Israel's Lackey or in Malay , 'Barua Israel' .. It doesn't require a genious to figure out who or what the 'barua' is referring to...

Palestinians offered major Jerusalem concessions
January 24, 2011

JERUSALEM, Jan 24 — Palestinian negotiators secretly told Israel it could keep vast swathes of occupied East Jerusalem, according to leaked documents that show Palestinians offering much bigger concessions than previously revealed.

The documents, obtained by the Al Jazeera television channel, could undermine the position of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose public declarations about Jerusalem are at odds with what his officials were promising in private.

Equally sobering for the Palestinian people, who want to create a state on land Israel seized in a 1967 war, is the fact that Israel offered nothing in return for the concessions and turned down the offer, saying it did not go far enough.

The leaked minutes of a 2008 meeting between Palestinian, US and Israeli officials showed a senior Palestinian proposing that Israel annex all but one of its major Jerusalem settlements as part of a broad deal to end their decades-old conflict.

Al Jazeera said it had other documents that it would shortly published showing the Palestinians were also ready to make other massive concessions on the hugely sensitive issue of the right to return for Palestinian refugees.

“This exposes the Palestinian leadership, putting it in a position where it will be impossible to win the confidence of the people,” Zakaria al-Qaq, Palestinian commentator.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat dismissed the documents as “a bunch of lies” during an appearance on Al Jazeera shortly after the documents were released.

In a heated exchange on Al Jazeera, Erekat was confronted by critics including Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al -Quds al-Arabi newspaper, who asked him who had authorised him or the Palestinian leadership “to give up Islamic holy sites”.

HISTORIC OFFER

Ahmed Qurie, the lead Palestinian negotiator in 2008, proposed that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa. He also said Israel could keep control of a part of the Old City of Jerusalem.

“This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition,” the document quoted Ahmed Qurie as saying.

He added that the Palestinians had refused to make such a concession during negotiations led by the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 2000.

Israel has always said it would keep the main settlement blocs around Jerusalem, but the Palestinian leadership has adopted a tougher stance in its public declarations, never letting on it was ready to make such ground.

Abbas said as recently as last week the fate of Jerusalem was not up for discussion. “From our perspective, there are no negotiations over Jerusalem. Jerusalem is ours,” he said.

However, he has also made clear that West Jerusalem was Israeli and could be the capital of the Jewish State.

Israel captured East Jerusalem in a 1967 war, annexing the walled Old City and a belt of surrounding West Bank land shortly after the conflict in a move that has never won international recognition. Both sides want Jerusalem as their capital.

The 2008 transcript was one of some 1,600 documents related to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that the Qatar-based channel said it had obtained from a variety of sources. Britain’s Guardian newspaper had early access to the documents and said it had verified most of them.

The peace talks are at a standstill due to a dispute over Jewish settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, with the Palestinians refusing to return to the negotiating table until Israel halts the building programmes.

The 2008 meeting was part of talks held at the time between the Palestinians and the Israeli government of the then prime minister, Ehud Olmert. They came to an end when Olmert was forced from office over corruption allegations in 2009.

Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has traditionally taken a much tough stance than his predecessor. — Reuters

Israelis are living high on US expense account - Michael Backman

Michal Backman

AN 17 — There's a memorable scene in the Stephen Spielberg film “Munich”. After the 1972 Munich Olympic Games killings of Israeli athletes, Prime Minister Golda Meir tells confidants she wants to show the plotters that killing Jews "is expensive". She then organises for the assassination of each of the plotters.

Today, it is Israel itself that has become expensive. Most directly, it is very expensive to the US, which subsidises and arms it.

But Israel's utter inability to transform the Palestinians from enemies into friends has imposed big costs on us all. We have paid for Israel's failure with bombs on London public transport, bombs in bars in Bali, and even the loss of the World Trade Centre towers in New York.

It is not true that these outrages have occurred because certain Islamic fundamentalists don't like Western lifestyles and so plant bombs in response. Rather, it is Israel — or more correctly the treatment of the Palestinians — that is at the nub of these events.

The world's Muslims have no head: no overarching caliph or pope equivalent exists — no single power source with whom to negotiate. Instead, Islam is remarkably decentralised. So, how extraordinary that Israel and the West have managed to unite this headless, diverse, dispersed grouping without any institutional framework, around just one issue — anger at the treatment of the Palestinians.

Otherwise dispersed groups of Muslims do seem to feel for one another in a way that Christians and others do not. In this respect, the international Islamic community is like a body: kick it in the leg and the rest of the body feels it. Kick it hard enough and the entire body will be energised to defend itself. Pictures of distraught Gazan mothers beside the mutilated bodies of their children are circulating right now among Muslim communities worldwide. It is pictures like these that make them want to do something.

Consider Malaysia. Every citizen of this outpost of Islam has printed in his or her passport that the passport is not valid for Israel. And given that Malaysians are not allowed to hold dual citizenship, this essentially means that every Malaysian citizen, including the 40 per cent who are not Muslims, are banned from visiting Israel.

"When will Malaysia recognise Israel?" I once asked the then finance minister. "Once Israel treats the Palestinians better," was his reply. How would he determine that? "When the Palestinians tell us," he said. It is not Israel's right to exist that is at issue.

The enmity many Muslims now feel for Israel has nothing to do with religion. The historical persecutors of the Jews have been Christians — their punishment for the death of Jesus. Jews and Muslims have lived in peace for hundreds of years in many parts of the Islamic world. When Catholic Spain and Portugal expelled its Jews, the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul invited them in. It is the Palestinian issue that has ruined all this.

Of course, today Israel must defend itself. If the residents of Bendigo started firing rockets into Melbourne you would expect Melbourne to retaliate. But what must Melbourne have done to Bendigo to make them do such a thing? Constantly slapping an opponent in the face, kicking it down to its knees, and watching it struggle in the dirt will not teach the opponent to love or respect you. It teaches only hatred.

Persecuting people does not weaken them. Israel should know that. The Jews have been persecuted for centuries. It didn't destroy them but gave them the impetus to survive.

One characteristic that is common among persecuted groups is a strong investment in education — when people's physical wealth is in danger of destruction from war and persecution one store of wealth that stays with individuals even when they must flee as refugees is education. It explains why such groups often insist on their own schools — education is too important to be entrusted to others.

Hamas did not enjoy the support of all the people of Gaza. It does now. Why does Israel keep getting it wrong?

Trekking in Nepal is fashionable among young Israelis. So much so that many shops in Kathmandu and Pokhara have signs in Hebrew. But once you get on the trekking circuit and speak with local Nepalese guides and guesthouse operators you soon discover how disliked the Israelis are. Many guesthouses in this poor country will even tell Israeli trekking groups that they are full rather than accept them. This has nothing to do with religion or politics: Nepalese people are some of the warmest, most hospitable in the world. Rather, they say that the young Israelis are rude, arrogant, and argue over trifling amounts of money even though they clearly have means.

Israel needs to change. The Parsees of India might provide a model. The Parsees are a very tiny, very rich ethnic and religious minority. They own perhaps most of the land in central Mumbai as well as the country's largest conglomerate. And yet ordinary Indians admire and respect them. Violence against them is unthinkable.

How have they achieved this? They are not flashy or arrogant. Their overriding characteristic is a deep interest in the welfare of others. They have established hospitals, libraries, schools, museums and many other institutions and, most importantly, not for the Parsee community exclusively but for everyone. So the Parsees have peace and the Israelis do not. — The Age