Trending Topics:

No ‘breakthrough’ and no ‘agreement’ in the Middle East, Indyk says– anonymously

Israel/Palestine
on 39 Comments
Sec'y of State John Kerry names Martin Indyk his special mediator for Middle East last summer

Sec’y of State John Kerry names Martin Indyk his special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations last July

“We’re not expecting a breakthrough on this trip,” Martin Indyk, the State Department’s mediator on the conflict, said today in a supposedly-anonymous briefing on this week’s urgent round of peace talks in Ramallah and Jerusalem.

Indyk said there is no “agreement” between the parties, but Secretary of State John Kerry is seeking an agreement on a “framework” for continued talks, not so different from the Clinton parameters of 2000. Indyk, a longtime advocate for Israel, said part of the framework is a possible announcement of final borders of a Palestinian state:

We’re trying to reach an understanding on what the final borders will be.

The briefing was supposedly anonymous– “with a Senior State Department Official who will be previewing the Secretary’s trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week”– but the first clue to Indyk’s identity came when the anonymous official mentioned his “35-year experience on this particular conflict.” Then the briefing’s unnamed moderator outed him: “It’s an agreement on the terms, as Martin said– right– which has not been achieved in the past, at least in recent history.”

The transcript has now been changed, and “Martin” has been replaced by “Senior State Department Official.”

It seems like nothing concrete will be achieved this week. Here are some of Indyk’s hedges on what the negotiators might or might not do:

We’re not expecting a breakthrough on this trip. There’s a lot of work that lies ahead in terms of getting the parties to a point where they’re agreed on this framework….

[W]hat we’re trying to achieve here – agreement on a framework that would serve as guidelines for the permanent status negotiations and that would address all of the core issues…

I don’t imagine that we’re going to have a signing ceremony for this. This is a framework – an agreed framework, not an agreement that – a signed agreement…

They resemble the Clinton parameters in terms of our ideas in some respects, in that – in the sense that some of the ideas are more detailed than others. So there’s a kind of range between what you call principles and parameters, and we’re kind of somewhere in between because some issues require greater specificity and some issues require more general principles. So it’s a kind of fluid arrangement…

[T]his is not an effort to achieve an interim agreement. It is an effort to provide agreed guidelines for a permanent status agreement, that is to say a full and final peace treaty between the parties. And that purpose here is, in effect, if you like, to – for the Secretary to climb with the two leaders to the top of the hill and be able to share with them the view of what’s on the other side…

Anne Gearan of the Washington Post tried to pin Indyk down. “We still have some confusion over what a framework agreement actually is and means.” Have they got a deal? she asked. Not yet, Indyk said.

We are making a deal. Yes, we are making a deal, definitely. It’s a deal – that’s what we hope to make, I should say – that would be a big step forward on the way to achieving a final status agreement or a permanent status agreement or a peace treaty, whatever you want to call it.

They haven’t even got the framework. That’s what they’re trying to get to.

The framework is a basis upon which one could negotiate the final peace treaty, because the outlines or the guidelines for what the final deal would look like would be agreed upon, and then you would work intensively to fill out the details…. It’s a two-stage process in our minds: agreement on a framework for negotiations; and then a permanent status agreement or a peace treaty,

This is amusing. From Indyk:

It’s a first step that facilitates the achievement of a final status agreement by defining the agreed guidelines for that final status agreement. Is that clear?

Now are you clear? And the borders language is as vague as ever:

[T]he United States’ position [is] that the two-state solution should be based on a Palestinian state established upon the ’67 lines plus swaps to take account of subsequent development.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

39 Responses

  1. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    January 2, 2014, 4:28 pm

    “should be based on a Palestinian state established upon the ’67 lines plus swaps to take account of subsequent development.”

    So, in other words, it’s not based on the 1967 lines, but based on what the zios have stolen to date. But of course Indyk isn’t going to be honest and call his zio employers thieves.

  2. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 2, 2014, 4:41 pm

    It looks as though Ariel Sharon will soon be meeting his maker. Satan is on standby. Sharon was one of the architects of the current mess.

    • Ron Edwards
      Ron Edwards
      January 2, 2014, 5:27 pm

      I’m convinced the reason they kept him on life support this long is that they were afraid that if they turned him off, then he’d heave himself up off the slab and kill them all, everyone.

    • amigo
      amigo
      January 2, 2014, 6:05 pm

      “It looks as though Ariel Sharon will soon be meeting his maker.Satan is on standby. “seafoid

      Just in, Satan has taken ill, (polonium)and Sharon has just been named as his stand in.

      Regime change, perhaps??.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        January 3, 2014, 2:11 am

        The Sharon family have announced that they are delighted with the appointment. “Arik will bring the same drive, evil and focus to the role of CEO of Hell Consulting as he did to Sabra and Shatila”.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      January 3, 2014, 3:27 am

      When the framework for the final agreement is agreed upon, Sharon will finally rest in peace.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        January 3, 2014, 4:35 pm

        Sharon will never rest in peace. His grave will be processed whenever Zionism falls, I bet.

  3. American
    American
    January 2, 2014, 5:17 pm

    Indyk translated (from the memo he got from Netanyahu)……….the deal is there will be no deal just the same talks we’ve had for 40 years.

  4. chinese box
    chinese box
    January 2, 2014, 5:28 pm

    Woody, it sounds like the same “creative ambiguity” BS they were trying to peddle a few years ago…
    Re Sharon: he’s awful, but there will always be Sharons in history…the people who really infuriate me are the so-called intellectuals, statesmen, etc. who’ve helped facilitate these crimes over the years, either actively or passively. People who know better.

  5. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    January 2, 2014, 5:29 pm

    “No ‘breakthrough’ and no ‘agreement’ in the Middle East, Indyk says”

    Of course, since Israel dont want peace.

    Btw, Aipac-indyk got destroyed by Norman Finkelstein on Democracy now some yrs ago.

  6. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    January 2, 2014, 5:38 pm

    It’s all very clear to me, negotiations to go on indefinitely, that should please the Israelis, 5,000 housing units in 5 months since the latest round of talks began, and they are still talking about having talks about talks, is that clear? Perfectly. Netanyahu “make plans for another 20,000 housing units the moment the talks get extended”.You couldn’t make it up.

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      January 2, 2014, 8:31 pm

      Israel just keeps digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole with these settlements.

      They think that AIPAC is forever and haven’t even begun to think about how to deal with BDS. They can’t.

      The whole stupid routine by Netanyahu, Kerry, Indyk etc can best be described as “assisted suicide” for Israel.

      Sharon the vegetable (no offence intended to vegetables) is a perfect metaphor for Israel: on life support.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 3:37 am

        Sumud :

        Israel just keeps digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole with these settlements…

        The holes have already been dug–they’re just filling in the seeds now.

        I still don’t see how this is “assisted suicide”, unless by that expression one is predicting the death Zionism in the very long run by natural causes.

        When the Palestinian leaderships signs onto a final framework for a two-state settlement, that will only be another Palestinian defeat.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        January 3, 2014, 10:52 am

        That’s exactly what I meant Sibiriak – the settlements will be what does Israel in, in the long term.

        Both Ehuds and various other Israelis have said that when Palestinians switch en-masse to a one-person/one-vote campaign in all of mandate Palestine – that’s the end of Israel.

        Even in sheer desperation, if the Israelis want to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza rather than form a single state with full equality for all – any such state will likely have a Palestinian majority – the loony settlers will mutiny and most likely the IDF will have renegade units all over. So Israel has painted itself into a corner with no way out that I can see.

        Not so much Netanyahu or Indyk, but for Obama and possibly Kerry I think they understand what a parasite state Israel is, and the power of the lobby, and know they only way to get rid of the problem is to help Israel “win” so well it “wins” right into oblivion. If Obama really gave a shit about Israel he’d be doing everything within his powers to make Israel into a sustainable state; he isn’t.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 11:57 am

        Sumud:

        …the settlements will be what does Israel in, in the long term. Both Ehuds and various other Israelis have said that when Palestinians switch en-masse to a one-person/one-vote campaign in all of mandate Palestine – that’s the end of Israel.

        I know that’s the theory, but don’t see it as all that simple and predictable. I believe at some point in the future, Zionism will fade-out or self-destruct, because of the intolerable dissonance of ethno-religious supremacism in the modern world. However, it’s not at all clear to me that a “one-state” campaign is going to be the final catalyst for that process, let alone an accelerant.

        Even in sheer desperation, if the Israelis want to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza rather than form a single state with full equality for all… [Etc.]

        But it’s a third possibility that the Israelis are aiming at, and on the verge of achieving, namely incorporating the settlement blocs, Area C etc. and making the separation Wall the final boundary, leaving the Palestinians the remainder of the West Bank.

        Now, the Palestinians can agree to this or not, but either way, the Palestinians will have their “state” (or “states”) consisting of those enclaves and Gaza, and the Palestinian population therein can have, or demand, one person/one vote, within that Palestinian “state”(s).

        As a thought experiment, imagine if there were only Israel and Gaza. Do you think a “one-state/one-person/one-vote” campaign by Gazan Palestinians demanding to be made citizens of Israel would win the full and effective backing of the international community/world opinion? It certainly wouldn’t be a given, imo.

        Israel unilaterally jettisoned Gaza and set its border there; and Israel, will do the same with the West Bank, unilaterally or bilaterally, sooner or later, incorporating some 10% the territory and making the Wall the final border. The West Bank Palestinians will then be squarely outside of Israel as are the Gaza Palestinians. Will the “international community” rise up and force Israel, through BDS etc., to incorporate the Palestinian statelet(s) in the West Bank and Gaza and make all the Palestinians there Israeli citizens? Perhaps, but it certainly isn’t guaranteed.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 3, 2014, 12:19 pm

        @ Sumund

        If Obama really gave a shit about America, he’d go over the head of AIPAC and Congress, telling the American people he’s going to stop aid to Israel and diplomatic cover to Israel because its in the best interest of America first–and Israel second. Then explain to John Q Public why. Our mainstream media couldn’t ignore that. The masses would be ringing the phones at every congress critters desk, drowning out AIPAC. Same as with war on Syria.

        And re “…when Palestinians switch en-masse to a one-person/one-vote campaign in all of mandate Palestine – that’s the end of Israel.”

        The French masses didn’t switch from supporting Vichy France, or being apathetic to it (in Southern France, where the German Occupation forces were not comparably visible) until it became clear the Germans were losing the Allied invasion campaign that commenced at Normandy beaches. Similarly, the Palestinians won’t rise up as one until they have real power at their back. I don’t see anything remotely like the Normandy invasion rushing to free the Palestinians from occupation.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 10:55 pm

        Even in sheer desperation, if the Israelis want to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza rather than form a single state with full equality for all

        Once again, I think that the logical place to begin that legal battle is in the ICJ through the compromissory clause in the plan for the protection of religious and minority groups in Palestine. It was an integral part of the UN Plan for the Future Government of Palestine. The Court already ruled that particular UN resolution is the source of the UN Organization’s permanent responsibility, until such time as the Question of Palestine is resolved in accordance with international legitimacy. It isn’t a question of delegitimatizing Israel or the rump state of Palestine, it’s a question of whether or not either one has ever truly been legitimate.

        Those rights to equality are under UN guarantee and have been delayed and deferred for 66 years through the creation of an illegitimate two state process that maintains a status quo achieved through the prohibited use of threats or force.

        It’s important to remember that the Jewish Agency proposed partition, but Zionists have always refused to formally table a map of their own outlining the borders. They’ve even refuse to attend peace conferences where a one state solution was even on the agenda, because it might preempt endless discussions about their imaginary partition proposal:

        1. Meeting followed “familiar pattern” of British Delegation endeavoring to persuade JA Delegation to put a partition plan on table, and of Jews steadfastly refusing to do so.
        2. Beeley believes JA Delegation refusal to table plan involves following motives: (a) If JA Delegation tables partition plan, it will be sacrificing part of Palestine; (b) coalition JA Executive includes both partitionists and anti-partitionists between whom measure of agreement lies in fact that JA Delegation will consider partition plan only if someone else proposes it; (c) it is possible JA Delegation cannot agree within itself re frontiers of partition plan which should be put forward in first instance; (d) frontiers drawn to extent of more extreme Jewish demands would look absurd, and might cause case of JA Delegation to be laughed out of court.

        — Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa, page 1031 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1031

        Here’s another example of the Zionists refusing to attend a Peace Conference because the details of their imaginary plan were non-negotiable without the consent of the Zionist Congress. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa, page 692 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v07&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=692

        The Jewish Agency only accepted the UN resolution, subject to reservations. The Zionists demanded further discussions about constitutional and territorial modifications, involving things like the status of western Jerusalem and the rights of non-Jews in Palestine.
        See for example the note in the FRUS and minutes from the UN Yearbook which cited the statements of Rabbi Silver to the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committee when he explained the Jewish Agency’s conditional acceptance, subject to further discussions on the constitutional and territorial provisions.
        * http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1165
        * http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5CE900D2DE34AADF852562BD007002D2

        Those discussions have gone-on endlessly until the present day and the Israeli position is that there is no Arab territory that isn’t subject to its claims and that it has a legal right to engage in armed conflict and deny non-Jews living on either side of the Green Line fundamental human rights and equality.

        In 2003, the proposition that Jews had the right to establish settlements in “disputed territory” was laughed out of the international Court. After the UNESCO vote in 2011, the Quartet headed-off Palestinian legal action by demanding that Israel submit a comprehensive map of its proposed borders within 90 days. During the subsequent talks in Amman, Israel only discussed the meaning of the term “90 days” and refused to table a map. No Court could draw boundaries around the ethnic facts on the ground inside or outside the Green Line anyway and arrive at a just two state solution. See: Israel ready to submit borders proposal to Quartet: Breaking from previous position, J’lem willing to come forward with comprehensive plan within three months; follows Blair meeting. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-ready-to-submit-borders-proposal-to-Quartet

        The verbatim minutes of the Peoples Council meeting on 14 May 1948 reveal that the meeting was conducted to discuss the Draft of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and “to establish Jewish rule”. The members were conscious of the fact there were no Arabs in the provisional government they were establishing.
        – See Netanel Lorach, Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 1 – People’s Council and Provisional Council of State, 1948-1949, pp 44 (pdf page 36 of 184) http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/KnessetDebatesVol1.pdf

        Ben Gurion refused a suggestion from Shertok that they address concerns from New York and announce that the first order of business on the new government’s agenda would be “The return of the Arab population of the Jewish State to their homes,” and of course that never was allowed to happen.
        http://books.google.com/books?id=DWhgIe3Hq98C&lpg=PP293&pg=PA293#v=onepage&q&f=false

        So it’s difficult to see how the Zionists were legitimately acting in accordance with the General Assembly’s instructions and merely taking “such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution.” The UN organs that have been established to achieve a solution to the Question of Palestine say that all the refugees expelled in 48 and 67 have to be allowed to return to Israel, precisely because of its on-going legal obligations under resolution 181. But it has always prevented the implementation of that or any other two state solution.

        It’s axiomatic that the Courts can’t allow states to profit from their own wrongful acts and that the ICJ could rule that the General Assembly and Security Council were acting ultra vires when they adopted two state solutions that favor a Zionist agenda with no basis in international legitimacy.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 11:23 pm

        Hostage:

        In 2003, the proposition that Jews had the right to establish settlements in “disputed territory” was laughed out of the international Court.

        And that international Court opinion has done –what?– nothing to prevent another decade of continued settlement expansion.

        … the ICJ could rule that the General Assembly and Security Council were acting ultra vires when they adopted two state solutions that favor a Zionist agenda with no basis in international legitimacy.

        And then what? While such a legal ruling would no doubt be welcome, how would it change any “facts on the ground” or obviate the need for a viable political strategy to compel Israel to change.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 4, 2014, 12:19 pm

        And that international Court opinion has done –what?– nothing to prevent another decade of continued settlement expansion.

        The two state solution has been enshrined in international conventional law through references to 242, 338, or 1515 in international agreements. There is no way to change that formal international consensus in favor of a one state solution through new Security Council resolutions, if the USA decides to use its veto to prevent them from being adopted. So Palestinians will probably have to go through the 10th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly and the international courts. That, combined with BDS is the only viable solution. BDS simply can’t work in this case without the eventual adoption of formal judicial sanctions.

        Neither BDS nor the ICJ ever prevented South Africa from implementing apartheid or creating its Bantustans either. They just happened to be instrumental in getting rid of them after the fact.

        The ICJ findings of fact about the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and the illegality of the settlements took a year, but they got the Palestinian Civil Society outraged enough to call for action to remedy the situation. The fact that Palestine participated in the case as an interested party laid the necessary ground work to recognize its international personality and legal standing to bring the responsible Israeli officials to justice.

        The unanimous advisory opinion, written by the top legal experts in the world, also gave non-experts the ammunition they needed to publicly condemn Israeli policies, without being branded clueless idiots or anti-Semites. Run-of-the-mill Methodists and Presbyterians out here in fly-over country started calling Israel out and pressuring corporations and government for sanctions, because the Wall case had happened.

        And then what? While such a legal ruling would no doubt be welcome, how would it change any “facts on the ground” or obviate the need for a viable political strategy to compel Israel to change.

        You use it just like a determination made by any other competent UN organ that says a government regime is illegal. That’s the only way to revoke Israel’s credentials in the UN and give the PLO/Palestine the right to represent the refugees and the Bantustans on either side of the Green Line in the international courts. That very sort of thing was the necessary legal foundation everyone built upon to get rid of regimes, like the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. The BDS movement could finally explain that international law and simple equity calls for the 1S1P1V solution. Right now, international law calls for a 2 state solution and the UN accepts Israel’s credentials as the sole representative of its Palestinian Arab citizens. So its the only entity that exercises jurisdiction over them. The Prawer plan demonstrates that that is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        January 3, 2014, 4:37 pm

        Sharon organs failing slowly- the perfect metaphor for Israel’s future.

      • American
        American
        January 3, 2014, 4:50 pm

        Frankly this maintaining the shell of a body is obscene to me…..the man has been comose for 8 years..they should have had the decency to disconnect the artificial life support and buried him long ago.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        January 4, 2014, 10:08 am

        They are very low on decency

  7. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    January 2, 2014, 5:40 pm

    Meanwhile, Israel National News and Ma’an are reporting land swaps and population transfers as being part of the current discussions:

    Israel has suggested to the United States a plan to transfer to the Palestinian Authority (PA) areas with a dense Arab population currently inside Israel, reports Maariv-NRG. Specifically, the offer relates to the area known as the Triangle in east-central Israel, including the cities of Tayibe and Tira, in which about 300,000 Arabs live.

    In return for the area ceded, Israel will get to keep settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. Two Israeli sources confirmed the report to Maariv-NRG, and said that it would help maintain Israel’s Jewish character.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175795#.UsXqp3lNO5I

    • Ira Glunts
      Ira Glunts
      January 2, 2014, 7:00 pm

      Philip, I don’t think this proposal is going anywhere. The idea has been recently associated with Avigdor Lieberman. It has been derided as both illegal and racist by many, even if Israel. In fact this proposal is one of the most often used facts in criticizing Lieberman.

      I do not see Kerry going for this. The proposal is probably just a bargaining ploy to divert attention and buy time. Abbas does not want to do it and more importantly the Palestinians who live in the Triangle do not want to be transferred to a future Palestinian state. Also, many right-wing Israelis are against giving up this land, despite the fact that they would be happy to get rid of the Palestinians who live there.

      My guess is that it is a non starter, but I noticed that Lieberman is meeting with Netanyahu Friday morning. Maybe this is the time the triangle transfer plan gets it’s first airing.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      January 3, 2014, 12:28 pm

      Israel’s Jewish character. Violent, brutal, brainwashed

  8. Brewer
    Brewer
    January 2, 2014, 5:44 pm

    “It’s a first step that facilitates the achievement of a final status agreement by defining the agreed guidelines for that final status agreement. Is that clear? No? Well put it another way, we’re entering into preliminary exploration of the possible framework of the parameters of a discussion as to the likely (though not definitive) future location of the goalposts when next we move them.”

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      January 3, 2014, 12:09 am

      “It’s a first step that facilitates the achievement of a final status agreement by defining the agreed guidelines for that final status agreement. Is that clear?

      Yes, except for the fact that the US has already codified a dozen framework agreements before, and has simply allowed the Israelis to renegotiate the terms every time.

      The legal conclusions contained in the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report (aka the “Mitchell Report”) noted that Israel would have to stop building settlements and withdraw its armed forces according to the terms of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 before the Palestinians or Syrians could be logically expected to drop their corresponding belligerent claims. The report became the basis for the framework of the Quartet Road map, which was adopted in-turn by both the Security Council (resolution 1515) and the General Assembly:

      PHASE 1

      SETTLEMENTS
      GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
      • Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

      That framework agreement was also used by the Security Council, the Quartet, and the General Assembly to bully the Palestinians into cooperating with Israel on security measures it required the PA to take in Phase I against Palestinians who were planning and carrying out violent attacks.

      The only truly astonishing revelation contained in the Palestine Papers, was when Obama’s Special Envoy, Mitchell himself, asked the Palestinians to forget about the Phase I terms of reference regarding the Israeli settlement freeze. Erekat responded: My option, the BATNA [Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement], if all goes down, is the one state.

      When pressed to uphold the terms of reference that Secretary Rice had put in the record, Mitchell said “I’m begging of you” (to forget the official Quartet and UN terms of reference for the negotiations and settlement that he had helped author in 2001) and claimed they did not reflect binding policy:

      George Mitchell: The reality is: No negotiations is not in your interest. So we are to come up with a statement to give you a ladder to climb down on this issue – just like you asked a week ago. Now you are arguing over the color of the ladder. And you are drawing unfounded inferences…
      Again I tell you that President Obama does not accept prior decisions by Bush. Don’t use this because it can hurt you. Countries are bound by agreements – not discussions or statements.
      Erekat: But this was an agreement with Sec. Rice.
      (later)
      Schwartz: It is not legally binding – not an agreement.
      Erekat: For God’s sake, she said to put it on the record. It was the basis for the maps.

      George Mitchell: You guys are now trying to come up with a history that Obama somehow invented the freeze. You and the Arabs have been calling for a freeze long before Obama. He did not pull it out of the air and impose it!

      Erekat: You wrote it in your report.

      George Mitchell: You established it as a precondition. We tried very hard, and we know what you think of us because we failed. Fine. So you can look back 10, 20, 60 years from now without negotiations or we can try to move forward.

      Erekat: I have my BATNA, Senator. People keep telling me the consequences of this, and the consequences of that … We have ongoing discussion in the PLO and Fatah Central Committee. If this is what we have, then we will no longer be talking about two states, but one state.

      link to transparency.aljazeera.net

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 3:50 am

        Erekat: I have my BATNA, Senator. […]If this is what we have, then we will no longer be talking about two states, but one state.

        And how exactly would the Palestinians begin talking about “one state”? Would they renounce and dissolve the existing legally constituted and recognized Palestinian state? Would they talk about a merger between the two states? Who would they talk to? The UN?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 8:02 am

        And how exactly would the Palestinians begin talking about “one state”? Would they renounce and dissolve the existing legally constituted and recognized Palestinian state? Would they talk about a merger between the two states? Who would they talk to? The UN?

        Boundary disputes that have lasted for nearly a hundred years need to be adjudicated in an international court, not by the political organs of the UN or the US State Department. Palestinians should start by introducing a resolution in the 10th Emergency Special Session to get the case in front of the ICJ and point out that the UN is responsible for the 1ss vs 2ss fiasco.

        It’s a matter of record that the Palestinians always did talk about a single state solution, until they were forced into accepting a two state proposal. Now that Israel has refused or is unable to draw a map of its own jurisdiction, and is trying to gerrymander boundaries around some of its large Palestinian Arab population centers, it should be clear that neither state can ever have the well defined frontiers required as a prerequisite for statehood if Israel is allowed to forever dictate the terms of the so-called peace process and include/exclude/exile the other lawful inhabitants as it pleases.

        On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        As a preliminary matter, the Palestinian Arabs asked the 1st Special Session of the General Assembly in 1947 to request an ICJ advisory opinion on the question of whether or not the UN had the necessary authority to partition Palestine without the consent of the inhabitants or to at least put the question on the UN agenda. That’s still a very good question and the UN never complied.

        The UN partition plan was a proposal for a peaceful settlement. It was abandoned after it became clear that it could not be implemented without the use of force. But at precisely that point, the USA prevented the question from being addressed to the ICJ:

        We should oppose referring to the International Court the question of the UN recommendation on Palestine on the grounds that the fundamental issue, i.e. whether the two communities involved will cooperate to make the partition plan effective, is not a proper question for the Court.

        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=554

        There is every reason to believe that Israel was acting in violation of the customary law reflected in the UN Charter and the UN resolution when it established a Jewish-only provisional government regime and claimed the General Assembly had required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of the UN resolution. In fact Jewish minority rule in Palestine was established by force and through an act of secession that disrupted the national unity and territorial integrity of the country in violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter regarding the rights of the inhabitants of the country as a whole. Israel also altered the plan of partition by force in violation of the explicit terms of the resolution. See Articles 5 and 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the UN Charter, Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

        In the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali), the ICJ ruled that the doctrine of uti possidetis applies in all cases where non-self governing territories are emerging as newly independent states in order to prevent fratricidal wars provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power. That’s exactly what happened in the case of Palestine and it’s high time to end the Zionist hundred year war of aggression and stop cooperating and rewarding Israel for its efforts to create a racist State in Palestine.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 9:20 am

        Hostage:

        Boundary disputes that have lasted for nearly a hundred years need to be adjudicated in an international court, not by the political organs of the UN or the US State Department.

        I was asking about the legal/political path to a single state.
        But the end result of an Israel-Palestine boundary dispute case would be the fixing the boundaries between two states , not the legal nullification and disappearance of one state, Palestine, and its absorption into Israel, nor the dissolution of both states and the creation of a new single state in their place.

        [Hostage:] As a preliminary matter, the Palestinian Arabs asked the 1st Special Session of the General Assembly in 1947 to request an ICJ advisory opinion on the question of whether or not the UN had the necessary authority to partition Palestine without the consent of the inhabitants or to at least put the question on the UN agenda.

        Are you suggesting another request for an ICJ advisory opinion on that question as a route to the “BATNA” single state?

        Could the ICJ force Israel to annex all the occupied territories and absorb their populations? Would the Palestinians have to first formally renounce their existing statehood? What kind of case would lead to such a ruling? And how could it possibly be enforced?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 7:48 pm

        I was asking about the legal/political path to a single state.
        But the end result of an Israel-Palestine boundary dispute case would be the fixing the boundaries between two states , not the legal nullification and disappearance of one state, Palestine, and its absorption into Israel, nor the dissolution of both states and the creation of a new single state in their place.

        That’s your conclusion. The ICJ would be dealing with a victim Bantustan state that has already filed a written petition in 2003 complaining about the crimes of illegal racial segregation and apartheid against the Palestinian people everywhere, including the refugees. The Court can’t remedy illegal population transfer and apartheid by drawing borders and recognizing the legitimacy of minority rule and conquest.

        Once again, the question that would be put before the Court would be the legality of Jews or the UN drawing boundaries around territory inhabited by Palestinian people, while ignoring their wishes, and establishing or recognizing Jewish minority rule through partition, secession, and fratricidal wars in light of the principles of international law, the UN Charter, the Declaration Granting Independence to Colonial Peoples, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

        The fact is that the Covenant of the LoN or the UN Charter did not allow some, but not all of the people of a country, to exercise the right of self-determination. The relevant principle of international law provides for “equality and self determination of peoples” (i.e. plural) through incorporation in an existing state – and that is what the Zionist leadership elected to do in the Mandated State of Palestine. The ICJ has already ruled that establishing boundaries on the bases of apartheid and fratricidal wars violates a member state’s UN Charter obligations and international law.

        Those policies and practices were explicitly prohibited by the treaties on minorities, the resolutions of the Council of the LoN regarding the termination of a mandate regime, the terms of the mandates themselves, and the customary law reflected in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 3, 2014, 4:31 am

        From Hostage’s link:

        [Erekat: ]We pray every day that Israel will come to the point where they realize that a Palestinian state on the 67 border is in their interest.

        `
        Keep praying.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        January 3, 2014, 8:47 am

        Interesting, Hostage.

        You know what this part feels like, George Mitchell apparently swallowed the top Israeli narrative in this context hook, line, and sinker:

        So we are to come up with a statement to give you a ladder to climb down on this issue – just like you asked a week ago. Now you are arguing over the color of the ladder. And you are drawing unfounded inferences…

        So according to Mitchell settlements are no problem? It’s only because of irrational Palestinian demands that there has not been an agreement so far?

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 3, 2014, 4:04 am

    The final borders are likely to be on the internet according to Indyk. The major jewish orgs are prepared to lease 2 GB per Palestinian vetted by the Shin Bet. The Americans will pay for it. The boy in the skullcap cried “wolf” but everyone ignored him.

    • Walid
      Walid
      January 3, 2014, 6:08 am

      “The boy in the skullcap cried “wolf” but everyone ignored him.”

      And the guy in the keffiyeh cried himself a river, and then resigned for the 162nd time to make it into the Guinness. He didn’t.

  10. seafoid
    seafoid
    January 3, 2014, 9:42 am

    There will be a breakthrough at some stage and it will concern how Galut looks at Israel and the wider Judaism. And it would be better for Israel if this did not have to happen. In the absence of a fair deal on Palestine it is guaranteed to happen.

  11. ramzijaber
    ramzijaber
    January 3, 2014, 10:17 am

    truly sickening. kerry and indyk under the zionist thumb, even zionists themselves. how could there be a just and fair agreement with their so-called mediation??

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      January 3, 2014, 12:33 pm

      They are going to overdo it, Ramzi. They think the Holocaust covers whatever they do. They think the world loves them.

Leave a Reply