Courtesy of MachsomWatch.org
What I originally took to be WikiLeaks were actually internal Palestinian documents leaked to Al Jazeera by dissident Palestinians to embarrass Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO leadership who attempted (apparently in good faith) to negotiate a two-state solution with the Kadima-led Israeli government of Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. What the Guardian and Al Jazeera are blasting as a betrayal of Palestinian rights was precisely the kind of deal that could work for both parties in bringing this conflict to an end.
In agreeing to a very limited return of refugees to what is now Israel, plus a monetary compensation package, the parties would finally have ended the material ordeal of this population that the world has mired in a disgraceful refugee status as political pawns for generations.
Israel may not expect better conditions in Jerusalem than its retention of long-established Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line in East Jerusalem plus shared sovereignty over Jerusalem’s holy sites. At the cost of Israel giving up its relatively recent settlement community of Har Homa, built to close off East Jerusalem from the West Bank to its east, this would be a bargain for Israel, and a way in which the Palestinians could claim most of East Jerusalem as its capital.
Regarding settlements, for Israel to retain almost all of the thickly-settled blocs contiguous with its Green Line (pre-June ’67) border was an opportunity not to be missed. The one exception, Ariel, is a hard concession for Israel to swallow but probably necessary for an independent Palestinian future, because it cuts too deeply into the West Bank’s tiny dimensions. It is Israel’s fourth largest town in the West Bank, with a population of about 18,000. As in the other far-flung West Bank settlements, I would hope that Israelis would be offered the option to remain in their homes there, either with the status of permanent resident aliens or as citizens of the new Palestinian state.
But these leaks only report one side of the story, providing a perspective based on Palestinian sources alone. It should be understood that Olmert did offer a proposal that was not far different. According to the dovish Israeli-American writer, Bernard Avishai, who has interviewed both Olmert and Abbas about their negotiations:
“They focus on Palestinian concessions without presenting the other side of the negotiations. The Palestinians were going to get a great deal for their concessions.”
Daniel Levy, a Washington think-tank intellectual who was a drafter of the 2003 Geneva Accord and a founder of J Street, describes the dimensions of Olmert’s offer as Israel retaining six percent of the West Bank but including a land swap to compensate the Palestinians for most of this. Levy sees Olmert as having sincerely sought peace. The process was sadly cut short by Olmert’s legal and political difficulties, not to mention the toxic fallout from Israel’s Gaza war.
On NPR, Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel and now a Princeton professor, stated that these revelations suggest that the Bush administration needed to push both sides forward to complete the deal. An energetic and creative use of diplomacy is still the only constructive conclusion to draw here. Kurtzer needles the Obama administration as follows:
“If the administration has been waiting for that narrowing to put forward a bridging position, it now has evidence that the bridge can be built….”
Instead, what the Guardian and Al Jazeera seem to be about, in screaming headlines that frame this story, is to discredit the PLO for making a genuine effort to negotiate a solution for their people, and to damn Israel as not seriously desiring peace. In so doing, they are making this difficult and vitally important task even harder.
But my conclusion is exactly the same as that of Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, “for a serious Presidential initiative to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before it is too late.”
The leaks don’t tell us anything yet, nor do we know they are authentic. What we see here may be part of a process that hardly ready for prime time in front to the public. You might note the anger the releases have already caused. Al Jazeera offices on the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians out of anger. Hamas accused Abbas of treason and chief negotiator Erakat stated that his life was in danger. The words on the papers may or may not be real, but the angry reaction is real.
I was listening to the Jerusalem Post reporter, David Horvitz, being interviewed on NPR. He said that both side had discussed deep concessions but the public had to be prepared first. It’s not enough to come to secret agreements.
These releases will do more harm than good. The leaders being able to meet quietly to iron issues out without the media spotlight beaming on them 24/7. Let the 2 sides hammer an agreement out and release ii t in a way that good be digested slowly and carefully. Like Wiki leaks, Al Jazeera was carelessly irresponsible