Saeb Erekat - Tag Search

U.S. vice president Joe Biden is wrapping up his Middle East trip with a visit to Petra, in Jordan. A little sightseeing might be a welcome relief after a tumultuous week in Jerusalem and Ramallah.

The phrase "turning point" is grossly overused, but this week really feels like a watershed in the region -- and not at all in a good way. Few observers had high hopes for the Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks, but now even that modest dialogue appears off the table. The announcement that Israel is planning another 50,000 homes in East Jerusalem will poison any future talks: How can the Palestinian side negotiate when tens of thousands of illegal homes are considered non-negotiable?

Joe Biden's harsh condemnation of the new construction at Ramot Shlomo -- but the timing of the announcement still made the United States look weak and unwilling to confront Israel.

The Israeli government continues to roll out the red carpet for U.S. vice president Joe Biden: Israel's interior ministry just announced the approval of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem's largely-haredi Ramot Shlomo neighborhood. (The neighborhood is actually north of Jerusalem proper, but it's on the Palestinian side of the Green Line.)

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office hasn't said anything yet about the new construction, nor has Biden.

But the decision will clearly be a big story in Arabic-language media, and it will figure prominently in any coverage of Biden's visit. Al-Jazeera is treating it as a breaking news item, and it's already catching on (عربي) in Palestinian sources. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, called it a "disaster" that will undermine proximity talks.

U.S. vice president Joe Biden arrived in Israel on Monday ahead of a week-long trip to the Middle East. The Obama administration is billing this as a hugely important trip -- a chance to lay the groundwork for "proximity talks" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and also a chance to speak directly to the Israeli people. And indeed, the White House announced on Monday that both sides had agreed to the talks.

President Obama's Middle East envoy hasn't even left the region yet, and Israeli and Arab news sources have already declared his visit a failure.

Mitchell met for nearly three hours today with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. But Abbas refused to resume peace talks without a complete settlement freeze -- including East Jerusalem -- which Israel is unwilling to offer. Mitchell met yesterday with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak.

There are reports this morning that George Mitchell, the Obama administration's Middle East envoy, threatened to cut off U.S. aid to Israel if the Jewish state blocks final status talks with the Palestinians. (The original source for these reports appears to be this Yedioth Ahronoth story.)

Certainly makes for a compelling headline -- but there's much less here than the headline suggests. If you read his remarks, Mitchell said only that the U.S. could, in theory, cut off aid to Israel. That's thoroughly uncontroversial! The question is whether the U.S. would cut off Israel.

If you think that's possible, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The Jerusalem planning committee has approved three new apartment buildings in Shuafat, an Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The buildings, which could house up to 50 families, are being funded by Irving Moskovich, an American Jew who has funded numerous projects in East Jerusalem.

Yesterday's announcement came just hours after the committee approved four other residential buildings, housing 24 families, on the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants a final peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority, not any interim deals, and says that such an agreement will require "courageous leadership," says Jerusalem Post columnist Herb Keinon.

Bibi that PA President Mahmoud Abbas "should not be 'counted out,'" Keinon writes. Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere near "final-status" negotiations without Abbas, and Bibi isn't going to bring Abbas back in unless he freezes settlements.

One thing to one audience, one thing to another. Saeb Erekat told the Jerusalem Post today that the Palestinian Authority is not, in fact, planning to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state.

"What we are asking the world to do is to specify the borders of the state as the 1967 border," Erekat said. "I want to make sure the Israeli people understand that we are not speaking of a unilateral declaration... this is not an option."

That would pretty clearly seem to contradict his interview with AFP this weekend, when Erekat said the PA wants "recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders."

Saeb Erekat's plan to unilaterally ask the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian state is apparently dead on arrival, after both the U.S. and European Union declared their opposition to the idea.

Saeb Erekat told AFP today that the Palestinian Authority will definitely ask the U.N. Security Council to recognize an independent Palestinian state.

"We have reached a decision... to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.

That marks a shift from just 24 hours ago, when Erekat floated the idea in an interview with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam. Erekat said yesterday that the PA was "mobilizing support" for the idea, 

Commenter Tom, responding to our post on Saeb Erekat's plan to ask the U.N. to recognize a Palestinian state, raises a great question:

What would be the Israeli response to a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood? I have an idea of what it wouldn't do, but what would the actual response be? Invade the West Bank? Physically dismantle what's left of the PA?

Honest answer: I'm not sure! The Israeli government really hasn't talked too much about this issue.

Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, has an interview (عربي) in the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he says the PA might ask the United Nations Security Council to formally recognize a Palestinian state along 1967 borders.

U.S. media have spent the last 24 hours focused on Hillary Clinton's assertion that Israeli settlements are "illegitimate" (a rather insignificant statement, in our view).

Far less attention was paid to remarks by Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who told reporters yesterday that the Palestinian Authority might have to start pushing for a one-state solution.

Hillary Clinton met with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas earlier today in Abu Dhabi; she's now in Israel, meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

No word on what Netanyahu and Clinton are discussing -- but it seems the Abbas/Clinton talks were less than fruitful.

Clinton reportedly offered Abbas a "silent" settlement freeze: Israel would stop new construction in the settlements, but the freeze would never be publicly acknowledged. In return, Abbas would agree to resume negotiations with Israel. Abbas, not surprisingly, said no.

George Mitchell will hold meetings today with both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. But Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, wants to remind everyone that there will be no direct negotiations between his camp and Israel's.

"There will not be Palestinian-Israeli negotiations in Washington," Erekat said. "There will be parallel American-Israeli negotiations and Palestinian-American negotiations."

As I've said before, I don't think Abbas can agree to direct negotiations right now, not after Bibi's settlement snub. It's too politically risky for him. But he's also not going to shut down the dialogue -- in part because he doesn't want to burn bridges with Obama. So these kinds of indirect talks are probably the best we'll get in the short-term.

I was watching Al-Jazeera this evening and several of their commentators said Netanyahu was the real winner today: He got a 3-way meeting with Obama and Abbas without making any real concessions. I think that's an accurate read of the situation. Obama got nothing out of today, nor did Abbas (if anything, Abbas lost a little standing). If there's a winner, it was Bibi.

One more point to make, and then I promise we'll stop talking about this unproductive meeting.

George Mitchell, Obama's envoy for the Middle East, has been in Israel and the West Bank this week meeting with political leaders. His goal was to set up a three-way meeting between Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas during the U.N. general assembly meeting later this month.

But according to several reports, he's going home without any such agreement.

Slow day of posting yesterday; even bloggers need time off occasionally.

Israel will allow ignore U.S. demands and allow construction to continue in a settlement in East Jerusalem. The Obama administration has demanded that the Israeli government cancel the project in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. But Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet today that there will be no limits on settlements in "unified Jerusalem."

The project includes 20 apartments and a three-level parking lot, which will replace the Shepherd Hotel. Settlement construction is illegal in Sheikh Jarrah under international law.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas says a settlement freeze is a U.S. requirement, not a Palestinian precondition. Abbas, in an interview with an Egyptian newspaper, also said any final agreement should include the right of return for Palestinian refugees. And Saeb Erekat, a negotiator for the Palestinians, said they would reject any deal that does not include a complete settlement freeze.

Five Iranian diplomats are back in Tehran after they were released from U.S. custody in Iraq last week. They received a big public welcome at Tehran's Mehrabad airport. The U.S. and Iraqi governments both insist they released the diplomats in accordance with the status-of-forces agreement, and not to curry favor with Tehran.