Tag Archives: Negotiators and negotiations

Posted on by

Abu Mazen scheduled at Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem at 5pm

President Barack Obama watches as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (right) shake hands at a trilateral meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City, Sept. 22, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
Marian Houk, 15 Sept 2010

So, he must already have arrive.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem — the warmth of the invitation no doubt intended to melt resistance and encourage agreement, even as the Palestinian negotiators face the realization that the will have to stay the course, whatever happens to the settlement freeze…

Laura Rozen suggests here that there is logic to the idea that Netanyahu + Abu Mazen already be scheduled to meet (perhaps also with Clinton) in another week’s time in New York, in the “margins” of the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level session.

Abu Mazen’s predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, never got officially invited to Jerusalem (though it is said he was allowed to pass through, in an extremely low-key way, while en route from Ramallah to Bethlehem one time…)

Why is Abu Mazen going through with this?  For reasons that Hillary Clinton will not see, ever, while in Jerusalem or driving through the West Bank for her meeting with Abu Mazen and — of course — also with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad tomorrow…

Amira Hass wrote in Haaretz today that “A peace agreement is not a contract. It requires a change of values of a kind that does not exist within the vocabulary of the democratic Jewish state, which elevates the system of double standards to a level of virtuosity.  The people of this state are incapable of imagining themselves departing from the privileges that this system confers. And who cares if the flip side of those privileges is dispossession, suppression of freedoms and the risk of regional conflagration? The day before yesterday, Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi ) was interviewed on Army Radio’s morning broadcast, and argued that it was impossible to continue the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements while the Palestinians went on building and building. One cannot expect an interviewer on Army Radio or Israel Radio to surprise and ask, for example: ‘Since the principle of equality is suddenly so important to the settlement lobby, why then residents of Nablus and East Jerusalem cannot have a housing project in Haifa or live in Ashkelon or in a panoramic neighborhood in the Galilee, while residents of Haifa and kibbutz Hazorea are allowed to build in Nablus Heights or in the East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan? But the interviewer didn’t even correct a distortion of the facts and didn’t tell the listeners that the Palestinians cannot build at will. In the 62 percent of the West Bank under full Israeli control, known as Area C, Israel has frozen Palestinian construction for the past four decades. It can be assumed that the interviewer, despite numerous reports, is unaware of the building freeze beyond the pale of settlement allocated to the Palestinians. Natural growth only applies to Jews. In Area C, schools, kindergartens and water are only for Jews. The Mekorot Water Company’s wells in the Jordan Valley supply quantities of water to the settlements and their orchards. The water flows from the Palestinians’ land, and the pipes are fenced off. And the land is parched, because the Palestinians are not allowed to draw their own water from those pipes, as Israel imposes on them a quota which is not set to human beings’ needs. In the democratic Jewish state, within its virtual borders, it’s as clear as the sun rising in the east. If the American partner had wanted to, it would have demanded to begin evacuating the settlements, not only to continue the construction freeze. But the territory robbed by the separation barrier – Ariel, Givat Ze’ev, Ma’aleh Adumim, Efrat in its Anglo-Saxon elegance and East Jerusalem – are all within the consensus. Whose consensus? The people of the democratic Jewish state and evangelical Christians, of course. No one thinks to ask about the consensus among the residents of Palestinian cities and villages on whose land the settlements have been built. The millions of Palestinians don’t count at all”… This ref=”Amira Hass article can be read in full here.

Two days ago, Amira Hass revealed that, upon reflection, she has now come to the conclusion that it is worse to be Palestinian in [East] Jerusalem than in Gaza. She wrote in Haaretz: “I have found myself wondering which Palestinians have it the worst under the Israeli rule. For many years, I thought there was nothing worse than life in Gaza. I even argued my point with a friend, who claimed the absolute worst is to be a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship because ‘we live in the midst of the Nakba [1948 catastrophe] sites and experience the daily racism masquerading as democracy’. But for more than a year now, I have been vacillating between Gaza and Jerusalem. That is to say, I have been trying to decide which is worse – the isolation and insulation that Israel has imposed on Gaza (which includes being cut off from water sources and from the cultural, social and family ties those residents have with their People ); or the cynicism with which the decision makers continue to turn the population of East Jerusalem into welfare clients and slum dwellers, and then pride themselves of the national insurance payments they grant them. A visit to the [East Jerusalem] neighborhood of Isawiyah decided the issue. Heaps of concrete, uncollected garbage, roads that are becoming narrower due to pirate additions to buildings – forced on residents thanks to construction prohibitions and the expropriation of vacant lots – all lies in sight of the Hebrew University campus and the city’s French Hill, which are so green, spacious and civilized. And now a report from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel has confirmed my determination. The report, titled “Unsafe space: The Israeli authorities’ failure to protect human rights amid settlements in East Jerusalem“, is based on testimonies, media reports and official documents. It highlights the loss of personal and collective security in Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods, in the heart of which hostile bodies have settled over the past 30 years – settlers supported by millionaires and religious and archeological associations … The authorities who prevent Palestinians from building and developing their lands allocate vacant plots to the Jews, not only outside of the populated areas but also in their very heart. These spaces are allocated for parking or entertainment, archeological digs or construction. As these neighbors are the authorities’ darlings, confrontations are unavoidable, so the Housing and Construction Ministry provides hundreds of armed guards for the Jews at the public’s expense (some NIS 54 million in 2010 ). When [East Jerusalem] Palestinians complain to [Israeli] police about harassment [this would never happen in the West Bank], they find themselves treated like suspects. When they call the police, they feel like the officers are in no hurry to get there. And when police investigate cases in which Jews are suspected of causing bodily harm, these cases are closed swiftly. In this way, the Palestinians are left at the mercy of the aggressive, belligerent and officially sanctioned invaders. The guards, who are employed by a private company, think their position permits them to hit people, to act abusively and even to shoot. The people in whose midst these fortified complexes are sprawling are afraid to get in and out; relatives and friends think twice before coming to visit them. These complexes are also characterized by a great deal of noise – digging at archeological sites that goes on until night, and dancing and religious celebrations accompanied by anti-Arab songs… Ariel Rosenberg, the [Housing and Construction] ministry’s spokesman, firmly denies any claims that guards harass Palestinians and praises their professionalism and the instructions they receive to show restraint and forbearance. ‘In the past year’, he writes, ‘the situation in the area under discussion has significantly worsened and the guards are witness to extremely hostile activity’ … I have been able to memorize only a few Arabic adages. One I learned from one of the many villagers who was handed an expropriation order for his land. Sitting at the entrance to his home, he looked like he was attending a funeral. ‘To whom can a grain of wheat complain when the cock is the judge?’ he said, in response to my dumb question about what he planned to do”… And this Amira Hass article is posted here.

Posted on by

Abu Mazen: Focussed + on story

8117.abbas-bulldozer

Marian Houk, 6 Sept 2010

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post today, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) told one of the official Palestinian daily newspapers, Al-Ayyam, that in last weeks resumed “direct talks” with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyanu and company in Washington that ” ‘We clarified that [the Palestinian Authority] would not agree to continued Israeli presence, military or civil, within a future Palestinian state,” Abbas said … Abbas continued, ‘Borders is the topic most important to us, security is the topic most important to them’. He went on to explain that the issues of borders and security would be discussed first and that “right of return” of Palestinian refugees was of lower importance and would be dealt with later on in the talks”. This story is posted here.

In this account, AbuMazen seemed to be echoing some of the sentiments expressed by Fatah’s Mohammad Dahlan in an interview published yesterday in the Egyptian paper Al-Masry al-Youm, here.

In the interview, Dahlan said: “We support president Abu Mazen’s positions, and there are no differences within the Palestinian leadership over the methods to be adopted. I contributed to the Camp David negotiations, and I believe we do not need more talks as much as we need political decisions. Abu Mazen has already made historic moves, but Netanyahu is not mature enough to take another step. Rather, he is rather working to sabotage the two-state idea. That being said, we support President Abu Mazen in principle since he is representing the entire Palestinian nation. But the way the US convened for the negotiations, ignoring the EU and following conditions set by Netanyahu, represents an unhappy start. I am totally convinced that these talks will not prove fruitful, and I am sure the Palestinian people would agree with me”.

Here are some further excerpts:
Al-Masry: Netanyahu is adamant on the “Jewish identity” of Israel and on the issue of Israeli security. He has also challenged the right for return for Palestinian refugees. Can peace be realized in these circumstances?

Dahlan: “This is not peace, this is surrender. Not a single Palestinian will agree to Netanyahu’s conditions. The Israeli PM is a liar–he is not seeking peace. He will maintain his habit of ruining the peace process and will eventually bring destruction down on the whole region. As for us, we will keep adhering to our longstanding principles, spelled out by former president Yasser Arafat in 1988, which were re-emphasized at Camp David. If Netanyahu is seeking surrender, let him look for it elsewhere”.

Al-Masry: Can a disarmed Palestinian state ever emerge in this context?

Dahlan: “That’s a precondition we refuse. But at the same time, we are not seeking a state saddled with tanks and aircraft. We will invest in the Palestinian people after they endured 60 years of hardship by improving education, upgrading infrastructure, caring for the youth, developing the economy, and adopting a health system capable of handling the catastrophes wrought by the occupation. But we will not accept a state according to Netanyahu’s terms”.

Al-Masry: As for the direct talks now unfolding in Washington, what do you expect in terms of the post-negotiation stage?

Dahlan: “I do not hold high hopes for these talks. They are more like a party than a political process. We will argue again about all the same issues that we have always wrangled over. No doubt the same differences will emerge: over final statues issues, time schedules, deadlines and references for negotiations”.

The bottom line is, nonetheless: what can appear to be disparate Palestinian voices are actually all saying more or less the same things.

* Marian Houk is the Editor of UN-Truth news site. She is a Member of the Online News Association, Member of the Foreign Correspondents Association (in Israel) and Marian Houk is a past President (1986) of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) at UNHQ/NY

Posted on by

The summit of cynicism

Palestinians attach flags to the apartheid fence (Palestine Monitor)

Marian Houk, 23 August 2010

Have we reached the summit of cynicism, yet?

[Can we get any more cynical?]

Haaretz correspondent Avi Issacharov wrote on his Haaretz blog Sunday that “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to resume direct negotiations with Israel on September 2 in Washington without any of his preconditions being met. Israel has not promised to end construction in the settlements, and the Quartet’s statement does not even mention this issue. Contrary to the demand that the Quartet’s announcement would constitute the framework for the talks, U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell was quick to make it clear this is not the way things will be. One of the leading analysts in the Palestinian media described how Abbas was forced to climb down from uncompromising stance with a term normally reserved to describe the defeat of the Arab armies during the Six-Day War. Abbas succumbed to Arab-American dictate, the analyst said, despite never having missed a chance to reiterate during the year that ‘there will be no direct negotiations without complete freeze of settlements’ … The Palestinian Authority depends on foreign economic aid and the willingness of the U.S. to pressure countries to keep the money flowing. Abbas was concerned that the Americans would, at some point, stop economic aid. In spite of opposition at home, Abbas knows that the bottom line is he could survive different opinions but not an end to economic aid. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said on Saturday that if Israel resumes settlement construction, the direct talks will stop. This will probably be the case, but at this stage, it would probably be wiser for senior PLO officials to cease climbing tall trees from which they are not sure how to climb down”. This can be read in full here.

Does this reporter believe that the U.S. will cut off aid to the Palestinians, but not to Israel? That could, of course, hypothetically happen — but it is unlikely.

YNet reporters have written today that “The PA does not believe the talks will have any concrete results, but hopes the process may bring it closer to the international community and perhaps lead the UN Security Council to recognize it as an independent state. ‘We will try to avoid any confrontations so that by August of next year we will be able to put a Palestinian state, with its established institutions, on the UN Security Council and the world powers’ agenda, so that for the first time in history they will accept their responsibility for the Palestinians’, one official said”. This is posted here

Do PA officials believe that the entire Palestinian population is ready to be fooled by this approach, yet again?

Ma’an News Agency wrote over the weekend that “Fatah has accused Hamas of stalling a potential [reconciliation] deal to avoid elections, which the Palestinian Authority postponed in January and June, citing unity before elections. The PA has enlisted a group of independent politicians to mediate between the two rival governments, while Hamas has called for direct dialogue with Fatah”… This can be viewed here.

Does Fatah (or Ma’an, for that matter) believe that Hamas will bear the brunt of the blame for stalling or scuttling a reconciliation deal? Or that it is Hamas which doesn’t want elections?

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu said before the regular weekly meeting of his cabinet on Sunday that “we need a serious partner … If we have a serious partner, we can achieve an historic agreement”.

Was Netanyahu referring, here, to the Palestinian (who were not even mentioned by name) — or to the Americans?

Aluf Benn wrote in Haaretz the same day that “Expectations for the renewed negotiations are negligible. The small number of people actually interested in the peace process think Netanyahu is bluffing”. Though Aluf Benn seems to think that this means that Netanyahu can negotiate without having his hands tied too tightly, Benn adds that “The Prime Minister is entering negotiations with two primary demands: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the ’state of the Jewish people’; and the stationing of the Israeli Army in the Jordan Valley [n.b. where it is already in total control], along the eastern border of a future Palestinian state, as a buffer against the smuggling of rockets and heavy weapons. He also wants Jewish settlements in the Etzion Bloc to remain in Israel, as well as Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel, and he is committed to the unity of Jerusalem. These principles are no different from what Barak and Olmert proposed to the Palestinians at Camp David and Annapolis, respectively”… etc. This is published here.

And, in an article which discretely favors a one-state solution — as if the Palestinians really had the luxury of such a choice — John Whitbeck wrote that “Almost 17 years after the ‘Oslo’ Declaration of Principles, with its five-year deadline for reaching a permanent status agreement, was euphorically signed on the White House lawn, why should anyone take this new ‘deadline’ seriously or see any reason for hope in it? Throughout the long years of the perpetual ‘peace process’, deadlines have been consistently and predictably missed. Such failures have been facilitated by the practical reality that, for Israel, ‘failure’ has had no consequences other than a continuation of the status quo, which, for all Israeli governments, has been not only tolerable but preferable to any realistically realizable alternative. For Israel, ‘failure’ has always constituted ’success’, permitting it to continue confiscating Palestinian land, expanding its West Bank colonies, building Jews-only bypass roads and generally making the occupation even more permanent and irreversible. In everyone’s interests, this must change. For there to be any chance of success in the new round of negotiations, failure must have clear and compelling consequences which Israelis would find unappealing – indeed, at least initially, nightmarish” [i.e. - a one-state solution]. This article is posted here , and I thank Sam Bahour for the link.

However, as a cynical friend said recently in Ramallah, “The Palestinians are like the man on death row, waiting for his execution, who tells the jailkeepers that he insists on filet of beef, and not jumbo shrimp, for his final meal — ‘don’t even think about bringing me the shrimp’,” he tells them, ” ‘and the beef should be rare, not well-done, and not even medium — it has to be really, really red’ “…

Marian Houk is the Editor of UN-Truth news site. She is a Member of the Online News Association, Member of the Foreign Correspondents Association (in Israel) and Marian Houk is a past President (1986) of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) at UNHQ/NY