iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Mahmoud Abbas: Remarkable Revelations In Israeli TV Interview

Mahmoud Abbas

AMY TEIBEL   10/28/11 04:41 PM ET   AP

JERUSALEM — The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state.

The Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept a U.N. plan to partition the then-British-controlled mandate of Palestine sparked widespread fighting, then Arab military intervention after Israel declared independence the following year. The Arabs lost the war.

"It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview to the Israeli media. "But do they (the Israelis) punish us for this mistake 64 years?

Abbas also addressed his negotiations with former Israeli leader Ehud Olmert, now in the spotlight because of the publication of the memoirs of former U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

Rice backs Israel's account that Olmert made a peace offer that was rejected, while Palestinians say that talks never actually reached a point where a firm offer was on the table.

Abbas claimed that he and Olmert were "very close" to reaching a peace agreement in 2008, before the Israeli leader left office under the cloud of corruption allegations.

"It was a very good opportunity," he said. "If he stayed two, three months, I believe in that time we could have concluded an agreement."

He confirmed Olmert's account that the Israeli leader was prepared to withdraw from 93.5 percent of the West Bank. The Palestinians, Abbas added, responded by offering to let Israel retain 1.9 percent of the West Bank.

In her forthcoming book, "No Higher Honor," excerpted in Newsweek this week, Rice claims that the Palestinians rejected Olmert's proposal.

Rice said Olmert proposed in a May 2008 conversation with her to cede about 94 percent of the West Bank, and to share sovereignty over the disputed holy city of Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of its religious shrines.

In its waning days, Rice wrote, the administration of President George W. Bush tried one last time to wrest a peace deal: "To have an Israeli prime minister on record offering those remarkable elements and a Palestinian president accepting them would have pushed the peace process to a new level. Abbas refused."

In their last meeting before Bush left office in December 2008, "The President took Abbas into the Oval Office alone and appealed to him to reconsider. The Palestinian stood firm, and the idea died," Rice wrote.

On Friday, the chief Palestinian negotiator told The Associated Press that the Palestinians had never rejected the Israeli offer.

With Abbas offering in his counter-proposal to let Israel annex 1.9 percent of the West Bank, Bush set a meeting for Jan. 3, 2009, to lock in the positions, which had been delivered verbally, "so the next administration could begin where we left off," he said.

That meeting was scuttled because of Israel's December 2008 invasion of Gaza, Erekat said, and Olmert was soon out of office. Since that time, talks revived for only a brief three weeks last year.

Last month, Abbas bypassed the troubled negotiations route to ask the U.N. to recognize an independent state of Palestine.

In his interview with Channel 2, Abbas acknowledged the Palestinians might not be able to muster the necessary nine votes in the 15-member Security Council to approve the statehood bid.

But majority support would be a moot point, anyway, because the United States has threatened to veto the statehood petition. Israel also opposes the U.N. bid, arguing, like the U.S., that only negotiations can yield a Palestinian state.

Abbas said "it is difficult ... to launch any kind of negotiations" with the current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who takes a hawkish stand on territorial concessions.

He said Netanyahu wants to retain an Israeli military presence along the West Bank's eastern border with Jordan for 40 years, even after the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"I told him, I prefer occupation," Abbas said.

Netanyahu has never publicly specified how long he wants to hold on to that territory, known as the Jordan Valley, and his office had no reaction to Abbas' comment.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

JERUSALEM — The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into...
JERUSALEM — The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into...
Filed by Eline Gordts  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,187
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rogiec123
Look Beyond The Surface
10:53 AM on 11/05/2011
Why is this going on at all? The U.S. is the melting pot of the world. Every known race, creed, color, religion, political view, ethnic background and what ever else lives in the U.S. Yet we have to take sides in the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict? Lets face it no matter what happens over there, peace will never be and we will always, for whatever reason unbeknownst to us, we will back the Jews. The Jewish race has been discriminated against since it came into existence. WHY? There has to be a reason that no one has liked them in the thousands of years they've been around! They roamed the desert for centuries looking for a home themselves. Now, another race of people want a home state and they are being denied by the very same people who should be the ones who understand what they are going through. Isn't it funny how greed and selfishness works. This is mine, you can't have it!!! Some one gave a home state to the Jews, now it's time for them to pay it forward and forget about it! Thats mine! We all have to live in this world together, no matter who, no matter what. The sooner the Jews learn to share, and America learns to watch who they are backing, the better off everyone will be.
05:37 PM on 11/01/2011
hop over to : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/syria-mining-lebanon-border_n_1069024.html

to see what Muslim leaders similar to Hamas and PLO are capable of
04:43 PM on 11/01/2011
Russians conquered land. Russians built St. Petersberg. It is Russia now. Americans (aka Briains) conquered land. Britiains rebelled against the king and won. America is now free of British rule. The people who were displaced have reservations and a right to return and live and buy a house in Manhattan if they want to and have the money. Blacks, having being dragged to America and literally slaved, eventually gained the right to buy land and have legal title to it in America. Its called progress.
03:16 PM on 10/31/2011
Funny, the Palestinian dictator can agree that the cause of this entire problem was the Arabs refusal to live side by side with the Jews in 1947. I wonder why the extreme left in Europe and the U.S. still cannot accept this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
05:22 PM on 11/01/2011
"I wonder why the extreme left in Europe and the U.S. still cannot accept this. "

Because they're way to invested in the original narrative they bought into no matter how often they see up front all the contradictions
Rosin the Bow
Palestine doesn't want peace. Meshaal said so
08:59 AM on 10/31/2011
Abbas is right and anyone who is genuinely pro-Palestinian (as opposed to anti-Israel) should agree with him.
10:08 AM on 10/31/2011
exactly right
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sonic hedgehog
A true word needs no oath
11:32 AM on 10/31/2011
Why do you care, we already know you hate everybody who is even slightly "pro-palestinian"
Rosin the Bow
Palestine doesn't want peace. Meshaal said so
11:53 AM on 10/31/2011
I hate anyone who is anti-Israel. Anyone who is truly pro-Palestinian, who wants what is best for Palestinians and not simply what is bad for Israel, will acknowledge the fact that rejecting the partition plan was a terrible mistake.
12:38 PM on 10/31/2011
There's a difference between being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
09:51 PM on 10/30/2011
This might be the most honest thing abbas has ever said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
07:45 PM on 10/30/2011
For those who wish to understand how reliable Mahmoud Abbas's words and promises are, here are his words in an interview with Israeli TV Channel 2, in April 2010:

Question: With regard to the statements, there are also statements by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad that next year, 2011, the Palestinian state will be declared even without an agreement with Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas's answer: No. We respect the agreements. We do not carry out any unilateral action and you should not carry out any unilateral action. Therefore, declaring the Palestinian state should be the outcome, the fruit, of a Palestinian-Israeli agreement backed by the international community.
03:17 PM on 10/31/2011
Abbas worked for Arafat, an absolute snake. He cannot be trusted.
04:46 PM on 10/31/2011
"He"? None of them are or will ever be trusted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
07:26 PM on 10/30/2011
Breaking news from the future:

"JERUSALEM, October 28, 2100 — The Palestinian president, in a remarkable assessment delivered on Israeli TV, said Friday the Arab world erred in rejecting the proposals of 1937, 1947, 1967, 1977, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2011, as well as the 10 other proposals made since. From his office in Amman, the Palestinian president expressed his determination to pursue international recognition of an independent state of Palestine, within the 2017 borders and with the capital in North Ramallah..."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sonic hedgehog
A true word needs no oath
11:43 AM on 10/31/2011
Moon Base of the United Earth Government, October 29, 2100 - The vice president of the United World's Government today responded to the fake Palestinian President's remarks during his visit to the Moon Base: I talked to our vice governor of the The Peaceland (Former president of the now defunct Palestine) today and he assured me that the man calls himself "The Palestinian President" has no support from a single resident of the province and has been detained and sent to the minimum security resident facility in Mars Base."
hfpf
Wake up World.
03:07 PM on 10/30/2011
>>>>>Abbas said "it is difficult ... to launch any kind of negotiations" with the current Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who takes a hawkish stand on territorial concessions.

Perhaps Netanyahu's position has something to do with the Pal rockets that are kil-l-i-ng Israelis?

www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=243739

Just a thought.
01:24 PM on 10/30/2011
At least a small part of the Arab colonial empire was liberated by Jews.
The liberation process must continue until the complete liberation of the Middle-East and North Africa from the Arab colonial occupation!
photo
Aussieposter
And so it begins
07:20 PM on 10/30/2011
"Arab Colonial Empire"......I hope that you are enjoying your travels away from Planet Earth.

BTW......You are aware that the Hebrew tribes did not originally come from the area of Palestine and since the Arabs share common ancestors with Jews it makes the whole invasion and colonial empire thing look very silly.
09:54 PM on 10/30/2011
"Arab Colonial Empire"...­...I hope that you are enjoying your travels away from Planet Earth.

-tell that to the non-arabs of north africa. They would probably appreciate your making light of arab imperialist expansion, which is behind the violence in darfur as well as most of the ethnically based violence in north africa today.
09:54 PM on 10/30/2011
It is just as despicable to make light of arab imperialist violence in north africa as it is to make light of the holocaust.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
11:58 AM on 10/30/2011
According to Brzezinski, in 1979 in an effort to draw the Russians, the US planned the Afghan Trap He has openly stated this in writing. The world knew nothing about the American trap then.

I am positive Israel has started planning a similar trap to create manipulated pretexts to completely defeat Obama's excellent ideas, encouraged and emboldened by his 100% certainty of winning the Presidency second time.

But I am sure Obamas plan is not going to be executed over the next decade or so unless the USA makes daring economic moves to reduce its aid to Israel. Will the American Zionist lobby allow that? They will rather defeat Obama in 2012 or make him quit

We hope Obama is sincere but what is important is not just words, please show some actions Mr President, prepare to stop funding Israel if the Zionists are stubborn in agreeing to your ideas.

Unless and until the Palestinian problem is peacefully and equitably settled, the war on terror can go on and the so called infinite justice will turn out to be infinite bloodshed and misery to the poor and innocent throughout the world. After all justice is on the side of Palestinians.
photo
AJ Raalte
Israel forever - warts and all.
09:08 PM on 10/30/2011
ROTFLMAO
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stevedavis
08:52 AM on 10/30/2011
Yeah, no kidding. Oh by the way, the U.N. didn't offer you that deal in 1947. The Jews living in Jerusalem did. The reason why you didn't take it is because you and the rest of the first Arab League, led by a guy who spent WWII helping Hitler exterminate Jews, decided that you could "push the Jews into the sea," to use that heartwarming rallying cry you gathered beneath. So instead of getting East Jerusalem for your capital, and instead of you getting a large, wealthy country with Israel just a small speck in its midst, you decided to go to cut off all the water to the Jewish portions of Jerusalem. And you spent the year preceding war attacking Jewish convoys that were supplying Jerusalem along the only road from the coast to the city. And you were aided and abetted by the British, who not only looked the other way while you violated an arms treaty, but who supplied some of the commanders that you relied on when war finally came. And the reason the Israelis survived? Because Golda Meir showed up in the United States and managed to extract a last-minute bit of support from Truman--a piece of support that the rest of the inner Washington circle didn't wish him to provide.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
01:13 PM on 10/30/2011
F&F
facts don't go down here very well, but you've articulated them accurately
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
07:14 PM on 10/30/2011
Exactly!

F & F
photo
AJ Raalte
Israel forever - warts and all.
09:11 PM on 10/30/2011
Yep!

F & F
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:35 AM on 10/30/2011
Most popular accounts of the conflict give two principle reasons for why the Arabs went to war. First, the Arab people considered the partition plan to be highway robbery; it gave over 50 percent of Palestine to the Jews, although they constituted but a third of the population and owned a mere seven percent of the land. No Arab leader, the argument goes, could have accepted such a deal without being lynched. Second, Arab governments believed they were stronger than the Jews and calculated that they could overwhelm the inconsequential Zionist forces and push them into the sea. Although the first argument is sound, the second is myth. The Arab leaders all hoped to avoid war, which promised few benefits and many dangers. We now know that early military assessments by the Arab League and individual states of their ability to defeat Zionist forces in the impending conflict were unanimous in warning of the superiority of the Zionist military, which outnumbered the Arab forces at every stage of the war. Certainly, the Syrian leadership was painfully aware of the weakness of the Syrian army and had little or no faith in the ability of the Arab leaders to cooperate effectively against the Jews or win the war in Palestine.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/Syria_1948.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
01:21 PM on 10/30/2011
are you actually suggesting that ANY deal would have been acceptable to the Islamists to recognize and land mass as a Jewish State?

That's a complete absurdity and defies all historical basis regarding Islamism who were in complete control of the situation regarding the Arab position of Mandated Palestine and you claim they would have laid aside everything they believed in to make a deal with the Jews?

So to be clear, you claim that Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini would have made ANY deal with the Jews?

Lets cut the crap already. In order for you to have any argument you need to first revise history and conveniently omit much of it that contradicts your argument which is exactly what you attempt to do here.
Your comments are the usual convenient revisionism that don't stand up to any scrutiny
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sonic hedgehog
A true word needs no oath
02:35 PM on 10/30/2011
Did you even look at the link? That whole comment is from that article by a professor in the university of oklahoma. I have feeling that he has better understanding of the history of that region then a israel-biased commenter in huffpo.
photo
Aussieposter
And so it begins
07:49 PM on 10/30/2011
Let us look at some important facts here. The first being that the Arabs in Palestine did not have any democratic institutions available to them. They were not allowed to have them. Any moves towards a democratic movement also entailed Palestinian Nationalism which was discouraged by the British and the Jewish Agency.

The extent of British diplomacy in the late 19th century was gunboat and divide and rule. Hence the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Hussein­i was a British appointment, Placed in that position because the British owed the al-Hussein­i family a favor and did not want one of the other powerful families to get the position.

Haj Amin al-Hussein­i did not represent the political will or aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Haj Amin al-Hussein­i would have made any deal that insured his political position, control, and power over Palestine and the Palestinian people. He was Machiavellian in nature, power hungry and would have been a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein and was appointed by the British.

What is glossed over and forgotten is the Arab counter offer to the 1947 partition plan

“The Arab Case Stated by Mr. Jamal Husseini”

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/a8c17fca1b8cf5338525691b0063f769?OpenDocument.

Which to my interpretation was the offer of a democratic secular state.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
08:23 AM on 10/30/2011
Calling settlements as natural growth is a myth. Settlement growth consists largely of Israeli immigrants in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The american president should force Israel to stop settlements by following the international law.

There is a joke circulating in the White House among the senior leaders: That is

“ WE ARE GOING TO KEEP ON TELLING THE TRUTH UNTIL IT STOPS WORKING AND NO WHERE THE TRUTH-TELLING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IN PALESTINE”

We have been living on this cruel joke for the past 65 years. Please Mr President, translate your truth into practice for the first time in 65 years.
01:07 PM on 10/30/2011
The difference between what you are saying and the real truth is the distance between galaxies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
01:25 PM on 10/30/2011
No settlements - building apartment houses is a result of natural growth as it is in every city across the planet where there's economic growth.

There's no violation of the Geneva Convention and under Oslo Israel has all rights to build in Judea and Samaria

If you're interested in the truth then why do you in particular have such difficulty with it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sonic hedgehog
A true word needs no oath
02:45 PM on 10/30/2011
Here is the truth (this is actually the fact):
Fourth Geneva Convention
Article 49:
"...
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

You claim that with Oslo accords goes around that. So we go 2 articles back in the convention and look at Article 47:

"Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory."

meaning that even if there is an agreement between the occupying and the occupied power, the convention articles still apply. Only when there is a peace agreement which removes the label; occupation, convention articles cease to apply. Why do you think Israeli government is trying to manipulate people to believe that there is no occupation but there is disputed lands. I'm sure as a sheep, you agree with them...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kodimirpal
teacher
08:16 AM on 10/30/2011
The occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel’s security?
A huge lie repeated many times.

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel’s security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967.

The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union — then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs — into compliance.

As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.

Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States.

The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel.

‘The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,’ writes [his biographer Randall] Woods.

‘The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.’” Allan Brownfield in “Issues of the American Council for Judaism.” Fall 1997

Everyone can see that the Zionists are not interetsed in peace at all.

Should they get destroyed, they want to take down Europe and the US with them to hell.
01:08 PM on 10/30/2011
If you think a UN peacekeeping force would be effective in any way, then you're dreaming of 72 virgins.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GZLives
01:30 PM on 10/30/2011
The Zionists are not interested in Peace??
I assume you're just testing the Goebbels Big Lie here since much of this was posted in response to you more then once but you merely return and post the same misinformation. So its all about spreading misinformation then rather then using any facts
 
1917, Balfour Declaration, rejected 
 
1920, San Remo Conference, rejected 
 
1922, League of Nations decisions, rejected 
 
1937, Peel Commission proposal, rejected 
 
1947, United Nations proposal, rejected 
 
1948, Israel's peace offer, rejected 
 
1967, Israel's peace offer, rejected 
 
1978, Begin/Saadat proposal, rejected 
 
2000, Barak/Clinton offer, rejected 
 
2005, Sharon's gesture, rejected 
 
2008, Olmert's proposal, rejected 
 
2009 to present, Netanjahu's offer to talk peace directly, rejected 
photo
Aussieposter
And so it begins
08:21 PM on 10/30/2011
As usual you do not present all the facts, just those that place your position in a better light.

(July 14, 1915 to January 30, 1916) The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

The documents declared that the Arabs would revolt in alliance with the United Kingdom and in return the UK will recognize the Arab independence.

The Arabs upheld their part of the agreement. The United Kingdom should have given the Arabs independence and withdrew from the middle east.

1917, Balfour Declaratio­n, rejected (It breached the The McMahon–Hussein accords)

1920, San Remo Conference­, rejected (This was nothing more than Britain and France allocating colonies among themselves, no Arabs were representing at the conference.

1922, League of Nations decisions, rejected (No Arab nations was a member of the league of Nations until Egypt 1937

1937, Peel Commission proposal, rejected (Britain had agreed to recognize Arab Independence.....and broke the deal.

1947, United Nations proposal, rejected (The proposal was unfair it gave one third of the population over 50% of the land and most of the water.

Within the limits of 250 words I cannot deal with the others. As for the events 1915 to 1947. The British Government offered a deal to the Arabs. Revolt fight on our side and we will give you independence. The Arabs held up their part of the arrangement. The British did not.