Protocols of Palestinian Perfidy

Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a major exposé of the recent Amman peace talks on Monday, revealing the startling extent of the concessions offered by the Netanyahu government and the indifferent sabotage exercised by the Palestinians.

The article, written by diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid, reveals that, despite its hardline rhetoric, the proposals offered by the Netanyahu government were essentially indistinguishable from those offered by Tzipi Livni at the Annapolis talks in 2008.

According to Ravid, Israeli envoy Yitzhak Molho presented the following to the Palestinians:

1. The border will be drawn in a way that will include the maximum amount of Israelis living in the West Bank, and the minimum amount of Palestinians.

2. Israel will annex the large settlement blocs, without defining what exactly is considered a ‘bloc,’ nor defining its size.

3. It is necessary to first solve the problem of borders and security in relation to Judea and Samaria, and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem which is far more complicated.

4. Israel will maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley for a period of time. Molho did not mention how long nor what kind of presence.

The extent of these concessions is somewhat extraordinary, as Ravid points out,

Molho did not mention how size of the territory from which Israel will withdraw, but according to the principles he presented, it seems that it is similar, if not identical to that which was presented by Tzipi Livni during the negotiations that took place in 2008 after the Annapolis Conference. And although Netanyahu does not admit it, the meaning behind the principles Molho presented is a withdrawal that will cause Israel to give up 90% of its sovereignty. “The possibility of leaving the settlements in a Palestinian state also came up in Annapolis,” said a source that participated in the 2008 talks.

The article also reveals the extent to which the Palestinians treated the talks with at best indifference and at worst contempt. Molho's Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erekat, did not even show up to the first round of talks, despite Molho's presence, and when he did arrive, was consistently rude, arrogant, and inflexible.

When Erekat finally did arrive, he produced a series of written demands, and

immediately demanded a freeze on settlement building, freeing prisoners and emphasized that from their point of view, the talks would end on January 26 as that was the date that the Quartet set for negotiations on the subject of borders and security.

The Israelis were understandably "surprised" by Erekat's disrespectful conduct, and told him, “We had just begun and you are already threatening to end the talks.”

At a fourth meeting,

the Israeli delegation brought with it the Head of the Strategic Planning Division in the IDF Planning Directorate, Brigadier-General Assaf Orion in order to summarize Israel’s position on security arrangements. The Palestinians refused to allow him to speak. “We came to the meeting place and were delayed for an hour and a half because the Palestinians were not willing to hear the Israeli general. They said that they are not willing to hear a military person speak,” said the Israeli official.

Not only did they presume to dictate who could and could not represent Israel at the talks, but - in a move that smacks distinctly of racism - Erekat lied to Molho's face about Palestinian antisemitism and threats of genocide.

The Israeli side presented documents to the Palestinians, including one on incitement against Israel in the Palestinian media. The document contained quotes from the Mufti of Jerusalem that called for the killing of Jews. Erekat rejected the claims. “The accusations are wrong, and in the end you will have to apologize for this slander,” said Erekat to Molho.  

When finally faced with concrete Israeli proposals to which they would have to respond, the "Palestinians said that they will not resume talks unless Israel freezes settlement building and accepts the principle of 1967 borders."

Then they walked out.

It is quite possible that there has not been such appalling behavior by one side of a series of diplomatic talks in decades. The Palestinians seem to have made it clear that not only are they unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations with Israel, but they are incapable of relating to Israelis with even the modicum of basic respect necessary to do so.

Email to a friend, Share on Facebook, Share on Twitter, and more: