On eve of Obama-Netanyahu meeting, Abbas offers Jerusalem compromise
Al Hayat reports Abbas proposed creation of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, with a possible land swap of 2.3 percent of West Bank.
By Avi Issacharoff and Natasha MozgovayaThe London-based Arabic newspaper, Al Hayat, reported this weekend that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had proposed the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with a possible land swap of 2.3 percent of the West Bank to ensure a fair solution for Israeli settlement blocs. Al Hayat reported that the Palestinians agreed to leave settlement blocs including Gush Etzion, Pisgat Ze'ev and Modi'in Ilit, along with a swath of land overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport, in Israeli hands.
In exchange, the PA would receive land of comparable size and quality in the southern West Bank as well as a corridor between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Abbas also reportedly proposed easing Palestinian demands over East Jerusalem to permit the Jewish Quarter of the Old City as well as the Western Wall to remain under Israeli sovereignty. The remainder of the Old City, he proposed, would become the capital of a Palestinian state but fully open to the adherents of all faiths.
 |
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell before their meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah on July 1, 2010. |
| Photo by: Reuters |
U.S. officials in Washington said that Tuesday's scheduled meeting between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama will focus on the need to move Israelis and Palestinians from indirect to direct talks.
In a Friday press briefing, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said the meeting represents an opportunity to seize the momentum created by the proximity talks to advance regional peace. "Our focus is on building what really has been some momentum in a number of areas," Rhodes said.
White House Middle East adviser Daniel Shapiro said the Obama administration wants the proximity talks to lead to direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as soon as possible.
"We've engaged with both sides on all the core issues that are relevant to this conflict," Shapiro said. "And we've always viewed the proximity talks as a mechanism to get to direct talks, which is where the real negotiations toward agreements and ultimately an agreement that will produce a two-state solution can be achieved." Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, on Saturday criticized the United States for failing to advance the Middle East peace process and said that the conduct of Washington's envoy to the region, George Mitchell, would not bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians even 10 years from now.
Speaking to another London-based Arabic newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, Aboul Gheit said that Abbas had delivered a series of written proposals to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including concrete steps to reach final-status agreements on contentious issues such as borders and security arrangements.
A high-ranking PA official in Ramallah told Haaretz that the PA had submitted a written response to 16 questions that Mitchell had asked Abbas, covering nearly all of the core issues still to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. The official said the PA is leaning toward opposing the renewal of direct talks with Israel, particularly in the event that Netanyahu's government chooses to renew building in West Bank settlements.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
a lasting peace can only be achieve, if the world disarm Israel and and make them armsless like the palestinians, then, only then israelis of all factions will run for fair peace and compromise without delays, but, then, i must say, thgey can run and keep running, there is no where to hide
Jews (Israelis) and Pals are ‘united’ with an umbilical cord (whether either side likes it or not) and this connection cannot be severed - so having this childish ‘indirect’ talks is only wasting opportunities to find a compromise; i.e. there is NO solution here.... only a compromise. Perhaps both leaders should be locked up together in a room somewhere in Iceland, until we see a ‘white smoke’.
It is very nice they wish to allow us to keep our own land. History shows the "Palestinians"are the usurpers not the us
Abbas is a lier, he doesn't speek for all Arabs, It's not a good deal he's offering, the Arab should go to Arab countries. Don't give those land thives anything. Ezekiel 35:5 Ezekiel 36:5 Again I say don't give the Arab anything. God bless Israel and all his peoples.
The Jews have abandoned all the Arab land they ever will leave. It's not their fault. If it was up to them, they would have stayed in Poland and Russia, but it isn't up to them. God Almighty drives them and supports their claim. Arabs staying in Israel do so only on good behavior. Families who wrap feeble-minded children in suicide vests should be deported to Gaza as savages.
has offered to Jerusalem's people in recent history.
the city of Jerusalem belongs to Israel for thousands of years back in history, and reconquered totally in the 1967 war, as a "spoil" to the victor, the city obviuosly belongs to Israel; losers don't get "war spoils", ok?
You want to read a little Lito. It has been illegal in international law since 1948 for nations to acquire territory by force. There are no permissible 'spoils of war' any more. It was the world's reaction to the expansionist policies of the fascist/axis powers in WW2. Never again will such landgrabs by force be tolerated. They weren't when Saddam seized Kuwait and Milosevic seized swathes of Croatia and Bosnia. You are urging Israel to behave in a similar, illegal way
Actually, post-1945, the winners don't get the spoils of war either. Just because Israel chooses to ignore this and claims to have annexed East Jerusalem doesn't make it legal.
That so many Ha'aretz readers object so strongly to China's illegal occupation of Tibet.
Actually, one can interpret the 1907 Hague Convention to mean that it is illegal to acquire territory by force. In which case, we should be required to give the whole thing back to the Ottomans. Not to mention that Poland should be required to return Silesia to Germany.
Sudan (Darfur), Marroco (Western Sahara),Sri Lanka (occupaying the Tamil areas)... etc.
No Geneva Convention for terrorists, sorry but NO ! And no civil rights !
Jerusalem, DC (Jerusalem, David's City) has been the capital city of the Jewish people for more than 3,000 years. It has never been the capital city of any other people or any other state. Indeed, when it was totally "cleansed" of its Jewish population by the Arabs, 1948 to 1967, it was not proclaimed a capital city and its surrounding areas as an independent Arab state. To tell us, Jews, now that he will "offer" us parts of Jerusalem is nothing short of insolent behavior that says more about the Abbas and his people than about the "offer".
All of ancient Israel is the land set aside for today's Jews. No land for peace. Nothing but resettlement of the ancient Israel until her borders are now as they were then.
the arabs are divided
And, to amaze the Americans and to appease the belligerent Israelis, Abbas also offers a compromise on Tel Aviv and Ramat Aviv, according to which, Israelis will maintain control of most land in/around TLV, including the beaches, in exchange for destroying the Kirya and creating a Muslim-Jewish interfaith park there!!!
Just a question...
And, to amaze the Americans and to appease the belligerent Israelis, Abbas also offers a compromise on Tel Aviv and Ramat Aviv, according to which, Israelis will maintain control of most land in/around TLV, including the beaches, in exchange for destroying the Kirya and creating a Muslim-Jewish interfaith park there!!!
Is this supposed to be a joke? As if Abbas physically held the Jewish quarter and had it to give. What will he offer next? Tel Aviv?
The so called west bank does not exist. Judea and Samaria does. The name Palestine is an old roman mockery of the Jews and their land.
the fact is the millions of Pali's living there DO exist and they are not going anywhere.
Erekat already denied Abbas made any compromise!
They called imcompetent because he couldn't fight Hamas and easily win. He feared a civil war. People condemed him for inaction. Now if Israel wants to get rid of settlers they can't because they will start a war. Even Amanpour on CNN mention that in one of the God's Holy Way documenteries. She mentioned the incident when that outpost was removed and said this is what will happen if Israel fight the settlers. Israel can't do it was the message. So Arafat can fight Hamas who was stronger than his group but Israel with its annual $3 billion in military aid, planes, tanks, and "trained" soldiers can't beat the settlers? Why are the Americans giving aid to such imcompentence? Why are the people of Israel tolerating such imcompentence?
Since all settlements are illegal, a "fair solution" would be for Israel to abandon all of them. Allowing Israel to retain even a single settlement is to reward thievery.
That's so true, how many people see this for what it really is. Good point.
@ peacelover, Kindly cite the law which makes these settlements "illegal"? US Resolution 242 governing the West Bank mentions Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in 1967, specifically omitting the words "the" and "all" territories. Its authors left the scope of withdrawal open to negotiation. And "thievery" from whom? There was no Palestinian state in 1967: the West Bank was Jordanian territory. I'm all in for a 2-state solution, but am irked by the rank ignorance of "peace lovers" such as yourself.
The entire Judea and Samaria (which West calls West Bank) is a territory of Jewish Kingdom established there thousands years before Arabs migrated to this area. Palestinians settled on the Jewish lands knwing wery well whose land it is - it is written in their Koran too that G-d gave this land to Jews.
to Israel through the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. Jacob's other name in the Hebrew & Christian Bibles is Israel. Go to a book store or library where you can sneak a peak at the maps in the back of Bibles. You will see how the land was given to the 12 tribes of Israel. Gaza is within the land given to the Tribe of Judah. The "West Bank" is also within Tribal land. This IS important because there is only one true G-d. Stop believing the propaganda and read a TANAKH or Christian Bible (the Old Testament is essentially the TANAKH). All the political alliances you see developing that are turning against Israel are in the TANAKH & Christian Bible. Ezekiel 38:2-3, "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Who is G-d talking about ?? Look it up :-)
A real peace lover would recognize the truth of BOTH sides without being biased against Israel and the history of the Jews going back to Kind David's Jerusalem.
... but for the sake of getting-on-with-a-modicum-of-peace, the offer of Abbas seems reasonable... just hope that the Pals will get Barkat out of their Jerusalem lives... that mayor is not going to be happy with what he considers half-his-kingdom...
with no history as a nation within this land? Sounds fair and just. Errr, actually, no it doesn't. It sounds like the agenda of someone who doesn't want to recognise Jewish history in that land and will pretend to believe in the cause of a "people" who were invented by an Egyptian and his terrorist crew who dreamed of establishing bank-accounts in Switzerland. Why don't "peacelovers" like you care about Tibetans and Uygurs and Kurds who all have self-definable nations which are denied to them. Actual, real cases of land thievery, rather than Israel deciding how much of Jewish History to voluntarily give away for no tangible return consideration (except possibly an increase in attempts to annihilate the State of Israel).
In the old "Peanuts" comic strip, every football season Lucy suckered Charlie Brown to have a go at kicking the football. She would always pull it away at the last moment and CB would go flyiing on his head. Still, he never learned and the scenario was repeated every year. Such is the case with Israel and peace. Israel plays the part of Lucy.. I am not sure if it is the Americans or the Palestinians playing CB. Both I guess, since they never seem to learn. Israel will never agree to peace. They have much to lose and little to gain. Even I can understand why Israel will not willingly accept peace. Why can't the American politicians understand it?
After all, when they take over the West Bank too, their views will be quite relevant.
Hamas is only a political party, as such, it A) Cannot declare a Palestinian state (see the Jewish People's Council for a good example of who can and what the process entails) B) only AFTER a proposed state is declared, by a non political body set up to represent ALL the people regardless of their political persuasions, can there be elections to form a de jure Government. On the declaration of a state, Hamas might just become completely irrelevant as a resistance movement and as a political party.
"When they take over the West Bank too..." what gives you the idea this will happen? Is it possible that you have some secret information very well based, from reliable and serious sources . Please share with us.about this possibilitiy
...mean it is not just likely, but highly likely that the Jihadists will rule the roost sooner or later. Any plan for an independent Palestinian State needs to recognise this high probability and the fact that there are many right-wing/fundamentalists in the Muslim world who, along with their cheerleaders on the Far Left of Western politics, will want perpetual warfare between Palestinians and Israelis in order to advance their Jew-hating agendas, whilst keeping Arab World corrruption off the agenda
honestly "easing demands on jerusalem" concerning the kotel and the jewish quarter? this guy is going nuts...the rest is perfectly fair, but he must to be kidding about bringging to the negotiate table the kotel and the jewish quarter.
What's outlined above is acceptable to a big majority of the world and pretty much what Israeli and Palesinian peacenixs decided upon around 2005. Hamas has said it will accept such a solution if agreed to by Palestinains. The problem is Israel accepting such a solution will have to relinguish the thirty percent of its national water supply currently drawn from the West Bank aquifer AND it means civil war against that sub-group of Haredim who will refuse to give up control of a single square centimeter of Judea-Samaria
It's not about water and not even about the haredim.It's about not allowing the rest of the world to turn Israel into another Czecoslovakia and not to allow an iranian base at the stepdoor of Jerusalem...abbas and his gang would open the gates for iran...The USA needs Israel as much as Israel needs the USA and the aberration of a "pal" state West of the Jordan is suicidal for Israel
"The USA needs Israel as much as Israel needs the USA" Could you explain why USA needs Israel?
The USA does not need Israel, Israel needs the USA. (Israel wouldn't be able to survive without US weapons) Israel is the occupier Czechoslovakia wasn't, Israel has nukes Czechoslovakia didn't, Israel thinks they are superior because they believe the land was promised to them because of a book Czechoslovakia didn't. The Palestinians would be a better comparsison with the Czechs than Israel ever could be.
USA gets Israeli technology and information which has saved been crucial to American interests many times, none less so than the end of the Cold War. Israel is not occupying another country. Jordan was the Germany which occupied the "Sudentenland" of Judea and Samaria. Books are only support documents in the criteria of self-determination, which applies as much to why the Czechs peaceably separated from the Slovaks (with peaceable population transfers) as it does to the Jews from the Arab world transferring to Israel having been forced out from their communities, properties, and businesses by their jealous neighbours and corrupt rulers. The Palestinians are not self-determinable as a people. Even so, the majority of Jews would support their independence as long as it does not involve obvious red lines like Jerusalem, and nonsensical demands such as using the 1967 armistice lines as if they held some kind of relevance beyond a ceasfire between Israel and a nearby nation which now expresses no claim to the land.
Of course there is no mistake in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This would take care of a good part of Middle East problems. But the Obama mistake is that he did not start by pushing Israel into peace with Syria, that is, pushing Israel to give up the Golan. Peace with Syria can be settled within less than a year since all the issues have been discussed and the solutions are known. Even Netanyahu, during his first PM term, agreed to give back the Golan in return for peace. And the older Assad agreed to peace on this basis. (Barak became fearful, but Clinton did not pressure him.) Likud, and the other Greater Israel idealists, know that the Golan is not part of historical Eretz Israel (where the 12 tribes dwelled), so pressure can persuade them. Peace between Israel and Syria will choke off weapons to Hizballah (and even Hamas), and reduce Iran's standing in the region. It will also weaken the Palestinians, making them more amenable to compromise. After that relatively easy step, the US should have turned to peace with the Palestinians. But Obama was inexperienced, and has a weak Foreign Policy team. Obama also believes in his power of persuasion and may not understand illogical people. But I think he learned much by now, and can still correct his path.
This Abbas offer has nothing new beyond what the Palestinians were willing to agree to in Taba (2000), so it must simply be their opening position, inviting Netanyahu to state his position on borders. The 2.3% territorial exchange means that each settlement within what Israel considers "blocks of settlements", will have its footprint, plus a road leading to Israel, exchanged, but not the whole block. To keep the blocks, it required about 6% of West Bank in 2000. Nowadays, probably a little more. Abbas needs to agree to triple the amount of territory exchanged if the "blocks" are to remain in Israel. Of course, Netanyahu's position requires much more. Netanyahu wants to keep the Jordan Valley as well (plus the hills overlooking it). The Jordan Valley was viewed as protection against Iraqi tanks, but Saddam is dead, Iraq has no tanks, and the IAF can put an end to an Iraqi invasion force. These two sides will not sign a peace deal. The US better come up with some peace plan and impose it.
The real purpose of controlling the borders is to maintain control over Palestian economy. What if the Palestinian want natural gas from Iran? They couldn't get some because Israel and Iran are at odds thus forcing the Palestinian to go along with an Israel that is paranoid.
we're not even in a position of the negotiation process as things are going and we've also got to keep things in context to the current Israeli government and coalition members.PM Olmert's exchanges with President Abbas surpassed the Clinton parameters, we are told. This %'s should not be the stumblinig blocks. Let's hope for everyone's sake the U.S. with the Quartet will not impose a solution and hopefully the peace initiative and resolution will materialize from both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The U.S. is not particularly interested in imposing a peace agreement but I believe that Israel has to take the greater leap towards reconciliation with the Palestinians because we're already established as a state.
Somebody on the Palestinian side seems to be learning politics. What will Netanyahu offer to match?
Nothing is the answer. It's difficult to know if Netanyahu has really accepted the reality of a truly independent Palestinian State. After years of being one of the most signifcant vocies against the idea, his sudden 'road to Damascus' conversion to the idea of Palestinian staehood under overwhelming pressure from the US government is still very much to be doubted. Even if he has accpeted the reality of the way the wind is blowing, I think he may have the savvy to realize that the kind of deal he would put forward would probably be instantly dismissed by the international community as grossly unfair. Then again savvy is not something he has displayed a lot of.