Far apart in negotiations but not far enough apart

Ch 2 reports both sides far apart in negotiations:

    “We ascribe importance to the unity of Jerusalem and, of course, to the cancellation of the right of return,” Netanyahu said.

    – Palestinians were only interested in a territorial exchange of not more than 1.9%.

    – the Palestinians have asked that Israel recognize Palestine as a state under occupation already now and provide a secure link to the Gaza Strip.

    Israel would need to withdraw from the West Bank over three years and a peace deal would be signed only six months after such cessation, according to Channel 2.

    In addition Palestinians would receive the release of all prisoners in Israeli jails, control of border crossings and a section of the Dead Sea, according to Channel 2.

    Palestinians want the ability to conduct bilateral relations and sign agreements without Israel’s involvement, Channel 2 said.

    It added that Israel has offered the Palestinians financial compensation in exchange for retaining some of the settlement blocs, in addition to the principle of land swaps. Israel also wants to maintain an IDF presence along the Jordan border, Channel 2 said.

    Israel would accept a contiguous Palestinian state, Channel 2 said.

    In the morning at the cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said, “We want to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. In this agreement, we will insist on the vital interests of the State of Israel, first of all security, of course, and including our ability to continue defending our eastern border.”

    He clarified that in a final-status agreement the Palestinians would have to renounce all national claims and recognize the State of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

    “We are demanding from them that at the end of the negotiations, they will renounce all their claims, including national claims, and that they recognize the national rights of the Jewish people in the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “[Recognizing] Israel as our national state is an integral part of their recognition that there are no national demands and no national rights in the State of Israel.”

Even though we are far apart, I don’t like what I am reading. Netanyahu obviously has minimal land claims. We are even offering compensation “in exchange for retaining some of the settlement blocs”. That is an acknowledgement that it is their land. We only insist on a “presence” on the Jordan River. That means we are not claiming sovereignty their i.e just give us a lease or something for a few decades and we will accept that.

When Netanyahu says “We ascribe importance to the unity of Jerusalem” he is not saying that Jerusalem must be undivided Israeli territory.

October 28, 2013 | 11 Comments »

Leave a Reply

11 Comments / 11 Comments

  4. @ bernard ross:

    Monday, October 28, 2013
    Dov Weisglass to IMRA: Why settlement construction area never delineated as planned with US

    Dov Weisglass to IMRA: Why settlement construction area never delineated as
    planned with US

    Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 28 October, 20013

    IMRA contacted Attorney Dov Weisglass, who served as Chief of the Prime
    Minister’s Bureau during Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s administration,
    asking why the settlement construction maps that were supposed to be
    prepared along with US Ambassador Kurtzer a few days after April 14, 2004
    were never drawn up.

    In a conversation this evening, Dov Weisglass told IMRA that back on 30
    April 2003 Israel and the Bush Administration agreed to the principle that
    settlement construction would be limited to within the construction line of
    the settlements.

    The two sides started to take practical measures and an American team
    together with an Israeli team started to go over aerial photos and it turned
    out that there were a lot of difficulties coming up with the edge of the
    construction. As a result of this to the process was held up.

    In the meantime, Weisglass explain, we reached the end of 2003 start of
    2004 and we started talking about the Disengagement and the work on the
    construction line was delayed.

    This matter came to a head with the April 14, 2004 exchange of letters in
    Washington that included:

    Dr. Condoleezza Rice
    National Security Adviser
    The White House
    Washington, D.C.

    Dear Dr. Rice,

    On behalf of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, I
    wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached
    between us:

    1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of
    settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a
    better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea and
    Samaria [the West Bank]. An Israeli team, in conjunction with Ambassador
    Kurtzer, will review aerial photos of settlements and will jointly define
    the construction line of each of the settlements.

    …
    Sincerely,

    Dov Weisglass
    Chief of the Prime Minister’s Bureau

    After that the teams returned to work but a difference in principle arose
    between Ambassador Kurtzer and the Israelis regarding which settlements
    would be included in the process.

    We wanted, Weisglass noted, to start from East to West and not deal with the
    large settlement blocs as we explained to the Americans that it was silly to
    include them and put limits on development there as we already have a letter
    (Bush April 14, 2004 letter to Sharon: “… In light of new realities on the
    ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers…It is
    realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on
    the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”) showing
    that we see eye to eye on the large settlement blocs

    As the situation was sensitive and pressure great the question of belief of
    the promise in the Bush letter about the large settlement blocs was
    important for the belief of the public in the Disengagement.

    We thought that the letter would even gain us support from settlers living
    in the large settlement blocs.

    So it was important to have public see that we have US support for the large
    settlement blocs and this would have been questioned if at the same time we
    would have an issue with construction in the large settlement blocs.

    So we wanted to put off this matter

    A large US team that was to come was cancelled – this was around Jewish New
    Years September/October 2004. The formal excuse was the because of Jewish
    New Years it was difficult to coordinate the visit of part of the delegation
    that included Elliot Abrams.

    The visit was cancelled and never renewed.

  5. I don’t like what I am reading. Netanyahu obviously has minimal land claims. We are even offering compensation “in exchange for retaining some of the settlement blocs”. That is an acknowledgement that it is their land. We only insist on a “presence” on the Jordan River. That means we are not claiming sovereignty their i.e just give us a lease or something or a few decades and we will accept that.

    It appears to me that the Israeli public is forever watching a drama that does not include them, seeking to decipher the blatantly giveaway behavior into some straw of hope that it is not actually a giveaway. Some Israelis must be wondering: How could the one elected to protect Jewish rights in YS be giving away YS even before negotiation? what should anyone expect from politicians who never even present a platform of what they are for but one learns their platform from the media after the elections in sound bites. After learning the platform from sound bites right wingers try to convince themselves that everything is a ploy and that he has a card up his sleeve. Meanwhile it appears to me that this giveaway was agreed possibly over a year ago. It sounds very much like agreements published by the pals in the spring. It looks like a done deal. Either its a done deal or a sham show that will appear to disintegrate spontaneously after the syria iran sunni war is resolved.

  6. “We are demanding from them that at the end of the negotiations, they will renounce all their claims, including national claims, and that they recognize the national rights of the Jewish people in the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “[Recognizing] Israel as our national state is an integral part of their recognition that there are no national demands and no national rights in the State of Israel.”

    the Netanyahu hoodwink that pretends that words from the Pals is acceptable payment for Jewish land. Apparently , if he keeps repeating this rubbish enough times the gullible public will come to accept it as truth. There was another famous propagandist who employed this tactic.

    In this agreement, we will insist on the vital interests of the State of Israel, first of all security, of course, and including our ability to continue defending our eastern border.”

    The rights of Jewish settlement in Israel are not a vital interest for Netanyahu. Its time to cease the fantasy that BB will do anything more for Israel than the left wing or that the right wing intends to do anything to protect the Jews from this swindle. Each individual right winger is only interested in keeping his votes by demonstrating in talk that he is a right winger in spite of being part of a left wing giveaway govt.
    There will be more security if Israel makes no agreement.

  7. CuriousAmerican Said:

    He clarified that in a final-status agreement the Palestinians would have to renounce all national claims and recognize the State of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.
    Here is legal switch. Does he mean give up national claims on Israel or give up national claims altogether? That is ambiguous.

    You know as well as I do the Arabs will never accept it. Any one who thinks they will recognize the legitimacy of Zionism is living in a dream world.

  8. He clarified that in a final-status agreement the Palestinians would have to renounce all national claims and recognize the State of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

    Here is legal switch. Does he mean give up national claims on Israel or give up national claims altogether? That is ambiguous.

  9. Israel would accept a contiguous Palestinian state, Channel 2 said.

    A contiguous Palestinian state would split Israel. Do these idiots understand geometry?

  10. NormanF Said:

    All the Jews have to do is assimilate into the Arab Middle East.

    And don’t forget we should also start sodomizing young boys to fit in culturally.

  11. All of that may be true but the Arabs will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State. They have never compromised on their positions since 1988 while all of Israel’s so-called “red lines” have all but disappeared.

    I’ve always said as as a cynic, if peace at any price is that important to Israel – there is a solution – convert to Islam and become good Muslims and the conflict is over. All the Jews have to do is assimilate into the Arab Middle East.

    They cannot have it both ways. They can remain Jews or have peace but not both. Judging from where Israel is headed, that should be the easiest decision in the world to make.