My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Monday, November 30, 2009

Olmert's Peace Proposal....

Ehud Olmert made an amazing peace proposal to the Palestinians...they never even replied. Here are details of what he offered..
Olmert explains this position to me in unprecedented detail. His offer to Abbas represents a historic watershed and poses a serious question. Can the Palestinian leadership ever accept any offer that an Israeli prime minister could ever reasonably make?

It is important to get Olmert's full account of this offer on the record: "From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations."

These negotiations took place on two tracks, Olmert says. One was the meetings with the two leaders and their senior colleagues and aides (among them Kadima leader Tzipi Livni on Olmert's side). But Olmert would also have private, one-on-one meetings with Abbas.

"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.

One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years."

This approach by Olmert would have allowed Israel to keep the biggest Jewish settlement blocks which are mainly now suburbs of Jerusalem, but would certainly have entailed other settlers having to leave Palestinian territory and relocate to Israel.

In total, Olmert says, this would have involved Israel claiming about 6.4 per cent of Palestinian territory in the West Bank: "It might be a fraction more, it might be a fraction less, but in total it would be about 6.4 per cent. Israel would claim all the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. All the lands that before 1967 were buffer zones between the two populations would have been split in half. In return there would be a swap of land (to the Palestinians) from Israel as it existed before 1967.

"I showed Abu Mazen how this would work to maintain the contiguity of the Palestinian state. I also proposed a safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. It would have been a tunnel fully controlled by the Palestinians but not under Palestinian sovereignty, otherwise it would have cut the state of Israel in two.

"No 2 was the issue of Jerusalem. This was a very sensitive, very painful, soul-searching process. While I firmly believed that historically, and emotionally, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish people, I was ready that the city should be shared. Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.

"Then there was the question of the holy basin within Jerusalem, the sites that are holy to Jews and Muslims, but not only to them, to Christians as well. I would never agree to an exclusive Muslim sovereignty over areas that are religiously important to Jews and Christians. So there would be an area of no sovereignty, which would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.

"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees." This issue has often been a seeming deal-breaker. The Palestinians insist that all Palestinians who left Israel - at or near the time of its founding - and all their spouses and descendants, should be able to return to live in Israel proper. This could be more than a million people. Olmert, like other Israeli prime ministers, could never agree to this: "I think Abu Mazen understood there was no chance Israel would become the homeland of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian state was to be the homeland of the Palestinian people. So the question was how the claimed attachment of the Palestinian refugees to their original places could be recognised without bringing them in. I told him I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for five years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1000 per year. I think the Americans were entirely with me.

"In addition, we talked about creating an international fund that would compensate Palestinians for their suffering. I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering.

"And four, there were security issues." Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.

"He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."


Blogger kursk said...

Both sides know its a farce.

There will be a larger conflict eventually.Either the Islamic world will rid themselves of the 'parasite' in their guts, or Israel will gain a larger and more permanent toehold in the region (with a huge security buffer)

To the victor goes the spoils..but who will win?

5:57 PM  
Blogger Myackie said...

"To the victor goes the spoils..."

except when the victors are JOOOOOS.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Lucy said...

What ever happened to the Arab peace proposal signed by all the Arab countries to normalise relations with Israel if returned to the 1967 borders. That's right, Israel ignored it and then grabbed even more land from Palestine instead.
Funny but whatever way you try to spin it, Israel have always managed to top whatever the Palestinians have done.

5:36 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Lucy, Lucy, Lucy....can't you get anything right. There are no 1967 borders - there are just truce lines. The only real borders are between Israel and Egypt (established through a peace treaty) and between Israel and Jordan (established through a peace treaty). There are no other borders.

Isreal did not ignore the Arab peace proposal. The proposal was contingent upon negotiations between the Israeli's and the Palestinians....since the Israelies could NEVER go back to the 1967 truce line - Israel could never give up access to the Wailing Wall, for example.

9:06 AM  
Blogger Lucy said...

Fred, Fred, Fred....i am rapidly moving towards pitying you and that isn't good because it might affect my berating of you over your views.

4:48 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

You can pity me...I don't care at all. But as usual, you don't reply to the content of a comment.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Lucy said...

Hw much of a discussion would there be if you don't even recognise the 1967 borders? Your starting point would be so far wide of mine that we would be bogged down before we even got started. I'd rather leave it here and pick it up when you do a post about the 1967 borders which i imagine you will do at some point because if the peace talks ever get going again, that's a demand of the Palestinians.

4:17 PM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

I don't recognize them because they aren't borders. They are truce lines. Borders only come when you negotiate peace.

7:11 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home