Palestijnse leiders ontkennen niet alleen de concessies die ze volgens de Palestine Papers zouden hebben gedaan, maar zeggen ook dat er sowieso een referendum zou komen. Bovendien hadden de Palestijnen niet met alle ideeën die werden bediscussieerd tijdens de onderhandelingen ingestemd, zo benadrukt Saeb Erekat. Juist. Zoals gezegd, je bespreekt van alles, laat balletjes op, test hoe de ander op bepaalde ideeën of suggesties reageert etc.
Elder of Ziyon wijst er op dat terwijl de Palestijnse leiders vaak tegenstrijdige dingen zeggen en nu weer ontkennen waar ze eerder toe bereid waren, Israel een stuk consistenter is. Het is duidelijk dat Israel bereid is tot een compromis: Netanjahoe zegt openlijk dat men niet over de Westoever en de Palestijnen kan blijven heersen, en dat er 'pijnlijke concessies' moeten worden gedaan, zoals Olmert en Sharon dat voor hem zeiden. Dat is niet helemaal waar: wat betreft Jeruzalem bijvoorbeeld is er ook vaak onduidelijkheid. Als men realistisch is, weet men dat de Palestijnen (en de Arabische wereld) er nooit mee in zullen stemmen dat Israel heel Jeruzalem met alle buitenwijken houdt. Maar Netanjahoe zal dat niet openlijk zeggen. Er is echter ontegenzeggelijk veel meer openheid en realiteitszin aan Israelische zijde, en meer debat. Zolang de Palestijnse straat zo woedend reageert op een enigzins realistisch compromis zijn de kansen op vrede nihil, en daarom vraag ik mij af hoe serieus de Palestijnse leiders werkelijk waren: als men werkelijk een dergelijk compromis uit wilde voeren, dan zou men toch de Palestijnse bevolking langzaamaan aan het idee moeten laten wennen dat er een compromis zal moeten worden gesloten, dat de Joden zullen blijven en niet zullen accepteren een minderheid in eigen land te worden, en dat het beter is voor een half ei dan een lege dop te gaan. Kortom: het tegendeel van wat de Palestijnse media nu dagelijks verkondigen.
RP
---------
The Guardian, the PalArabs, Israel and the truth
The divergence between how the Guardian is spinning the Palestine Papers release and how the actual leaders of the Palestinian Arabs are reacting teaches us volumes.
So while the Guardian decries supposed Palestinian Arab weakness in recognizing what every sane person does, that Israel will never give up the major Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem...
..the Palestinian Arabs are decrying the idea that they would even consider compromise. Erekat:
We also see from the Guardian's screed that the newspaper is not interested in a real peace, but in forcing Israel to make all the concessions and rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their decades of terror and refusal to accept Israel as a reality.
Of course, while some details about what Tzipi Livni offered might raise an eyebrow or two, everything Israel has said about the negotiations has been very consistent through the years, and consistent with what the leaks say. The Israeli leadership has repeated the mantra often enough: "We will have to make painful compromises for peace."
Those words about compromise were never uttered by any Palestinian Arab leader or negotiator, because the entire idea of compromise is foreign to them. Especially when they have cheerleaders like the Guardian ready to support their intransigence (and insult the very idea of compromise.) Behind closed doors, perhaps, they float an idea or two, but they can rest assured that their people who they themselves have indoctrinated to hate will reject any plans they pretended to accept to make the US happy.
Israel's position towards compromise has been vindicated. The Abbas regime's intransigence has been verified. And the only side that has nothing to hide is Israel.
Not that the Guardian would ever admit that.
So while the Guardian decries supposed Palestinian Arab weakness in recognizing what every sane person does, that Israel will never give up the major Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem...
Palestinian concessions roll on. The Israeli settlements around East Jerusalem? Sold, two years ago...
..the Palestinian Arabs are decrying the idea that they would even consider compromise. Erekat:
In the past few hours, a number of reports have surfaced regarding our positions in our negotiations with Israel, many of which have misrepresented our positions, taking statements and facts out of context.And Mahmoud Abbas is even saying that any hint of flexibility in the leaked documents actually reflect Israeli positions, not PalArab positions!
Other allegations circulated in the media have been patently false. But any accurate representation of our positions will show that we have consistently stood by our people's basic rights and international legal principles.
Indeed, our position has been the same for the past 19 years of negotiations: We seek to establish a sovereign and independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and to reach a just solution to the refugee issue based on their international legal rights, including those set out in UNGA 194.
Even though many ideas have been discussed by the two sides as part of the normal negotiations process, including some we could never agree to, we have consistently said any proposed agreement would have to gain popular support through a national referendum.
No agreement will be signed without the approval of the Palestinian people.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday that leaked Palestinian negotiation documents deliberately confuse the positions of either side, according to Reuters.PLO executive committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo, who was in the negotiations, echoes his pride at Palestinian Arab intransigence:
"There was an intentional mix-up. I have seen them [Al-Jazeera] present things as Palestinian but in fact they were Israeli... This is therefore intentional," Abbas said in Cairo.
We did not agree to any proposal regarding east Jerusalem. The only position to which we adhere is Abbas' position that east Jerusalem, according to the 67 borders, belongs to us.So we are left with two possibilities. Either the Palestinian Arabs were the flexible parties and Israel the intransigent ones, which means that Abbas, Abed Rabbo and Erekat are lying now, or Israel was always the more flexible party and the Guardian is lying now.
We also see from the Guardian's screed that the newspaper is not interested in a real peace, but in forcing Israel to make all the concessions and rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their decades of terror and refusal to accept Israel as a reality.
Of course, while some details about what Tzipi Livni offered might raise an eyebrow or two, everything Israel has said about the negotiations has been very consistent through the years, and consistent with what the leaks say. The Israeli leadership has repeated the mantra often enough: "We will have to make painful compromises for peace."
Those words about compromise were never uttered by any Palestinian Arab leader or negotiator, because the entire idea of compromise is foreign to them. Especially when they have cheerleaders like the Guardian ready to support their intransigence (and insult the very idea of compromise.) Behind closed doors, perhaps, they float an idea or two, but they can rest assured that their people who they themselves have indoctrinated to hate will reject any plans they pretended to accept to make the US happy.
Israel's position towards compromise has been vindicated. The Abbas regime's intransigence has been verified. And the only side that has nothing to hide is Israel.
Not that the Guardian would ever admit that.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten