Palestinian Negotiator: 'Defining Moment' Is Here

JERUSALEM — The chief Palestinian negotiator on Monday warned Israel that if it does not take peacemaking seriously, it will find itself dealing with the militant Hamas instead of moderates like him.

Negotiator Saeb Erekat and other Palestinian officials have been quoted as recommending dismantling the Palestinian Authority, set up in interim accords with Israel to prepare for creation of a Palestinian state. Erekat said that plan has failed because "18 years of negotiations since the two-state solution was raised have gone nowhere."

"We have reached our defining moment," he said. "We are still trying to convince the Israelis to stop (West Bank) settlement activities" and accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and if progress is not made, "we will have to take other steps." He would not elaborate.

But he denied calling for dissolving the Palestinian Authority. "I didn't say that. Nobody said that," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview late Monday.

He spoke as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to meet President Barack Obama in Washington.

Palestinian officials have been expressing extreme frustration at the stalled peace negotiations, blaming Israel and calling on the U.S. to exert pressure.

Several officials have been quoted in recent days as calling for dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, but that would leave a power vacuum that could be filled only by Israel or Hamas. Instead, the idea is seen as a way to press Israel and the United States to take steps toward a peace accord.

Palestinian reformer Mustafa Barghouti, who served once as a Cabinet minister, dismissed talk of dissolving the government. "That would be a mistake," he told the AP. "What should happen is that we should defy the Israeli rules and regulations."

Last week Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would not like to run for re-election in January voting. He left open the possibility of recanting if Israel stops all construction in the settlements, as he has been demanding before peace talks resume.

Erekat warned that if not, Abbas might step down before the election. That would make the speaker of the parliament, Abdel Aziz Duaik of Hamas, the acting president. "How would Israel like to deal with Hamas?" Erekat asked, indicating that this, too, was a pressure tactic against Israel.

Other Palestinians say that talk of mass resignations if Abbas steps down or dissolution of the government are meant as pressure tactics against Israel and the U.S.

Comments

[Goefel]

Israel's main problem is truth. They continue to occupy and destroy the native inhabitants for 60 years no less, and have the gall to call these people terrorists. The Zionist State project is a battle cry for many Zionists, it's just that it's a complete farce that they are the rightful owner of an ancient land. (Added the Zionist project was created and began decades before the holocaust.)

When the US can stand with strength and cut the chains from the Israeli state, who drain us endlessly by way of our timid politicians, the world will transform itself into a better reality.

[StCuthbert]

Truth: The vast majority of the Palestinians moved to Palestine around the same time the Jews did (1880s-1940s).

Truth: There were Jews living in Palestine "from time immemorial" so to claim only the Palestinians are the native inhabitants is wrong.

Truth: Some of the Palestinians ARE terrorists, under the US code definition.

Sounds more like you're the one with the problem with truth...

[Black North]

What is there to negotiate about - the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as illegal. In 1967 it took Israel six days to march into the territories, they should be allowed six days to march out! But to be serious, it took Israel just over a month to withdraw its settlers from Gaza it should therefore, if the will is there, be possible to withdraw from the West Bank settlements in six months. To lessen possible tension the security of East Jerusalem could easily be provided by the UN for say an initial ten years.

[Jingo]

Don't plan on a permanent Palestinian state. Jews have waited centuries to return and take back the historical lands of Israel. They can hold out for centuries to come and take it back one settlement at a time if necessary. After all, the land was promised to Abraham by God himself. And since God obviously didn't like the Philistine King Abimelech who already ruled the land when Abraham decided to settle in, it doesn't count that anyone else lived there before the Isrealites. Hmm.. Philistine sounds a lot like Palestine... I wonder if any of their descendents still live in the area. I doubt it 'cause it seems that they would have a right to their own state.

[SpoonieLuv]

Actually I'm a descendant of the Phoenecians and we were there before you guys were, and the land was promised to us by El Elyon, so... could you guys get off my land? Phoenecia belongs to the Phoenecians!!!

[misaacm]

"If I don't get my way, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue!!!"..­.translati­on of Erekat's tantrum.

Netanyahu just offered to sit down at the negotiating table, and Obama doesn't seem interested in taking any of Bibi's bull, so this is probably the best time to start talking to the Israelis. Just because the Israelis won't (and the American's won't make them) make upfront concessions before the negotiations begin is no reason to walk away from the table.

At the end of his term, Olmert offered the Palestinians a great package for peace, and Abbas wouldn't even make a counter offer. I think that he now realizes that he made a mistake, since Bibi won't make anywhere near as generous an offer. Nor have the Palestinian people been prepared for the compromises they are going to have to make. Consequently, Abbas and his friend Erakat are looking for someone to blame for their mistakes (they share this with politicians world wide), so they are screaming at Bibi, whining to Obama and slandering Hillary.

[MarcusT]

Perhaps if there was a enforcement mechanism...

Palestinian refugees have the right of return -- UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are occupied territories a -- UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 based on the international principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.

It is illegal for the occupying power to transfer its population to, or to change the status of, the occupied territories -- Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel’s unilateral actions to alter the status of Jerusalem are illegal and invalid -- UN Security Council Resolutions 252 and 478.

[Macready]

well said Marcus T . . . with all the celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago . . I think the time is now to fell that other wall of oppression . . the Jerusalem Wall . . . the Goldstone Report, the fall fo the Berlin Wall and the urgent needs of the Palestinian people have created a defining moment for the future . . . tough sanctions are going to have to be applied on israel to get them to the negotiating table and right now the US is the biggest obstacle to that happening

[WBMD]

The common mantra is that the Palestinians want, need, deserve a state of their own. What do any of the above demands have to do with establishing that state? The "right of return" UNGA 194?
Jerusalem? Settlements? None of those issues stand in the way of the establishment, tomorrow, of such a state. Those conditions all impact upon the existence and survival of the Jewish state.

Until the need to see Israel exterminated is abandoned, nothing, nothing, will change for the long-suffering Palestinian people.

[jwcmass]

WBMD

You are aware that the Palesitnians have no more power to 'exterminate Israel" than I have of getting my car to fly to the moon?

And you are aware that the Palestinians are aware of this? (if you are not, you should be. The Palestinians are reminded EVERY DAY how powerless they are by virtue of the faxct that they have none of the rights and freedoms we take for granted.)

I have a hard time understanding why apologists for this Israeli government and for the gush emunim have a hard time understanding that the settlements are at the HEART of the solution here.

For better or worse, the Palestinians, though they will soon have the larger population, are already AT MOST (if their state consists of the West Bank, Gaza and EJ'lem) getting by far the smaller amount of land.

And every time a settlement expands, or roads are built (that criss-cross the West Bank, yet Palestinians are forbidden to use them. (I, a foreigner could come and drive on them, but the local residents cannot-- can you see the basic unfairness of this) land is taken from a Palestinian farmer or villager.

Do you really think all this has NO EFFECT on the Palestinians?

Can't you see that they are reacting the way MOST people would react, if thrown into the same situation?

[jwcmass]

part 2

And now this government with its stubborn attitude (they call freezing settlement expansion "unacceptable preconditions -- despite the fact that Israel has committed to this in the Road Map-- yet Hamas MUST accept Israel AS A JEWISH state, or there's no talks-- that apparently is NOT a "precondition")

This position has totally undermined the moderate Palestinian position. Abas can't exactly turn to his people and say "See, negotiations WILL work"-- Because they haven't.

Now Israel may find itself facing Hamas-- I suspect that this is EXACTLY what Netanyahu wants. It gives him the excuse to not negotiate and to just keep building settlements-- which, given his past record, his statements and his actions, is his policy.

[CigarGod]

Have a cigar, MT.

[TheLonelyGod]

Marcus, if you really want to cite international law, you need to cite EVERYTHING involved with it:

UIL: Hamas and Fatah's very existence is illegal.

UIL: The Palestinians have no right to be shooting rockets at Sderot or using suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Doing so is illegal, and people or organizations who do so should be prosecuted.

UIL: The Palestinians have no right of return. Yes, that's right. It doesn't exist.

UIL: The vast majority of Palestinians are not refugees. And should not be getting free stuff from UNRWA.

UIL: Israel has every right to create checkpoints, roadblocks, and so forth to protect their people.

UIL: Israel is allowed to kill Palestinian civilians (including women and children) in order to fight Hamas or Fatah.

UIL: The Palestinians are not protected persons and are not entitled to the protection that protected persons receive. Therefore, nothing Israel does to them is "collective punishment"

UIL: The West Bank and Gaza are not "Palestinian land," "Palestine," or "occupied territories." They are disputed territories. Any objective reading of the law (and not commentary) would reveal this.

UIL: Israeli settlers are allowed to move to the West Bank and Gaza under their own free will.

UIL: Israel is allowed to make disproportionate responses to Palestinian aggression.

UIL: Israel is allowed to fight the Palestinians, even if the casualties are greatly lopsided.

UIL: Gaza is not occupied.

UIL: Hamas is responsible for the deaths of people who they were using as human shields, not Israel.

[StCuthbert]

Favorited. That one's a keeper.

[jwcmass]

Let's try again, Lonely God,

first, your point on the right of return, would you care to show us WHERE it says that right doesn't exist?

Also, where does it state that Israel can show complete disregard for Palestinian civilians ("allowed to make disproportionate responses"-- Are Palestinians allowed the same right? Do they even have a right to defend themselves?

And despite your repeated denials, the occupyaing force DOES have an obligation to protect the civilian population. Here is a link to at least part of the relevant law:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5


But the tenor of this entier post reminds me of the Dred Scott case handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1857, and written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The quote that comes to mind is this one -- that African-Americans were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

So I guess my question is this: Do the Palestinians have any rights that an Israeli is bound to respect?

[Lavrion]

The problem confronting a two state solution was exhibited last week by the U.S. House of Representatives when they voted by a margin of 10 to 1 to condemn Richard Goldstone's report regarding war crimes committed by both Hamas and Israel during the Gaze conflict last winter. Both right-wing Republicans and liberal Democrats voted in lockstep with the Israeli lobby, the true arbiter of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Until this country can stand by itself regarding all issues Israeli, without fear of offending right wine zealots both here and in Israel, there will be no two state solution.

[Inoku]

The silence in this comment section is deafening.

Anyway, shouldn't the Arabs be shaking in their boots at the prospect of Israel dealing with Hamas? Hamas shoots rockets at Israeli children, and Israel will respond with force, as well it should. Hamas is playing a zero-sum game that will never yield a victory for the "Palestinian cause" until Israel is destroyed, which Israel will obviously never allow. So the question is: would Fatah members rather throw themselves under the Hamas bus and throw away the chance for peace in an attempt to pressure Israel (into doing what?), or would they rather distance themselves from violent extremists and try to seek nonviolent negotiations over a future Palestinian state?

It seems the answer is the former: so much for "peace partners."

[TonyMbutu]

What is it, exactly, that Fatah supposed to do? They've been negotiating with Israel for the creation of the Palestinian state for 18 years -- almost 33% of the total history of Israel -- and they can't even get the enemy to stop building colonial settlements on Palestinian lands or to stop the daily oppression of Palestinian men, women and children in the occupation. What are they supposed to do when Israel can't even keep itself from stopping the theft of Palestinian land during the negotiations?

Further, at what point does the duplicity of the Israeli claims of seeking "peace" sink in? And when it is clear that Israel has no plans for peace, but are merely committing a slow ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, then the oppressed have every right to resist and strike back at their oppressors by any means necessary.

[jwcmass]

It would seem that the current Israeli government is trying to bring about this EXACT scenario, but I would hope that Palestinian resistance (which may be necessary if the US allows this Israeli governmetn to pursue its current policy) will take a nonviolent form.

There are all kinds of acts of civil disobedience ( for example,blockading roads to the settlements by tens of thousands -- just by sitting in the road, and thus closing down access to and from a settlement) that could be employed-- and the more
Palestinians that get involved-- there are 2-3 million of them? could literally paralyze the West Bank. They could tie up border crossings, and blockade access to tourist sites.

But it would be far more effective -- and get the sympathy of the world, if it were nonviolent.

If Gandhi could bring the British government to its knees to end British occupation of India (using nonvilence) then the Palestinians can do the same.

But what some don't understand is if the moderates are unable to negotiate a settlement, support WILL go to the extremists. Desparation drives people to desperate measures. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but the only way that we can avoid this outcome is for the US to fundamentally examine its relationship with Israel.

And REALLY put its foot down, and exercise its considerable economic power.