Thursday, April 16, 2009


From longtime chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, explaining on TV March 27th why there's never been a land-for-peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians: because the Palestinians don't want to deal; from the interview transcribed at MEMRI:
Let me recount two historical events, even if I am revealing a secret. On July 23, [2000], in his meeting with President Arafat in Camp David, President Clinton said: "You will be the first president of a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders -- give or take, considering the land swap -- and East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, but we want you, as a religious man, to acknowledge that the Temple of Solomon is located underneath the Haram Al-Sharif."

Yasser Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50, or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah." That is why Yasser Arafat was besieged, and that is why he was killed unjustly.

In November 2008. . . Let me finish. . . Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: "We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin." Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: "I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine -- the June 4, 1967 borders -- without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places." This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign. . .

This is the Palestinian position.
As I have said, the two-state solution is a Western fiction--unless and until the Palestinians agree.

(via The Corner)


Assistant Village Idiot said...

Bookmarked. Keeper.

Carl said...

And ya gotta like the part about Arafat being killed.

OBloodyHell said...

> As I have said, the two-state solution is a Western fiction--unless and until the Palestinians agree.

I believe the two state solution is more properly "Israelis: Live. Palestinians: Dead".

Not because I believe that's the way it should be, but because only the Palestinians are suicidally opposed to reason and compromise, and thus we should encourage them to attain that goal.

Gringo said...

There is an article by Martha Gellhorn in the 1961 Atlantic Monthly about Gaza that reads as if it were written yesterday. Pali intransigence is timeless. Lest one accuse me of being prejudiced, a Palestinian Christian lived at my parents’ house my final two years of high school. While he was fairly reasonable, his nephew is a fire-eater. And with as much rationality as the fire-eaters of days gone by ( term for pro-slavery fanatics in the South.)

OBloodyHell said...

Gringo --

You should read P.J. O'Rourke's piece "The 2000 Year Old Middle-East policy expert".

P.J. makes an excellent case that things haven't really changed since the Romans were in charge of things. Seriously. LOL.

The descriptions by the historian P.J. quotes have slightly different actors, but the insane behaviors are hardly different, just more limited by the tech of the times.

IIRC it's reprinted in either Age and Guile or Give War A Chance, I forget which.