And the revelations continue to pour forth.
On the agenda is refugees: of the 7.2 million scattered worldwide, the number to be granted the right of return fluctuated wildly during 2007.
The then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, kicked off negotiations with a figure of 5,000.
This was increased by Saed Erekat to 1,000 per year for ten years, ergo 10,000.
While the details peter off, in 2009 Erekat confirmed that “On refugees, the deal is there” and the subsequent year distributed a document to EU diplomats stating the PA had expressed willingness to accept an Israeli proposal to allow in 15,000 refugees.
The other points include some of surprise and others that many are acquainted with, including that the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and other American officials refused to accept any Palestinian leadership other than that of Mahmoud Abbas.
Likewise, the news that Tzipi Livni told Palestinian negotiators in 2007 that she was against international law and that it could not be included in terms of reference for the talks (“I was the minister of justice. But I am against law – international law in particular”) is about surprising as day following night.
In what will become a daily slot, Erekat has once more emerged as the goblin of concessions (or the angel, depending on your views) as he sprints out of the multi-denominational camp in support of an entirely Jewish state.
In talks with Livni in 2007, Erekat stated “If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want” before comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia’s definition of themselves as Islamic or Arab.
And if the Palestinians in the diaspora consider themselves eligible to vote on the future of their land, his response is bleak:
I never said the diaspora will vote. It’s not going to happen. The referendum will be for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Can’t do it in Lebanon. Can’t do it in Jordan. [Source]
An aspect that has long been a source of personal fascination is that of a replacement land and I am particularly familiar with the theory of Jordan as a substitute.
Elite education has led negotiators to the highly rational conclusion that the high number of Palestinians residing in the Kingdom renders it a moot point of population relocation.
That there is already a Jordanian population is irrelevent; that the Palestinians would rather prefer their own land is disregarded.
Pretty much in the same manner as Condoleezza Rice has suggested Chile as the new Palestine based on the fact that there is an Iraqi community already present.
I understand that there is a large Tunisian community in France – given the current troubles, perhaps France would not mind being renamed New Tunis?
Thought not. But apparently Condi does.
On a final note: who is the (as a friend termed her/him/them) Palestinian Assange?