Dr. Erakat: Statement on the Al Jazeera “Palestine Papers”

Thus, the one core component of the Palestinian state-building project since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, insisted upon by Israelis and Americans alike, has been for the Palestinians to establish full control over radical elements who might not abjure violence in pursuit of Palestinian aims, and to demonstrate the willingness and ability to identify, track down, and arrest or kill anyone involved in terrorism even as very broadly defined to include those who, in other times and places, would be seen as engaged in legitimate armed resistance to oppression. Robert Grenier

Subject: Dr. Erakat: Statement on the Al Jazeera “Palestine Papers”
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:50:27 +0200
From:
PLO_NegotiationsDept
To: PLO_NegotiationsDept

For Immediate Release January 24, 2011 / Palestine Liberation Organization / Negotiations Affairs Department

Dr. Erakat: Statement on the Al Jazeera “Palestine Papers”

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. 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 peoples 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. What an accurate record will show is that we have insisted that any solution be grounded in principles of international law, which Israel has consistently refused to accept or recognize.

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.

The main issue remains that Israel continues to colonize our land, denying the rights of the Palestinian people, and in particular our refugees. These issues must be addressed and our rights must be respected. That can only happen with genuine commitment on the part of Israel, first and foremost, but also that of the international community which must help us achieve a regional peace based on principles of international law.

For questions or comments, please contact the Communications Department at 02-296-3741.

6 thoughts on “Dr. Erakat: Statement on the Al Jazeera “Palestine Papers”

  1. (comments to all Palestinian supporters in Australia, not Ian specifically)

    Then why is the Australian solidarity movement framed totally within P.A. policy and objectives?

    I am glad to see that Australians for Palestine are reporting the leaks as evidence of P.A. sellout. But if the P.A. are sellouts and Hamas is a violent terrorist group responsible for Israel’s attacks on Gaza (as described in AFP literature, or at least used to be) then who is the solidarity for? Which side are you on?…… as they say.

    The western solidarity movement has a tenuous link with the P.A. – through exposure tours, trade union networks and minimalist charity projects. But beyond this it has no link at all with the real struggle that is happening. It has constructed a matrix of white, christian, middle class values such as democracy, human rights, international law and non-violence – and campaigned for this cultural package instead of any real struggle in Palestine.

    In particular, campaigns and propaganda about Gaza have been presented totally within Fatah West Bank frameworks. This was never more apparent than than the symbolic blockade busting flotillas and road trains that shunned support from Hamas protests in Gaza and ignored the killings of Gaza protestors – while only publicising their own dramas with Israeli and Egyptian authorities.

    Israel excludes Hamas, the U.S. excludes Hamas, the P.A. excludes Hamas and the Western solidarity movement excludes Hamas. If the western solidarity movement refuses to acknowledge the popular leadership of the Palestinian people, then they too are just part of the rotten and bloody imperial/colonial status quo.

    For those who don’t want to support “terrorist” organisations, I hope you were similarly condemning of the terrorist Nelson Mandela and the terrorist organisation A.N.C. If not, why not?

    Get real.

  2. John,

    “Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator acknowledged the cost of gaining US approval and Israeli trust, in a meeting on September 17, 2009 with David Hale, the deputy US Middle East envoy.

    Erekat: We have had to kill Palestinians to establish one authority, one gun and the rule of law. We continue to perform our obligations. We have invested time and effort and killed our own people to maintain order and the rule of law.”

    As the passage above demonstrates the collusion between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, was a conspiracy to murder Palestinians.

    The Palestinian Papers publishes the transcripts of meetings between Israel and the PA where these murders were planned and authorised (the murder of Hassan al-Madhoun).

    In doing this the PA undermined the democratic rights of its own people and prevented resistance to the occupation.

    One of their methods was to murder members of Hamas, Fatah (their own faction of the PLO), the Popular Front and other political groups. It is not a matter of opinion or ideology. It comes as no surprise that Blair, the Clinton(s) and Rice are co-conspirators in these murders. But now the evidence is there for all to read. The peace process was a succession of premeditated killings to deprive Palestinians of their democratic rights — not only Hamas but even members of their own groups!

    In the words of a comrade from Iraq when speaking of leaders of the Palestinian Authority, ‘they are all criminals’.

    As i say, this is not mere opinion, the participants convict themselves out of their own mouths.

    People in the West should remember that Tony Blair, the Clintons and Rice are/were involved in these negotiations. They had representatives in the rooms where the murders were discussed. MI6 drew up the plans for the internment of Palestinians, the guards were British troops, so that they could be killed should the PA and Israeli assassins so choose.

    The PA pretended they had formed a state already alongside Israel. They put down their opponents. As with the dictatorship of Zine El Abidine Ben Aliin in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, these deeds will not be forgotten by the people.

    Ian Curr
    27 Jan 2011

    Sources
    http://www.almanar.com.lb/newsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=171356&language=en
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/israel-asked-palestinians-assassinate-militant
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers-documents/238
    http://translate.google.com.au/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ar&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Firaqibeacon.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2F27%2F%25D9%2585%25D8%25A8%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AF%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AC%25D8%25A8%25D9%2587%25D8%25A9-14-%25D8%25AC%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586%25D9%2581%25D9%258A-%25D9%2584%25D8%25AA%25D8%25AD%25D9%2582%25D9%258A%25D9%2582-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586%25D8%25AA%25D9%2582%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%2F%23more-7760

  3. Ian,

    I am sure Robert Greiner is correct in his recognition of the tireless determination of the P.A. negotiators, but no matter how well intentioned those negotiators are, their only option in the negotiations is to sell out – Israel allows no room for anything else. This is obvious, not an ideological construct.

    It must be understood that PLO/Fatah/P.A. shut down a democratically elected Palestinian government and assassinated or imprisoned the leadership of that government in order to earn the privilege of selling out to Israel. This is obvious, not an ideological construct.

    Yet all of this is for some reason considered acceptable in a western human rights and international law framework (ideological construct), perhaps justified by the necessities of compromise for survival.

    But the compromises of the P.A. do not result in survival but rather the opposite. Hamas has also been willing to compromise in the last few years, but is excluded from the process so such willingness is irrelevant.

    There is enormous change happening in the Middle East and North Africa at the moment and Hamas is part of it. The P.A. is not part of this change but part of the Isreal/US status-quo.

    The P.A. is an obstacle of change and as long as the Western solidarity and BDS movement dances to the P.A. drum then they are justifying and concretising the most significant obstacle to peace and justice.

    When the solidarity movement acknowledges the 2006 election and calls for free and fair elections of the Palestinian authority – then they will have something to say about democracy.

    When the solidarity movement calls for the inclusion of all stakeholders – including Hamas – in negotiations with Israel and the U.S. – then they will have something to say about the peace process.

  4. The problem with the palestinian papers is that it reduces the struggle to an academic construct where people take intellectual positions. I am no different. I wish to engage in the struggle but there is much confusion partly because of the fog of opinion out there but more so because of the failure of organisations. I am not pointing to the PLO here. They engaged in dialogue with Israel as defeated men. They misunderstood their enemy. They thought that the Israeli project was to set up a jewish state as a refuge for jews who had suffered repression as a result of anti-semitism. That was not the zionist ambition. The aim was to set up a zionist state so that people from any religion, any country could convert to judaism and settle in historic palestine.

    There is an interesting passage on al Jazeera about the palestinian papers:

    “I have spent many hours reading The Palestine Papers, the recent 10-year record of the so-called Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The picture which clearly emerges from these pages of the Palestinian leadership and of the peace process negotiators themselves is that these are no quislings. For month after month, year after year, through endless, mind-numbing subcommittee meetings and plenary sessions, through interminable exchanges of letters and legal briefs, slogging from hotel meetings in Jerusalem to conferences in Egypt to “summit meetings” in Washington, the Palestinian negotiators tirelessly advocate on behalf of their people’s interests. In the face of Israeli condescension, obfuscation, and endless legalistic pettifogging they continually push back, insisting on application of relevant international law, despite the Israelis’ obvious contempt for their international obligations.

    They persist in the face of the Americans’ blatant advocacy on behalf of the Israelis, refusing to cave in to consistent American pressure designed to force the Palestinians to compensate for Israeli inflexibility with ever-greater concessions of their own.” — Robert Greiner

    The object of zionism is similar to the judeo-christian project – it is expansionist – it wishes to spread beyond the borders of historic palestine and to bring with it settlers from anywhere (e.g. Romania, Russia, USA, Australia …) so long as they sign up to zionism. These people would get free land and they would be protected by military hardware second to none.

    All the objective evidence of the last 60 years points to my claim. The steady diminution of the Palestinian share of historic palestine from 47% in 1948 to the 18% offered at the negotiation table in 2011.

    A two state solution was what was offered at Oslo but it was a myth. More recently Abbas and Erakat have been living a dream as frail, weary, defeated old men.

    But out of Oslo also came a resurgence – more people come and go to palestine now than in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. They do not go there ashamed to call themselves Palestinian. Yes, they have made compromises in order to survive. They are challenged by the IDF, settlers and check points. But like Murris in Qld they survive in a colonialist state. The two state solution is gone but new resistance is coming. Americans like Obama may wish to concentrate on domestic politics but they will get sucked into the regional conflict in places like Tunisia, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. The imperialists will always have the zionists on the ground, zealous, ruthless and ready to enlarge the conflict to gain new ground for the settlers that will follow them.

    Ian Curr
    Jan 2011

  5. This article includes links to the documents
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestinians-israel-biggest-jerusalem-history

    The controversial deal was an initiative of the P.A. and not a proposal from Israel that “we could never agree to”.

    Dr. Erakat’s guarantee of democracy is rubbish. The deal will be made in secret meetings between Israel, the U.S. and the P.A. and then forced onto the people.

    When that happens, all the BDS and solidarity campaigns that are alligned to the murderous and collaborationist P.A. and Fatah will cheer from the sidelines at such a victory for human rights and international law.

What do you think about this article?