's rule out two groups of ideas:
1. All of the theories of mysteriously sneaky Jewish people who somehow manage to control the US government's actions against the interests of US elites. True, there is some overlap between US and Israeli elites, with relatively little lobbying representation for Palestinians, and that surely makes some difference. But the majority voice in US affairs is US and Western-internationally centered business, nothing else. When elites appear easily manipulated against their own interest, it is because the factors that motivate them remain hidden.
2. Let's leave aside the idea that there is anything even remotely generous or idealistic or altruistic about this: there's no way to make such a view coherent with the rest of American foreign policy - or foreign policy in general, for that matter.
What does that leave us with? I have to say I think it's a miscalculation, even from the POV of power politics. But I do see some possible motives.
I speculate, but it makes more sense to imagine that the US works against peace in the Middle East because the US does not want the Middle East at peace.
I don't hear this idea often, but it is the very strategy studied when one reads about prior imperial actions in the region. If one reads about 19th and early 20th Century British control, one reads of the deliberate and quite successful attempt to prevent national or regional unity. A Middle East unified and even moderately representative would present considerable resistance to Western efforts at control and exploitation.
The best explanation I can find is that the US has not changed that policy, but only hides it in public rhetoric. In this context, Israel is convenient to the US precisely because it is a racist state, foreign in culture to the other states in the region, and too lethal for the other states to remove militarily. It functions to divide Muslim states: they do not agree on their response to it. And it functions as a lightning rod to draw at least some criticism away from the United States: rather than see the US as ill-willed, many somehow manage to see it as manipulated by Israelis -- an extension of very racist sentiments against both Jewish people, who are often held to be demonically clever, and Americans, who are often held to be childishly naive.
And how do you explain Obama and all the other American/Canadian/French/etc sucking AIPAC chorizo in public all the time?
What is their motivation not to? It gets them votes and a dinner and drinks once a year.
Like I just did: they find it convenient for themselves, not for AIPAC.
I'd be more specific, but I have no idea what you object to. How do you explain it?
Why would they discount news of the PLO doing what the Israel/US wanted them to do - sell out completely and totally in the name of "peace"?
Because it would reveal clearly that neither Israel, nor the US, are interested in peace, and that neither in actually negotiating in good faith.
It would forever torpedo the right wing assertion, the neocon, the neoliberal, the Islamphobic, assertion, that it is the Palestinian's fault, it is the Palestinian's intransigence.
Bingo
I can't say that any of this would be a revelation to anyone who's followed the interminable "peace process."
They shoot horses and Quislings don't they?
And 11 year olds in parking lots.
What's your point? No one is going to do anything, not now not with documents. Watch...
somebody's trying to spin wikileaks as "just one of many sites."
fail!
Sharon called Abbas a "plucked chicken." Israel's plan is the destruction of the Palestinian people. The US is on board with this plan.
Here we go again. More leaks on stuff we already know, more leaks that make Arab leaders look bad (getting tired of it yet?), more leaks that reveal precious little of the cynicism and larger designs motivating the actions of the US empire and their Israeli attack dog. But lots of boring details that smell a lot like red herrings.
Anyone who doesn't believe that Wiki's 'world-shaking' 250,000 file leak isn't a classic 'limited hangout' hasn't been paying attention.
Assange is a fool, and the powers that be are playing him like a fiddle. As Israel Shamir has said, Julian made a deal with the devil (i.e., the MSM, among other things), and as we know, such deals don't usually have happy endings. I only hope they don't kill him after he has outlived his usefulness.
And don't you just love that little dash of propaganda in the Guardian's final paragraph?
I suggest reading the article again.
Or alternatively, taking some lessons in reading comprehension.
You might then find that there is no mention of "wikileaks". Rather, you might notice "al Jazeera".
Oops. Well, snideness aside, thanks for pointing that out. Still, even in this light, one can only remark on the curious similarity between this 'leak' and all the 'Wikileaks.' So it simply looks like yet another 'limited hangout.' Distract and divide the Arab masses while the empire zeroes in on Lebanon with their sham of a Special Tribunal on Lebanon and their plans to accuse Hezbollah and Iran after years of hysterically accusing Syria to no avail and, of course, with no evidence. Not to mention the now nearly successful breakup of Somalia.
"Still, even in this light, one can only remark on the curious similarity between this 'leak' and all the 'Wikileaks.' So it simply looks like yet another 'limited hangout."
If you had bothered to read this article, it, or go to al Jazeera and read their article, it is hinted pretty strongly that the source of the leaks is probably someone from the Palestinians.
"' So it simply looks like yet another 'limited hangout.' Distract and divide the Arab masses while the empire zeroes in on Lebanon with their sham of a Special Tribunal on Lebanon and their plans to accuse Hezbollah and Iran after years of hysterically accusing Syria to no avail and, of course, with no evidence. Not to mention the now nearly successful breakup of Somalia."
It is hardly distracting and dividing the Arab masses, when much of the Arab masses have little regard for these leaders that you are defending.
I'm not defending anyone. Abbas and the other PA 'leaders' are quislings and known to be so, and 'exposing' them as these documents do reveals nothing new. Since you seem to want to get personal, let me say that if you had the slightest understanding of the history of the Middle East of oh, say the last 60 or so years, you would know that it is a fundamental part of Israeli-US strategy to sow discord among the various Palestinian and other Arab factions, and that instability is precisely what these forces seek.
And you seem to relish it yourself.
Dividing and distracting the Arab masses is exactly what Elliot "Contra" Abrams sought when he and his little Fascist minions armed Fatah and triggered some nice little shootouts with Hamas. And there are countless other examples of the same strategy, such as the Israeli's arming and training Iraqi Kurds. Or the US funding terrorist and 'dissident' groups in Iran.
My misreading the leak as a Wikileak was an honest mistake, since silver-boy Assange has been promising us some Israeli stuff. Your jumping all over me for this mistake is more superficial than the superficiality you accuse me of. Learn some manners. And take your little 'thought police' attitude somewhere else.
"I'm not defending anyone. Abbas and the other PA 'leaders' are quislings and known to be so, and 'exposing' them as these documents do reveals nothing new. Since you seem to want to get personal, let me say that if you had the slightest understanding of the history of the Middle East of oh, say the last 60 or so years, you would know that it is a fundamental part of Israeli-US strategy to sow discord among the various Palestinian and other Arab factions, and that instability is precisely what these forces seek. "
Well, yes, many leftists, and many Arabs, "know" this. That does not mean it is "nothing new", since the world does not only consist of leftists and Arabs.
And no, I did not get personal. I insulted the foolishness of your post, where you revealed that you had not even bothered to read the article properly.
And just because it is US policy, that does not mean that these leaders should be tolerated. You have fallen yet again, let some western ant-imperialists, into the manichean mistake again.
"My misreading the leak as a Wikileak was an honest mistake, since silver-boy Assange has been promising us some Israeli stuff. Your jumping all over me for this mistake is more superficial than the superficiality you accuse me of. Learn some manners. And take your little 'thought police' attitude somewhere else."
How could you "misread" it, when wikileaks and Assange was not even in the article? And no, it isn't superficial, since it your post was based on the idea of it being wikileaks, and since it revealed that you did not bother to read the article properly.
Lastly, you are telling me to take my attitude elsewhere, and you whine about "thought police"?
I see you didn't bother to address my point about the US-Israel "divide and conquer" strategy.
You also didn't bother to address my point about your manners.
And so, given your manners, you probably shouldn't bother engaging in any more dialogue, especially since you seem to have a ready, pat answer to everything. What's the point of engaging others if you already know everything?
Maybe instead of calling yourself rfloh, you should simplify that to 'bloh'.
Look at your own posts, before whining about manners.
Your divide and conquer strategy is irrelevant. The US loves Abbas. The US loves Mubarak. They are American puppets. There is not need to divide and conquer.
"And so, given your manners, you probably shouldn't bother engaging in any more dialogue, especially since you seem to have a ready, pat answer to everything. What's the point of engaging others if you already know everything? "
Says the guy who jumps to conclusions and theories without even bothering to read articles. Says the guy who jumps to conclusions without even bothering to do any basic research. Says the guy who said that HRW did not mention Israel in their report, when they did.
And no, I am not discussing with you. I am shooting holes in your posts.
Lastly, if you are going to come up with insults about my ID, at least come up with some creative insult. Bloh? What does that even mean? How is that even an insult? Pathetic.
Shooting holes in my posts, you say? Lovely metaphor. Fire away, as they say. Do you always see your actions as violent? I think you need to ask yourself why you're so aggressive. Do you own a gun?
And your 'political analysis' is nothing of the sort. The US loves Abbas and Mubarak, you say? Well, they love purposeful instability even more. The US loved Noriega too. And Saddam Hussein, boy did they ever love him.
As far as manners are concerned, if you look back at my posts, you'll see that I actually THANKED you for pointing out my initial oversight. But such politeness was lost on a rude little thug like yourself, and you preferred to turn up the nastiness a notch.
You're a blowhard, bloh. Get it, now?
Yes I noticed clearly the little dash of propaganda in the Guardian's final paragraph. While there may be some columns from the likes of Pilger in the Guardian that provide some balance, the Guardian is a piece of corporate media. Taken overall, it is a piece of shit.
And so it goes on. Palestine, like Haiti, is only to be allowed to have the government that we, or Israel, wants.
Popular leaders, elected by the people in an open election, overseen by UN Observers and declared fair are rejected. Only dictators or those friendly to powerful nations (and their ruling corporations) who will give up their resources and provide cheap labor need apply. All others will be exiled or murdered.
Hamas was legally elected to govern Palestine in a closely monitored election which was declared an honest election. Immediately the West and Israel started to starve out the Palestinians until they would repudiate their choice and select a corrupt government that would kowtow to the US and Israel.
In Haiti, Aristide is exiled despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that he is revered by the Haitian people and is the only Haitian that has ever done anything FOR his people. His supporters are being harassed and butchered by the UN and the Haitian "government" because they want him back, and they won't give up supporting him.
BUT! Guess what, "Baby Doc" is back! I suppose the next step will be to bring out the ton ton macoute to bring "peace and order" to Haiti. That will certainly take care of any overpopulation problem.
God, I swear the Oligarchy will not be content until they own and control the entire planet. When they reach that point, they will start fighting amongst themselves to decide which ONE gets it all. That may finally cause a collapse due to terminal dry rot, but so many millions will die by that time, or live as homeless, hungry, serfs, doing the bidding of the Oligarchy.
We the Sheeple seem unable to do anything but wring our hands and try to decide which side of the two-backed beast to elect next time. We don't seem to realize that it makes no difference, the Oligarchy owns them both.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
This is another example of fools who rather have wars then peace. Personally I do not believe any leaks but they usually come from the super ugly or are what's called disinformation.
Here is another example how computers or the internet are the ugliest of modern tools.
I agree 100% on the "Pogo" comment. Oh! how right Walt Kelly was.
"Unlike the PLO, Hamas rejects negotiations with Israel, --except for a long-term ceasefire,"--.. what? except for?
it's actually a permanent cease fire/settlement that has been accepted by hamas, contingent on an israeli return to the '67 borders. the disinformation game continues...
This long interview should be read regarding Hamas' position.
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/10/19/meshaal-interview-on-hamas-policy-a-must-read/
Meshaal interview on Hamas Policy – A MUST READ!!
Oct 19th, 2010 at 8:35
Since 1996, Khaled Mesh'al has been the Chairman of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Political Bureau. After the assassination of Hamas leader Abdul 'Aziz Rantisi in 2004 by Israeli forces, Mesh'al became the movement's overall leader. He lives in exile in Damascus, from where he oversees the movement's activities both within Palestine and outside.
The most recent interview with Mesh'al was conducted by the Jordanian Arabic-language Al-Sabeel newspaper in July 2010. In it, Mesh'al laid out the policy direction of Hamas on a number of critical issues: negotiations with Israel, recognition of Israel, resistance, Jews,
[...]
On negotiations
Do you reject, in principle, negotiations with the enemy? If negotiations cannot be conducted with the enemy, is it possible to do so with a friend? Does Hamas reject the principle of negotiations outright, or do you reject its form, conduct and results?
This is definitely a thorny and sensitive issue. Many people prefer to avoid any discussion of it, and tend not to take any clear position on it for fear of negative reactions or misinterpretations. The sensitive and critical nature of this issue is compounded by the dark shadows that are cast as a result of the bitter experiences of Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli negotiations. People are influenced by these experiences, and are extremely sensitive towards the idea of "negotiations", particularly with regard to the collective mind and mood of the nation. There is now, in many quarters, loathing for and aversion to the concept of negotiations. This is quite understandable and natural, but this does not preclude us tackling the issue thoroughly, and sorting through matters carefully, so as to set every detail into context, God willing.
It is indisputable that negotiating with the enemy is not rejected, either legally or rationally; indeed, there are some stages during a conflict among enemies when negotiations are required and become necessary. Both from a rational perspective and from legal logic, it is true that negotiations as a means and a tool may be acceptable and legitimate at certain points in time, and rejected and prohibited at other times; that is, it is not rejected in itself nor is it rejected all the time.
[...]
some 2-3 years ago i compared abbas to iraq prime minister,then, nuri al-saeed in the 1950s'. al-saeed was as friendly to the british then as abbas is now to the US. regrettably, nuri didn't see it coming with such a sunami force that unleashed a torrent revolution that swept under not only him but the hashimite dynasty in iraq, king faisal and the viceroy abdul ilah.
Oh, bugger! Life is about to get more complex.
Ah... The "Grand Bargain" made possible by the assassination of Arafat by the Zionists. But the Zionists were too greedy and would seem to have squandered their opportunity. This revelation ought to totally delegitimize the PA along with the phoney "peace process" and boost Hamas.
Any shockwaves will not be felt by the majority of U.S. infotainment receivers, who will hear nothing except how the evil Palestinians continue to refuse to negotiate with the Only Demcracy In the Middle East and America's Best Friend.
These documents should finally convince ordinary Israelis of the lies and deception of their own governments over time. Israel does not want peace - it wants all of Palestine. It is this predatory behaviour and attitude which governs the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians. When Livni says that Palestinians will kill those people living in Ma'aleh Adumim if it passes into Palestinian control, she is reflecting ONLY the Israeli attitude and actions.
These documents also indicate that a Jewish state cannot be viable in the region in the long-term. The level of resentment and even hatred of both Palestinians and other Arabs is both to be expected and reflects a normal reaction to a state which is either attacking and killing Arabs - as it is all the time in the Palestinian occupied territories, or on the verge of war - as Israel appears to be vis-a-vis Lebanon.
Please let's no longer kid ourselves about journalism in the 21st century.
The torch has been passed to Al Jazeera and Wikileaks.
They reveal.
The others (with maybe some bastions of public broadcasting excepted) are merely tools to protect entrenched interests.
They conceal.
Our media is so busy covering up for Israel, it has no time for factual reporting about the Middle East. It is currently helping to lay the groundwork for a pardon for the traitor Jonathan Pollard.
I think Abbas should have to stand for elections. I would like to see how he does now...
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.