71

‘Palestine Papers’ reveal details of a decade of negotiations

Palestinian Authority open to significant concessions


 

The Arabic news network Al Jazeera has obtained more than 1,600 classified documents detailing a decade of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The documents include memos, emails, maps, meeting minutes, strategy papers, and accounts of “high level exchanges” between 1999 to 2010. Among the most significant revelations so far is the apparent willingness of the Palestinian Authority to make significant concessions on the issue of illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, which then Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s refused to accept because it did not include other settlements in the West Bank. The leaks are expected to be damaging to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, who were unable to obtain a peace deal with the Israelis despite making offers and concessions that would not necessarily be in the best interests of the Palestinian people.

Al Jazeera


 
Filed under:

‘Palestine Papers’ reveal details of a decade of negotiations

  1. Another 'information bomb' to hit, thanks to Wikileaks.

    It turns out everything we've been told about the ME… is wrong.

  2. Another 'information bomb' to hit, thanks to Wikileaks.

    It turns out everything we've been told about the ME… is wrong.

  3. The thing about wikileaks is it only really works once.

    It be interesting were these papers were sourced by someone with a little less bias the Al Jazeera.

  4. The thing about wikileaks is it only really works once.

    It be interesting were these papers were sourced by someone with a little less bias the Al Jazeera.

    • They are Vatro. Apparently you haven't been following the leaks.

      Al Jazeera only seems to have bias to people who are thrown by 'furrin names'

      • Following the leaks? This isn't from wikileaks according to what's written in the article. It say Al Jazeera obtained the documents.

        And no, just like every other network, Al Jazeera has a bias, a particularly strong one in this case.

        • Can you please expand on this point Vatro?
          BTW The Guardian is also involved in this leak and the analysis of the contained information.
          I've heard that the leak will be embarrassing for the PA, Israel, the US and UK, so I guess that Hamas may benefit from the release, but I'd be surprised if Al Jazeera (and its funders) are really pro Hamas.

          • From my reading of the article It was Al Jazeera that released the documents. There was no mention of anyone else. Al Jazeera's bias is anti Western, pro Muslim, if it manages to make those four you mentioned look bad it's a positive mark in it's book (In the PA's case for collaborating with the West so to speak).

            Questioning their objectivity or the veracity of their discovery in a highly charged political environment hardly seems out of place. These things should be questioned with any news organization. If it is being corroborated by other agencies then so much the better. That was my point.

            Edit: If its about Wikileaks I have no Idea why Emily brought it up, I was merely responding to her comment.

          • Thanks for the clarification. You are right, Wikileaks is not involved in this.

            The Guardian's extensive coverage is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers

            The degree of cooperation between the Guardian and Al Jazeera is described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/pales

            Regarding questions of bias, in publishing this material Al Jazeera appears to behaving like any other serious news organisation: When presented with a major scoop, they (apparently) fact checked and published. In fact, not to have published would have been a stronger indication of political bias.

            According to Wikipedia, Al Jazeera receives most of its funding from Qatar government, which is not known for its anti-western or anti-satus-quo views. Admittedly, Al Jazeera is often embroiled in controversy and the Wikipedia page lists them. But most of these seem to represent the sort of trouble that any vigorous new agency might find themselves in. The exception being the timorous reporting on Qatar's own politics.

          • Having a bias is an unavoidable circumstance of any presentation, I'm not saying bias is a necessarily negative thing. Though I obviously disagree with an anti western one. If I were to characterize Fox's bias for instance it would be pro-Christian anti-left or something like that. They are still a serious news organization, but I wouldn't trust them with something of a similar nature (in terms of their oppositions) without corroboration.

            Thanks for the links BTW. I'd disagree with you about the Wikipedia page though, it seems to demonstrate to me what I claimed their bias was.

  5. They are Vatro. Apparently you haven't been following the leaks.

    Al Jazeera only seems to have bias to people who are thrown by 'furrin names'

  6. Following the leaks? This isn't from wikileaks according to what's written in the article. It say Al Jazeera obtained the documents.

    And no, just like every other network, Al Jazeera has a bias, a particularly strong one in this case.

  7. Can you please expand on this point Vatro?
    BTW The Guardian is also involved in this leak and the analysis of the contained information.
    I've heard that the leak will be embarrassing for the PA, Israel, the US and UK, so I guess that Hamas may benefit from the release, but I'd be surprised if Al Jazeera (and its funders) are really pro Hamas.

  8. From my reading of the article It was Al Jazeera that released the documents. There was no mention of anyone else. Al Jazeera's bias is anti Western, pro Muslim, if it manages to make those four you mentioned look bad it's a positive mark in it's book (In the PA's case for collaborating with the West so to speak).

    Questioning their objectivity or the veracity of their discovery in a highly charged political environment hardly seems out of place. These things should be questioned with any news organization. If it is being corroborated by other agencies then so much the better. That was my point.

    Edit: If its about Wikileaks I have no Idea why Emily brought it up, I was merely responding to her comment.

  9. Selective leaks to hurt Israel? Golly, what a surprise Gomer…….

  10. Selective leaks to hurt Israel? Golly, what a surprise Gomer…….

    • Hurts Palestine just as much.

      20 years of negotiations is hardly selective.

  11. Thanks for the clarification. You are right, Wikileaks is not involved in this.

    The Guardian's extensive coverage is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers

    The degree of cooperation between the Guardian and Al Jazeera is described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/pales

    Regarding questions of bias, in publishing this material Al Jazeera appears to behaving like any other serious news organisation: When presented with a major scoop, they (apparently) fact checked and published. In fact, not to have published would have been a stronger indication of political bias.

    According to Wikipedia, Al Jazeera receives most of its funding from Qatar government, which is not known for its anti-western or anti-satus-quo views. Admittedly, Al Jazeera is often embroiled in controversy and the Wikipedia page lists them. But most of these seem to represent the sort of trouble that any vigorous new agency might find themselves in. The exception being the timorous reporting on Qatar's own politics.

  12. No it's not Wikileaks:

    Verbatim quote from The Guardian:
    The 1,600 or so documents in the Palestine papers were obtained by al-Jazeera and shared in advance of publication with the Guardian in an effort to ensure the wider availability of their content.

    The Guardian is a partner with Wikileaks. If Wikileaks were involved they would mention it.

  13. No it's not Wikileaks:

    Verbatim quote from The Guardian:
    The 1,600 or so documents in the Palestine papers were obtained by al-Jazeera and shared in advance of publication with the Guardian in an effort to ensure the wider availability of their content.

    The Guardian is a partner with Wikileaks. If Wikileaks were involved they would mention it.

    • They did…you just aren't following the story.

      • I'm sorry I can't find mention of Wikileaks.

        Link please ?

    • The Economist doesn't agree with Al-Jazeera's spin, but doesn't question the documents' authenticity.

      Thanks for the link BTW.javascript: postComment(1);

      • I don't care much for the authenticity question though, I mean it's being reported all over the world so even if they're not authentic, the information contained in the documents remains my concern.

        Especially since, according to the Economist, Al-Jazeera didn't bother reading them and is using them as political weapon.

        • The documents are being widely reported and this alone may have real world consequences, but surely the nature of those consequences are to some extent dependent on the authenticity (or otherwise) of the documents?

          Like many sets of documents, these appear open to interpretation. The Economist and the Guardian/Al-Jezeera (all excellent news sources) don't entirely agree but I think it harsh of you to say that Al-Jazeera hasn't read them.

          • All I'm saying is that The Economist is saying that Al-Jazeera doesn't seem to have read the documents.

            I have no clue since I haven't read them, and most likely won't, but I just wanted to tell people that someone somewhere doesn't agree with what the article and Al-Jazeera says.

            Beyond that it's out of my hands. I know I've made up my mind on the issue (long before this leak) and I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply trying to offer information.

          • Now you are saying the Economist states that Al-Jazeera hasn't read the documents. Nowhere, in the (very interesting) article you linked to does it say that!

            The writer of the Economist's blog is arguing that Al-Jazeera's interpretation of the significance these documents and how they will be perceived in Palestine is 'offbase'.

            I'll be very interested to see how this leak will affect (if at all) the Peace Process and the viability of Palestinian Authority. What issue is your mind made up about?

  14. They did…you just aren't following the story.

  15. Hurts Palestine just as much.

    20 years of negotiations is hardly selective.

  16. I'm sorry I can't find mention of Wikileaks.

    Link please ?

  17. The Economist doesn't agree with Al-Jazeera's spin, but doesn't question the documents' authenticity.

    Thanks for the link BTW.javascript: postComment(1);

  18. Having a bias is an unavoidable circumstance of any presentation, I'm not saying bias is a necessarily negative thing. Though I obviously disagree with an anti western one. If I were to characterize Fox's bias for instance it would be pro-Christian anti-left or something like that. They are still a serious news organization, but I wouldn't trust them with something of a similar nature (in terms of their oppositions) without corroboration.

    Thanks for the links BTW. I'd disagree with you about the Wikipedia page though, it seems to demonstrate to me what I claimed their bias was.

  19. Um, the link you posted in no way supports your claim. Not that I'm sure why you are so invested in sourcing it from wiki leaks in the first place.

  20. Um, the link you posted in no way supports your claim. Not that I'm sure why you are so invested in sourcing it from wiki leaks in the first place.

    • It gave you numerous links.

      I'm interested in Wikileaks, because that's where it came from.

      • Yes it did, but those had to do with Wikileaks regarding Israel and had nothing to do with this, except for the guardian comparing the two with the word 'like.' I suggest you start reading things with slightly more care if you want to be taken seriously.

        • I suggest you stop being anti-wikileaks and discuss the topic.

          Wikileaks had a falling-out with the Guardian, and released US state dept cables to Al-Jazeera directly, with the understanding they could share with the Guardian.

          Which you'd know if you actually read anything.

          • Emily my reading as same as Vatro's.
            Can you provide an explicit source that cites the involvement of Wikileaks in this particular leak.

          • The Al Jazeera documents are not from US state Dept. cables. They're Palestinian documents.

          • No, they are both.

          • I am indeed speaking to the topic elsewhere on this page, but thats not where you decided to take it. I'd read something if you actually bothered to post your sources instead of claiming they exist and then complaining when others can't find them. I have no idea why you'd presume I'm anti-wikileaks.

          • Okay, you had your chance. Instead on your very first post you decided to denounce Wikileaks instead of discussing content.

            Since then, you've ignored sources as well as content, and can't be bothered to keep up.

            Ciao baby.

          • Lol you haven't actually provided any sources or content.

            My very first post had nothing to do with denouncing Wikileaks. It was about the effectiveness of the format.

            Good riddance, baby.

  21. It gave you numerous links.

    I'm interested in Wikileaks, because that's where it came from.

  22. The issue isn't who published them, it is what they reveal. As to what will happen as a result will be depend upon what those who are most affacted.
    It is no suprise, in light of these revelations, that the Palestinians have decided to go to the UN to get a resolution condemning the Israeli settlesments in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and have been campaigning for countries to recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders, How the US votes on this resolution will be very telling.
    These released documents if anything remind us that sooner or later lies and propaganda will be exposed.

  23. The issue isn't who published them, it is what they reveal. As to what will happen as a result will be depend upon what those who are most affacted.
    It is no suprise, in light of these revelations, that the Palestinians have decided to go to the UN to get a resolution condemning the Israeli settlesments in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and have been campaigning for countries to recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders, How the US votes on this resolution will be very telling.
    These released documents if anything remind us that sooner or later lies and propaganda will be exposed.

    • I agree. At the moment there are upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon. Palestinians are shocked to learn the US wanted to resettle them in South America. No wonder they want to be 'recognized'.

      • The US wanted to relocate them to South America?!

        Are really that much of a tool?!

        • Why am I expected to give you the news?

          This release is media headlines everywhere.

  24. Regarding the Wikipedia entry, I guess that our respective biases are affecting how we view the list of controversies,

    I can see your point of view, but think that many news organisations have previously been accused publicly (and privately via diplomatic channels) of bias against Israel and the US, but not always fairly or accurately.

  25. I agree. At the moment there are upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon. Palestinians are shocked to learn the US wanted to resettle them in South America. No wonder they want to be 'recognized'.

  26. Yes it did, but those had to do with Wikileaks regarding Israel and had nothing to do with this, except for the guardian comparing the two with the word 'like.' I suggest you start reading things with slightly more care if you want to be taken seriously.

  27. I suggest you stop being anti-wikileaks and discuss the topic.

    Wikileaks had a falling-out with the Guardian, and released US state dept cables to Al-Jazeera directly, with the understanding they could share with the Guardian.

    Which you'd know if you actually read anything.

  28. Emily my reading as same as Vatro's.
    Can you provide an explicit source that cites the involvement of Wikileaks in this particular leak.

  29. The Al Jazeera documents are not from US state Dept. cables. They're Palestinian documents.

  30. No, they are both.

  31. I don't care much for the authenticity question though, I mean it's being reported all over the world so even if they're not authentic, the information contained in the documents remains my concern.

    Especially since, according to the Economist, Al-Jazeera didn't bother reading them and is using them as political weapon.

  32. The US wanted to relocate them to South America?!

    Are really that much of a tool?!

  33. I am indeed speaking to the topic elsewhere on this page, but thats not where you decided to take it. I'd read something if you actually bothered to post your sources instead of claiming they exist and then complaining when others can't find them. I have no idea why you'd presume I'm anti-wikileaks.

  34. Why am I expected to give you the news?

    This release is media headlines everywhere.

  35. Okay, you had your chance. Instead on your very first post you decided to denounce Wikileaks instead of discussing content.

    Since then, you've ignored sources as well as content, and can't be bothered to keep up.

    Ciao baby.

  36. The documents are being widely reported and this alone may have real world consequences, but surely the nature of those consequences are to some extent dependent on the authenticity (or otherwise) of the documents?

    Like many sets of documents, these appear open to interpretation. The Economist and the Guardian/Al-Jezeera (all excellent news sources) don't entirely agree but I think it harsh of you to say that Al-Jazeera hasn't read them.

  37. Lol you haven't actually provided any sources or content.

    My very first post had nothing to do with denouncing Wikileaks. It was about the effectiveness of the format.

    Good riddance, baby.

  38. All I'm saying is that The Economist is saying that Al-Jazeera doesn't seem to have read the documents.

    I have no clue since I haven't read them, and most likely won't, but I just wanted to tell people that someone somewhere doesn't agree with what the article and Al-Jazeera says.

    Beyond that it's out of my hands. I know I've made up my mind on the issue (long before this leak) and I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply trying to offer information.

  39. Now you are saying the Economist states that Al-Jazeera hasn't read the documents. Nowhere, in the (very interesting) article you linked to does it say that!

    The writer of the Economist's blog is arguing that Al-Jazeera's interpretation of the significance these documents and how they will be perceived in Palestine is 'offbase'.

    I'll be very interested to see how this leak will affect (if at all) the Peace Process and the viability of Palestinian Authority. What issue is your mind made up about?

Sign in to comment.