Abbas: Occupation leading to one-state solution

Palestinian president tell the Guardian, 'There will be progress if Israel accepts accept framework of two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and an end to occupation.' Adds: There will be no return to armed struggle; it would destroy our territories and our country

Ynet

Published:

02.01.10, 01:07 / Israel News

Israel's continued settlement of the West Bank is leading to a "one-state solution", Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the Guardian. In an interview with the British newspaper, published Sunday, Abbas indicating that he may be poised this week to accept a US offer for "proximity talks" with Israel through American mediators Speaking in London after meeting Gordon Brown and the foreign secretary, David Miliband, the Palestinian leader said he did not know why the Americans "backed off" their demand for a full Israeli construction moratorium in the West Bank. "If there is any substance in the response from the Israeli side – for example, if they accept the framework of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and an end to occupation, with timelines and mechanisms – then there will be progress," Abbas was quoted by the Guardian as saying. According to the Guardian, Abbas also said he would be willing to resume full face-to-face peace talks if Israel halted all settlement construction for three months and accepted its June 1967 borders as the basis for land swaps. "These are not preconditions, they are requirements in the road map. If they are not prepared to do that, it means they don't want a political solution," the Palestinian leader told the newspaper. 'Hamas talking about peace' In the interview, Abbas claimed that negotiations with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the Gaza war had gone further than those held in January 2001 at Taba between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak and included "border swaps, Jerusalem and the return of some refugees". However, the Palestinian president told the British daily, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government refused to accept what had been agreed as a basis for further negotiation. Abbas stressed that "There will be no return to armed struggle," saying such a struggle would "destroy our territories and our country." Hamas itself, he claimed, "is not resisting" – a reference to the organization's effective ceasefire since January last year – "and now they are talking about peace and a truce with Israel" The Palestinian president said if Israel continued to "resist an end to occupation", he would resign and refuse to stand in new elections: "I will have to tell our people there is no hope and no use in my staying in office," he said. Abbas' four years as elected PA president expired a year ago, but last month the PLO extended his term until any new elections are held. .

Frustration over Israeli, Palestinian talks

January 24, 2010 -- Updated 1259 GMT (2059 HKT)
CNN

ERUSALEM (CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Middle East ended a four-day trip to Israel and the West Bank with no breakthrough in persuading Israelis and Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table.

George Mitchell met Sunday morning for a second time with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

After the meeting, Netanyahu told his Cabinet that Mitchell had shared "a few interesting ideas for the renewal of the process. We are are interested in doing that and I expressed my hope that these new ideas would enable the renewal of the process.

"Of course if the Palestinians express the same readiness we will find ourselves in a process and that is an important thing for them and for us and for anyone that aspires to advance peace and reconcilement in our area."

Mitchell met on Friday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas who despite American pressure has refused to re-enter negotiations with the Jewish State until it agrees to halt Israeli construction in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erakat, said the resumption of talks was not in the offing.

"We do not have the conditions to resume negotiations when we say a settlement freeze that includes east Jerusalem. That is not a Palestinian condition, it is an Israeli obligation. And the same thing is applicable to our demand to resume negotiations where we left them in December 2008."

Mitchell's latest efforts to restart the stalled peace process were complicated by Netanyahu's demand that Israel maintain a military presence along the West Bank's border with Jordan.

In remarks to the international media Wednesday, Netanyahu said any peace deal with the Palestinians would "require an Israeli presence on the eastern side of the prospective Palestinian state" to prevent the smuggling of rockets into the West Bank. Under current agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel maintains full control over West Bank and its borders, while the Palestinian government oversees administration of major population centers.

Erakat slammed the Israeli leader's remarks, saying he was sabotaging a two-state solution by trying to dictate the outcome of negotiations.

Negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis have been stalled for more than a year, despite the Obama administration's attempt to move toward a resolution of the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In an interview published Thursday in Time magazine, Obama acknowledged that the effort "is not where I want it to be."

"This is just really hard," Obama said. "Even for a guy like George Mitchell, who helped bring about the peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get."

He said both the Israelis and Palestinians face strong political pressure to avoid "meaningful" talks, "and I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that."

"I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high," he said.

More free speech in Israeli and Palestinian than US media

JerusalemPost.com
By RAY HANANIA
January 20, 2010

The United States may be the world's most powerful nation, but I think Americans might be afraid of Israel. I know many of the politicians are.

Take the recent case of Jared Malsin, a Jew with US citizenship who covers the Palestinian territories from Bethlehem at the Palestinian news agency, Maan. Malsin took a trip to Prague last week and upon his return, was arrested and taken into custody by Israeli authorities at Ben-Gurion Airport. He was deported to New York yesterday.

During his interrogation and week-long detention, Israeli police took time to look him up on the Internet and read through his writings, which were largely critical of Israel . It's a fascinating story whenever a journalist is detained and jailed by any government. But did anyone in the US care or come to his defense?

Why would they, you might ask?

Well, last year, freelance American journalist Roxana Saberi was arrested by Iranian officials and charged with espionage. There wasn't one politician, candidate or elected official in the US who didn't come to her defense and demand her release.

Months later in March, two Asian-American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, were arrested and charged with espionage by the North Korean government. The response from the US was powerful and loud. Everyone, including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued statements denouncing the arrests and demanding the release of the journalists

In both cases, the mainstream American news media reported on their status almost daily, sometimes as their lead stories.

SO WHY the near-total silence from American leaders and muted coverage in the American press now over the arrest and detention of Malsin?

It is a testament to the confidence of Israel's media that they, more than anyone else, have written and followed the Malsin story. In fact, if it wasn't for the Israeli media and the Maan News Agency, few others would be covering the story.

The Palestinian press is much like any media, including Israel's. Some, like the Maan News Agency, are professional journalists. Others, who I will leave unnamed, are not. The issue isn't Malsin's arrest as a journalist by a government, but rather that issues like these are frequently turned into political tools to bash Israel.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli government was wrong in detaining Malsin, keeping him in custody for a week and then deporting him. His rights were seriously restricted.

Malsin is the victim of bad government policy. His arrest undermines principles of freedom and justice Israel claims it represents, though most Israeli media uphold journalistic principles by reporting on the incident.

It's the American mainstream media and its government officials who disappoint me the most, however. While the Israeli media sees this as a story about a government agency violating free speech, the American media and the elected officials in the US view it as a reason to bash Israel.

In a way, that puts the mainstream American press and American politicians in the same boat with those Palestinian and Arab media which see the issue not as one of principle but as an opportunity to attack Israel.

Malsin's arrest and deportation is not about whether Israel is a good or bad country. It's not about whether or not the Israeli government is fair or unjust when it comes to Palestinian rights. It is, though, about a government agency that has violated a journalist's rights and in so doing, compromised Israel's image as a free nation.

One of Malsin's colleagues told me that while there are restrictions that keep most Israeli journalists from entering and covering the West Bank, and most Palestinian journalists from entering and covering Israel, for the most part, Malsin was allowed to travel almost everywhere to get his story, until this incident.

You may not agree with his views, or maybe you do. That isn't nor should it be the issue.

But there is one thing for sure. Most of the Israeli and Palestinian media did a better job of covering his case than the mainstream news media in America, the country that claims to set the bar for the rest of the world when it comes to free speech.

Have the mainstream American media and American officials failed in doing their jobs, or are they just afraid to get on Israel's bad side?

Whatever the reason, many in the Israeli and Palestinian press are keeping the story on the front burner in a way that helps guarantee that Malsin's journalistic rights will eventually be protected, while putting the "free media" in America to shame.

The writer is a Palestinian American columnist, Chicago radio talk show host and coordinator of the National Arab American Journalists Association.

Note: I would like to answer the question:"Is the American media and officals afraid to get on Israel's bad side?" Absolutely not! The American media for the most part will present the Palestinian's plight the same way Obama and his Administration do at every given opportunity - that is, they will side with the Palestinians and the "poor" Palestinians in Gaza, over Israel's right to secure and defend her borders! This stance has caused more anti-Semetic hatred in the local and International newspapers throughout America. Obama's agenda and foreign policies have done nothing to present Israel in a good "light". I say that no one bothered to print this news about the arrest of Jared Malsin, a Jew with US citizenship, simply because he was an American Jew. A great demonstration of exactly how our politicians and President feel towards anyone who claims to be a Jew, either here in America or in Israel. BeeSting

.