The "Palestine Papers" (Blog #2)

A new set of documents has been exposed indicating that in 2008, Palestinian negotiators were willing to make a significantly larger number of concessions than had previously been known. Al-Jazeera has been releasing these "Palestine Papers" over the past few days showing just exactly what these papers reveal. The documents, which the web site says include memos, e-mails, maps, minutes from private meetings and accounts of high-level exchanges between 1999 and 2010, provide "an unprecedented look inside the continuing negotiations involving high-level American, Israeli, and Palestinian Authority officials." Palestinian negotiators quickly denied these documents, claiming parts of them had been fabricated. When accused of forging some of these documents, Israeli officials gave no immediate comment. The authenticity of these reports is currently under review by the U.S. government.

Al-Jazeera says the documents will reveal further land concessions than reported from the meeting in June 2008 as well as compromises that Palestinian negotiators proposed on the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, a crucial dispute in the negotiations. At the June 2008 meeting, Israel and Palestine partook in a long-winded debate over land exchanges - the concept that Israel would take control of sections of the West Bank as part of a final peace deal and, in exchange, give the Palestinians parts of the Israeli territory. Palestinian negotiators proposed that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa), Ma'aleh Adumim (east of Jerusalem), and Ariel (north). Israel, however, is still unwilling to concede valuable land and continues to build on settlements in Ramat Shlomo, Gilo, French Hill.

This is the largest-ever leak of confidential documents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As to whether or not all of them are authentic I of course do not know. I do, however, see it as highly unlikely that Palestine would be willing to make such concessions. It doesn't seem to make any sense. Israel has already taken control of an outstanding majority of the land that was formerly Palestine, and even has control of about 40% of what is today called "Palestinian territory."

And they destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. And as if that wasn't enough, Israel is still attempting (and succeeding) to build settlements on Palestinian soil. They have barely any land left that can truly be called Palestinian and to add to things, Israel built a giant wall around (and through) them that keeps them from going anywhere. All I can say is why in the hell would they ever even consider conceding anything else?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012304163.html

Israel Extends Ban on Immigration Through Marriage

On Sunday, January 2, Israel extended its ban denying entrance and citizenship to Palestinians married to Israeli citizens. The ban, which expired December 31, 2010, has been extended until June 30 of 2011 by the ministerial committee for security affairs. This ban prevents any Palestinian man or woman from obtaining legal resident status in Israel through their marriage to an Israeli citizen. Arab minority groups and movements continue to push for a “Family Unification” provision, calling the ban “inhumane” and “racist.” Israel’s government fears that allowing such a provision would hinder control on immigration and threaten Israel’s Jewish identity. Arabs currently account for about 20 percent of Israel’s population.

This ban will certainly accomplish its goal in maintaining a primarily Jewish population. And while Israel’s desire to be a Jewish nation cannot be simplified down to one line of reasoning, it is safe to say that this ban is a clear demonstration of Israel’s fear of Arabs and Muslims. The Israeli government needs to more greatly consider the repercussions of such discriminatory actions. What they are communicating through things such as this family unification ban is fear and hate. Granted there is some precedent to these feelings, but their extent is quite irrational. Just because a few radicals exist does not mean every Arab has a violent agenda. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that a large majority does not. They are breaking up families and creating problems not only for the husband and wife, but also for their children and their children’s national identities, simply because one parent is an Arab from neighboring Palestine.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gToKX31mMHrPFvS5sGNX5cFw4tOw?docId=CNG.813cab6bb3cc5a132ebd8bd97f225bb3.851