The meeting was held in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Official Residence in Jerusalem.

Photo posted on YNet here and also on the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry here – it does not look good for the Palestinians hereinvolved — is that why Salam Fayyad and Yasser Abed Rabbo did not attend?

In the morning Fayyad presided over a meeting of the P.A. cabinet in Ramallah.

By midday, as the P.A. Cabinet meeting was drawing to a close, or soon thereafter, there were hints that Fayyad might not head the delegation that delivered a long-awaited letter signed by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

But, there was then total silence for some seven hours.

Sometime between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m., the news broke, via AP [and Tweeted by @diaahadid] that Fayyad had “backed out” of the meeting, and the Palestinian side offered no public explanation.

The first AP report, published on a Seattle news site,  said that “Israeli officials said Netanyahu would accept the letter from whoever arrived”…

The Jerusalem Post reported here that Israeli officials commented: “Fayyad was reluctant to be seen engaging” on day 1000 Palestinian prisoners protested conditions in Israeli jails”.  But, it has been know for a long time that the meeting would be coinciding with the day that is widely marked in Palestinian cities as “Palestinian Prisoner’s Day”… and the hunger strike actions were known in advance as well.

The JPost noted further down in their story that Fayyad’s “last-minute cancellation may cast new light on divisions within the Palestinian political establishment”…

The first AP story, published here, reported that “Shortly before the meeting, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said only he + security official Majed Faraj would attend”. AP wrote that Erekat said: “‘We are on our way’, he said, giving no explanation for Fayyad’s absence”.

Majed Faraj is later identified as the Chief of PA General Intelligence Service ["mukhabarat", it was later explained, because there are so many security groupings].

[It is not clear who the third man is who's shown in the YNet news photo, above, but it could be Netanyahu's negotiations adviser, Yitzhak Molcho].

The Secretary of the P.L.O. Executive Committee, Yasser Abed Rabbo, was supposed to accompany Fayyad and Erekat. There was no explanation of why Abed Rabbo — like Fayyad — did not go to the meeting.

Wire service reports said that Fayyad had reservations about participating in the meeting because of concern about appearances, and how it would be viewed.  AFP noted that Fayyad had never announced or confirmed he would participate… And Barak Ravid reported in an updated story for Haaretz, posted here, that “The prospect that Fayyad would not take part in the meeting with Netanyahu was a source of major embarrassment on the Palestinian side over the past two days. Abbas had previously announced publicly that Fayyad would attend, in part to underline the importance of the letter that was being delivered to the Israeli prime minister. For his part, however, Fayyad opposed an exchange of letters, contending that it would not produce results”.

[Ravid -- @BarakRavid -- sent out a Tweet on Wednesday morning saying "I heard this from at least 3 sources who spoke to Fayyad"...]

It is equally true that the prospect of Fayyad taking part in the meeting with Netanyahu is also a source of major embarassment for the Palestinian side, and as to what Sa’eb Erekat did.

The Israeli Project, in what is perhaps a litmus test for Israeli reactions, said in an email that it viewed as “preconditions” to negotiations what the Abbas letter called “obligations”: “Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was a no-show Tuesday as a Palestinian delegation presented Fayyad’s Israeli counterpart with a letter outlining preconditions to peace talks”. it said.

Palestinians expressed little interest in the meeting.  It was not covered on Palestinian TV [Yasser Abed Rabbo is the current Director].

UPDATE: Palestinian TV had a 23-minute interview with fast-talking Sa’eb Erekat at the end of its news program on Wednesday, 18 April, a day after the letter presentation. Erekat justified everything he did…

The first report that Fayyad would participate was published in early April, in an AFP story [which suggests that Saeb Erekat was a possible source].  It was then also built up in an advisory sent out by The Israel Project, which we reported on 4 April here.  The DRAFT letter that Abbas signed was leaked to the  Israeli media [Barak Ravid of Haaretz, then AFP + The Times of Israel] — either the Palestinian media did not get it, or they were not interested.

According to Ravid, it was Abbas’ decision that Fayyad should take part.   Then, Abbas himself went on a long tour of unclear imperative to distant spots.  It was earlier announced that any Palestinian government shake-up would not occur until after Abbas’ return…

Ravid’s story in Haaretz also reported that “Fayyad indicated to Abbas, who has been on a tour of Asian nations, that he did not intend to take part in the meeting with Netanyahu. Nonetheless, Saeb Erekat, who heads the Palestinian negotiating team, continued telling journalists, even hours before the meeting, that Fayyad would be there”.

The Times of Israel later noted here that “until the delegation arrived, Netanyahu did not know whether Fayyad would be coming”.

AFP wrote later that “Speaking to AFP shortly afterwards, Erekat expressed satisfaction over the brief encounter. ‘It was a serious meeting’, he said. ‘Netanyahu will study the letter seriously and answer it within two weeks’.”  This is posted here.

AP wrote later, in a separate report, that “Erekat said after the meeting that Netanyahu had promised to “seriously consider” the Palestinian president’s letter. ‘We hope that the commitments on both sides will be honored’, Erekat said. ‘The current status quo cannot be maintained’.” This is posted here.

Erekat’s devotion to the negotiations process is evident — even after he resigned over a year ago, following the damaging series of reports on Al-Jazeera about the Palestinian Papers [diplomatic cables and other notes of the negotiations], he still persisted.  He explained a few months ago that Abbas had never accepted his resignation.

What Erekat is going to get out of this singular pursuit is unclear.

Abbas has, in the process of consolidating his hold on the reins of Palestinian political power, also developed great expertise in manipulating people, and in long-term revenge.

In any case, it’s clear that even if Fayyad had gone to the meeting with Netanyahu, there would not have been any resumption of negotiations then and there — despite what several major wire services are writing.  It was never intended as a negotiating session.

In Ramallah yesterday, when I asked a P.L.O. Executive Committee member about the possible letter delivery today, he rolled his eyes, grimaced, then told me: “Our problems are greater than anyone knows”…

After the meeting, a joint Israeli-Palestinian statement said that “both sides are committed to achieving peace and hope that the exchange of letter will help promote it”…

In DRAFT form, as reported by The Times of Israel, here, the Abbas letter said:

“Now, as a result of actions taken by successive Israeli governments, the Palestinian National Authority no longer has any authority, and no meaningful jurisdiction in the political, economic, social, territorial and security spheres. In other words, the P.A. lost its reason d’être. In recognition of the above and in furtherance of the peace process and the agreements we signed with Israel, which were premised on international legitimacy, international law, and internationally-recognized terms of reference, we call on the Government of Israel to do the following:

1- Accept the two-state solution on the 1967 borders with possible minor and mutually agreed upon land swaps of equal size and value;

2- Stop all settlement activities, including in East Jerusalem;

3- Release all prisoners, in particular those imprisoned prior to the end of 1994; and

              4- Revoke all decisions taken since 2000 which undermine agreements signed between Israel and the PLO”.

The AFP report tonight says that the version of the letter that they had seen says: “We stand ready to immediately resume negotiations the minute we receive your positive response on these points”.

That phrase is not included in the DRAFT that the Times of Israel obtained and published on Sunday.

Hamas did not say a word — Did anyone wonder what Hamas might have thought of having Fayyad deliver Abbas letter saying PA has lost its “Raison d’etre” to Netanyahu? [UPDATE: it its later report Tuesday night, AP wrote that "In an interview with the {London-based} al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar ... said the letter was a 'trick' to fool the Palestinian people that 'something is going on in the so-called peace process'."]

As the NYTimes noted in its report, by Ethan Bronner, posted here that “The Palestinian letter also expresses regret that Israel opposes the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to reconcile with Hamas”.

Yes, and it also notes that the Oslo Accords deliberately enshrined the concept that the West Bank and Gaza are integral parts of the same territorial unit.

Having Salam Fayyad deliver a letter that says “the P.A. has lost its raison d’etre” to Israeli PM Netanyahu sends a strong message that the letter refers only to the West Bank, which is under the control of the P.A. in Ramallah — while Gaza under Hamas is a different matter entirely.

In any case, as the Washington Post reported, “Fayyad has also been vocal recently about the Palestinian Authority’s declining power, holding Israel partly responsible for that. But he has insisted that the body not be dissolved — an idea that, according to some accounts, was raised in early versions of Abbas’s letter”. This is published here.

Palestinian President Abbas, meanwhile, was travelling — he’d been in Japan, then Thailand, then Sri Lanka, and it was announced this evening — about the same time Erekat was rushing to hand the Abbas letter to Netanyahu — that Abbas had decided to open a Palestinian Embassy in the Maldives…

[A communique issued after the P.A. Cabinet meeting said: "The Palestinian Cabinet called today during its weekly meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, upon the United Nations to mobilize immediately to exert serious pressure on Israel to release all Palestinian detainees, particularly veteran ones, affirming that at the same time Israel should treat detainees according to international conventions and covenants"... Very tellingly, the Cabinet communique also "welcomed the Quartet’s call to develop the National Authority’s ability to respond to the Palestinian people’s needs, protect its accomplishments achieved by the National Authority institutions and to build on those accomplishments. This is in addition to the necessity to assist the National Authority in confronting its fiscal challenges by fulfilling the needed financial commitments to cover the $1.1 billion in the current year’s budget deficit, as well as the call to speed up the reform of the clearance revenues system. The Cabinet affirmed the importance of having the Quartet actively following-up and creating mechanisms that would guarantee Israel’s compliance to the implementation of these commitments. In addition, the Quartet needs to have Israel commit to a total end of settlement activities including in East Jerusalem and its surroundings"... In other words, while this communique does not give the impression that the Cabinet has lost its "raison d'etre",  it does suggest that the hard work should be done by the UN, and by the Quartet -- not by the PA...]

UPDATE: Nabil Shaath told journalists at a pre-Christmas in Bethlehem tonight [Thursday] that “I heard good news, basically, from Cairo … Hamas is willing to accept non-violence, basically, a long-term ‘hudna’, but they do not want us to talk about it very much … What these people in Gaza are really saying is that our right to armed struggle should not be abandoned, and we agree, but we choose not to exercise it”

The real question at stake in today’s meeting in Cairo was: will arrangements finally be made for Hamas to join the PLO, as previously agreed in Cairo in 2005 — and as suggested in a “reconciliation” agreement between Fatah and Hamas in late April, then encoded in a document signed in Cairo in early May?

Apparently, agreement on that has not yet been reached, but a small step has been taken to keep things moving — or to appear to keep things moving — in the right direction.

Today’s meeting of Palestinian political movements and “factions” in Cairo was chaired by Mahmoud Abbas, who is, simultaneously:
(1) Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], recognized by the UN as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people;
(2) head of the largest Palestinian political movement Fatah, and
(3) … um … well … despite the fact that the mandate ran out either in January 2009 or January 2010, depending on one’s legal view … is still President of the Palestinian Authority set up by agreement under terms of the Oslo Accords [+ subsequent practice] between the PLO and Israel.

Last night, in Cairo, there was a previously-unannounced meeting of Abbas and Hamas’ Politburo Chief Khaled Meshaal.

Until now, the major obstacle to Hamas joining the PLO has been the objection of Fatah.

The problem existed even prior to the mid-June 2007 Hamas military rout [in Ramallah, it was called a "military coup"] of Fatah/PA Preventive Security Forces from Gaza, but that sealed the present division. PA President Mahmoud Abbas immediately responded to this “military coup” with his own “political coup”, dissolving a short-lived [3 months, to be precise] “National Unity” government [negotiated in Mecca by Saudi Arabia] — which was, like the two prior governments formed in the wake of the 2006 elections, led by Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. Hamas reportedly feared an imminent American backed military attack led by Fatah’s Mohammed Dahlan [then a star, now in disgrace].

In the aftermath, Abbas then set up an “Emergency Government”, and named Salam Fayyad as PA Prime Minister. The U.S. and other major donors celebrated with a major “love-in”, praising Fayyad, the American-trained Security Services, and showering Ramallah with donor funding.

Apart from that major rift, the core issue of contention about Hamas joining the PLO: Hamas wanted to have a proportion of seats in the PLO’s Palestine National Council [PNC] similiar to the proportion it won in the 2006 Palestine Legislative Council [PLC] elections = over 60%.

For Fatah, furious that it lost a great deal of ground to Fatah in those 2006 elections, that was, and is, unthinkable.

The most Fatah could agree that Hamas deserves was about 25% maximum.

This is where the new elections come in. Not only has the term expired for the PA President + the PA’s PLC… Fatah is somehow hoping that Hamas will lose any new elections it participates in. This would have the felicitous effect of confirming the correctness of Fatah’s stand [which has prevented Hamas from joining the PLO so far, even if Hamas wanted to]: Fatah firmly believes that Hamas deserves less [preferably, much less] than a majority stake in the PNC.

Basically, the position still is: if Hamas joins the PLO, it will have be on Fatah’s terms, already explained by PLO Chairman [and Fatah leader] Abbas.

As Nabil Shaath said in his remarks to journalists in Bethlehem on Thursday night, if I understood him correctly: Hamas “has to go back to where it was in 2006, apologize to the Palestinian people [for the events of 2007], and abandon all pretense to representing the Palestinian people”…

Does anybody seriously think Hamas is going to apologize for what happened in 2007?

The incremental step announced so far in Cairo — Hamas joining a PLO committee on elections — appears to suggest that some progress in Palestinian reconciliation is being made. [After all, it is something demanded by most Palestinians].

At the same time, the step announced does not yet trespass over the limit suggested by the US, which has said that Hamas must not join any new Palestinian government until it has acceeded to all three conditions set by the Quartet [and by Israel]:
(1) recognition of Israel [Netanyahu has officially set the barrier even higher, at recognition of Israel as a Jewish state];
(2) an end to “terrorism”;
(3) acceptance of all prior PLO agreements and positions.

If there is Hamas participation in a new Palestinian government prior to fulfilling those conditions, the U.S. has threatened a cut off of humanitarian funding to the PA…

Slowing down the arrival of day that decision may have to be taken, while keeping up the appearance of movement and progress towards reconciliation, is one of the main goals shared by the Fatah + Hamas, the two largest Palestinian movements participating in the current exercise.

Meanwhile, there will be a lot of gymnastically-contortionist statements involving circuitous positions of logic that will be advanced to explain all this…

The location seems to have been specially selected to please the Palestinian side, and was a gesture laden with symbolic significance.

Quartet Special Envoy Tony Blair, who seriously irritated Palestinian officials recently in what they said was a heavy-handed attempt to dissuade them from pursuing their “UN bid” for full membership in the international organization, was also present. Despite some comments that Blair was “persona non grata”, etc, the Palestinian negotiators seemed to have little-to-no problem in dealing with him in these “proximity” or indirect talks, in which the two sides didn’t actually meet each other, but stayed in separate places while the Quartet envoys moved between them.

According to one news report [in the Wall Street Journal, here], Tony Blair was the essential actor in the Quartet meeting, shuttling in the meetings “between Israelis and Palestinians on Wednesday with an international blueprint for a return to negotiations” — which seems to be just ever so slightly misleading, particularly given the Palestinian anger and unease with his performance during the four+ years he’s held his functions, being present in Israel-Palestine less than one week a month in those four+ years, and meanwhile earning a fortune on the side …

The idea, according to a U.S. State Department official speaking ahead of today’s talks, was “to get each of them working on concrete proposals on security and borders / territories”.

Basically, the U.S. says it has heard “positive noises” from the two sides, and is determined to ignore anything else.

So, the Quartet has just passed the first stage of the plan [the two parties should have an initial meeting] proposed on 23 September, the day Mahmoud Abbas deposited the Palestinian “UN bid” at UN headquarters in New York.

In the second stage, which should last for approximately three months, the two sides must each work, separately, on their own proposals on the two issues [security + borders]. If there is no breakthrough at that point, the problems will become more acute. By six months, which is where the first real crunch will be, the two sides are supposed to have made “substantial progress” in their discussions, if not also on their overall relations with each other…

Two days ago, in a briefing to the UN Security Council, the UN Special Coordinator Robert Serry said: “We remind the parties that the Quartet reaffirmed the international legal basis for peace talks and called for the parties to overcome the obstacles and resume negotiations without preconditions. The Quartet further called for proposals within three months on borders and security, with a view to achieving substantial progress within six months and an agreement no later than the end of 2012. The Quartet stressed the need for the parties to refrain from provocations and reiterated their Roadmap obligations”.

Serry also told the Security Council that “The Palestinian application for United Nations membership is being examined by this Council, and is a matter for Member States. Also, the Palestinian request for membership in UNESCO is being reviewed before a vote by the General Conference. This step could have repercussions for the Organizations as it has legal and political implications for the funding provided by some Member States. The Secretary-General is increasingly concerned about ramifications of such a step for the United Nations and asks all to act wisely in determining a course of action”.

Despite this note of caution, or warning, Mahmoud Abbas said in Ramallah that the Palestinians will press ahead with their UNESCO bid, too.

Serry participated in today’s meetings.

UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post’s Herb Keinon reported on Saturday night here that the Quartet participants in the proximity talks were “David Hale from the US, Helga Schmid form the EU, Sergei Vershinin from Russia and Robert Serry from the UN”…

Keinon added that “Back in the early part of 2010, George Mitchell, who was then Obama’s hand-picked Middle East envoy, was doing the same thing that the Quartet representatives tried to do on Wednesday: meeting with the sides to urge, nudge, cajole, pressure them back to direct negotiations. There was even a name given to this whole exercise: proximity talks. Tellingly, more than a year later, we are pretty much at the same spot: trying to get the two sides once again to agree to direct talks, with the Palestinians saying they will only do so if Israel freezes settlement construction, and various types of pressure being exerted on Israel to stop the building. The Quartet, in its plan for renewing negotiations that was unveiled at the UN on September 23, called for a direct meeting between the sides within a month. Instead, what it got was a reincarnation of ‘proximity talks’, and even that three days late. What distinguishes late 2011 from early 2010 is that now the man in the middle is no longer the US represented by Mitchell, nor even Hale, his low-profile replacement (Mitchell handed in his resignation in May). The man in the middle is actually a grouping of men and women – the Quartet representatives. Is this another example of the US leading from behind? Blair, in an interview this week with the Los Angeles Times, said the Quartet’s more active role in the peace process was not due to the US stepping back, because, as he said, ‘the US is still very much there’. But, he said, the US is ‘also saying to the international community, “You’ve go to step up with us here”.’”

After the proximity talks, Serry’s office put out a statement claiming — with remarkable optimism — that “Both Parties expressed their readiness to engage with the Quartet, on the basis of its statement of 23 September, to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral negotiations without delay or preconditions. The Parties agreed with the Quartet to come forward with comprehensive proposals on territory and security within three months in the context of our shared commitment to the objective of direct negotiations leading toward an agreement by the end of 2012. Envoys reiterated the Quartet call of 23 September upon the parties to refrain from provocative actions if negotiations are to be effective. Quartet Envoys agreed with the parties to meet regularly for the next 90 days to review progress”.

However, the Chief Palestinian Negotiator, Saeb Erekat gave no indication that the meeting had been quite so positive. Erekat is back on the job despite having resigned [he now explains that his resignation was not accepted] after a series of unflattering revelations following a major leak of documents [the "Palestine Papers"] from his office and a few other places in Ramallah, and then were used as the basis for a series of explosive programs on Al Jazeera TV about the conduct of the negotiations in recent years. 

Instead, after the Proximity Talks hosted by the Quartet, a statement was issued in Erekat’s name saying that “We explained to the Quartet that we are prepared to sit at the negotiating table as soon as the Israeli government freezes all settlement construction and accepts clear terms of reference, specifically the 1967 borders. These are not favors that Israel is doing for us. These are its obligations in accordance with international law and the Road Map. Anything short of that will simply put us back on the failed track that we have been on for the last 20 years”.  The Palestinian participants in these meetings were, apparently Saeb Erekat and Mohammad Shtayyah.

Before these Proximity talks, Erekat issued a statement saying that the continuing Israeli settlement enterprise in occupied Palestinian territory was nothing other than “legalized looting”.

According to a press statement published by the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department, “Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat said, ‘All Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal according to international humanitarian law. There are no exceptions to this well-established legal principle’. Dr. Erekat responded to attempts by the Israeli government to draw false distinctions between different kinds of illegal settlement construction, whereby Israel alleges that there is so-called private and public construction. ‘Looting is not made legal under any circumstance. International humanitarian law and relevant UN resolutions draw no distinction between different forms of settlement construction. These actions constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute’, said Dr. Erekat”. This statement is posted here.

According to Israeli media reports, the Israeli participant in the Quartet’s Proximity talks with the two parties was Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s aide, Isaac Molcho.

After the Proximity talks with the Quartet,  Fatah’s Revolutionary Council was convened this evening [Wednesday] for a meeting in the Muqata’a in Ramallah, presided over by Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

UPDATE: On Thursday, the second day of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, Fatah + PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas [who continues as President of the Palestinian Authority, or PA, though his term of office has legally expired] reportedly said in the Fatah meetings that “it was important to address concerns that the Palestinian Authority had become defunct.
‘Where are we going? That’s what I said to (US) President (Barack) Obama’, he said, according to a text of his address…’The people and Palestinian institutions are asking what the point of its continued existence is’.” This is reported by the AFP news agency, here.

With one notable exception, Israeli officials were relatively quiet in advance of the meetings in Jerusalem, and also afterwards as well.

The exception was Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who escalated the direct personal attacks he made earlier thiso week against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Today, Lieberman’s office distributed a document claiming that Palestinian President is the main obstacle to the peace process, and said that “The unavoidable conclusion is that there will be no agreement as long as (Abbas) is the leader of the Palestinian Authority, especially given the fact that he is sacrificing Palestinian interests for his own personal future”. Haaretz reports that this document was “sent to all 27 European Union ambassadors in Israel and to ambassadors from the U.S., Russia, China, India, Japan, Colombia and Quartet envoy Tony Blair”.

The Haaretz report added that “The Foreign Ministry distributed the document without co-ordinating with the relevant departments, who found out about it only when they were asked to pass it on to foreign embassies. Many foreign ambassadors called the Foreign Ministry asking if the document represent’s the official position of the ministry or of the state of Israel. ‘We didn’t know what to respond’, said a foreign ministry official”. This is posted on Haaretz here.

On Monday, Lieberman reportedly said that “If there is one obstacle that should be removed immediately, it is [Abbas] … If he were to return the keys and resign, it would not be a threat, but a blessing … The only thing that interests Abbas is to inscribe himself in the history books as he who brought about the Palestinian state and the reconciliation with Hamas … Anyone who succeeds him would be better for Israel. If Abu Mazen goes, there would be a chance to reignite the peace process.” This is also reported in Haaretz, here.

In response, according to that same article in Haaretz, Palestinian Authority Civilian Affairs minister Hussein as-Sheikh wrote to Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to complain that Lieberman’s remarks represent “explicit incitement against President Mahmoud Abbas”, and “a direct threat against a natural partner for peace … [W]e see them as an explicit call to kill president Abbas … and could be “seen as a green light that could be taken advantage by extremists”.

The Palestinians say that there has to be a complete stop to Israeli settlement activities on the ground, first. They now also say they want the negotiations conducted within an international framework of legitimacy. And, they have made it clear that they want to start where Netanyahu’s predecessor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, left off with them in September 2008, shortly before he was required to resign during a corruption investigation.

The Quartet spent five intensive days in New York trying to draft a statement they could all agree upon and that would also meet Palestinian requirements, in an effort to avert the Palestinian “UN bid”. After yesterday’s speeches by Abbas and by Netanyahu, the Quartet issued the following statement, which proposes a resumption of negotiations within the month, and agreement by the end of 2012:

“The Quartet takes note of the application submitted by President Abbas on 23rd September 2011 which is now before the Security Council.

The Quartet reaffirmed its statement of 20th May 2011, including its strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by United States President Barack Obama. [[note - This refers, therefore, only to Obama's speech at the U.S. State Department on 19 May, in which he called for negotiations to resume first on borders, which Obama said should be the 1967 borders, and security. It deliberately omits reference to Obama's speech to AIPAC on 21 May, in which he caves in to Israeli pressure and for the first time endorses the controversial language in the 2004 letter of George Bush to Israel's then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which recognized existing demographic realities on the ground - meaning the Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank...]]

The Quartet recalled its previous statements, and affirmed its determination to actively and vigorously seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397, 1515, 1850, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Roadmap, and the agreements previously reached between the parties.

The Quartet reiterated its commitment to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and to seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and reaffirms the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative.

The Quartet reiterated its urgent appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions. But it accepts that meeting, in itself, will not reestablish the trust necessary for such a negotiation to succeed. It therefore proposes the following steps:

1. Within a month there will be a preparatory meeting between the parties to agree an agenda and method of proceeding in the negotiation.

2. At that meeting there will be a commitment by both sides that the objective of any negotiation is to reach an agreement within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012. The Quartet expects the parties to come forward with comprehensive proposals within three months on territory and security, and to have made substantial progress within six months. To that end, the Quartet will convene an international conference in Moscow, in consultation with the parties, at the appropriate time.

3. There will be a Donors Conference at which the international community will give full and sustained support to the Palestinian Authority state-building actions developed by Prime Minister Fayyad under the leadership of President Abbas.

4. The Quartet recognizes the achievements of the Palestinian Authority in preparing institutions for statehood as evidenced in reports to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, and stresses the need to preserve and build on them. In this regard, the members of the Quartet will consult to identify additional steps they can actively support towards Palestinian statehood individually and together, to secure in accordance with existing procedures significantly greater independence and sovereignty for the Palestinian Authority over its affairs.

5. The Quartet calls upon the parties to refrain from provocative actions if negotiations are to be effective. The Quartet reiterated the obligations of both parties under the Roadmap.

6. The Quartet committed to remain actively involved and to encourage and review progress. The Quartet agreed to meet regularly and to task the envoys and the Quartet Representative to intensify their cooperation, including by meeting prior to the parties’ preparatory meeting, and to formulate recommendations for Quartet action”.

This statement is posted here.

This time, it’s from a report, presumably in Hebrew, published in an Israeli military magazine.

The right-wing Israeli website, Arutz Sheva, is reporting here, that the latest edition of the Bemachaneh (On the Base) military magazine says that “Anti-personnel mines have been placed beyond the Golan border fence but on Israel’s side of the border … The mining in the area of the Golan territorial brigade is the first phase of activity that will extend to all of the border covered by the Israel Defense Forces’ 36th Division”.

The report also says that mines “already in place did not go off” during the May 15 protests in which Palestinian and Syrian protesters crossed the Golan and briefly entered the Israeli-controlled town of Majdel Shams, before being returned to Syria.  And, it says, this new planting of anti-personnel mines “is in addition to the erection of fences, the digging of trenches and other measures to prevent incursions by demonstrators or other hostile forces in September, when violence is expected to accompany the Palestinian Authority’s announced intent to unilaterally declare a state. Anti-tank mines are also being upgraded or replaced, in the first mining of the area in 10 years“.

UPDATE: The AP is now reporting, on Saturday 13 August, that “An Israeli army magazine says the military is planting new land mines along the border with Syria to dissuade protesters from rushing into the Golan Heights. The army decided to go ahead with the move after older mines failed to detonate when Syrian demonstrators rushed into the border area in June during a protest against Israel’s occupation. Israeli forces opened fire, killing some 20 protesters in efforts to push the crowd back. The mines are also part of beefed-up measures Israel is taking ahead of rallies that Palestinians are planning to hold in September”. This AP report is posted here.

NOTE: Our earlier reports on this story are posted:
17 June – here, and
16 June – here,
And our even earlier posts on this are:
9 June – here;
8 June – here;
and 7 June – here.

Haaretz, meanwhile, is reporting here that the IDF is now preparing for a possible confrontation with the Syrian military, if the killings of civilian protesters, such as occurred in the protests of May 15 and June 5, are repeated in September.

The Haaretz article also reported, however, that “The IDF will not use tanks in the West Bank even if there is an escalation of violence and a resumption of terror attacks, a senior Armored Corps officer said. The army’s assessment, he said, is that unlike during the second intifada, when tanks were used extensively in the territories, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, ‘Now there are no large terror cells in the field or weapons that require tanks to deal with them’ Bringing tanks into the West Bank is likely to cause a higher number of casualties than necessary, at a time when the IDF will be trying to contain the violence, he said”.

{The related, but separate, analysis for these preparations, which a Haaretz article today called “hysteria”, has been moved to our sister blog, www.palestine-mandate.com, here.}

The U.S. also reportedly tried — but apparently failed — to get the Quartet to disapprove of any Palestinian move to upgrade the status of their representation at the United Nations in September.

The JMCC report, published here, contains a twice-translated citation of the wording of the U.S. proposal that was not accepted by the Quartet, which it added to other material partly based on a report in today’s Haaretz, here.

According to the Haaretz report, “senior European diplomats” told Haaretz that “responsibility for the failure of the meeting lies with the United States, which proposed to the other Quartet members – the EU, the UN and Russia – a one-sided wording for an announcement that favored Israel and which had no chance of being accepted by the Palestinians. The U.S. version did include mention of negotiations being based on the 1967 borders with an exchange of territory, however, it also included portions of the [2004] letter of President George Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which noted that the border changes would reflect the demographic changes on the ground since 1967. This implies the annexation of the settlement blocs to Israel…”

The Haaretz article continued: ” ‘The Israelis pressured the U.S. very heavily and the American wording was too blatant and unbalanced’, senior European sources said. ‘In the way things had been written there was no chance that the Palestinians would accept this’. European Union Foreign Policy head Catherine Ashton refused to accept the U.S. version and was joined by the Russians. She put forth a more moderate version, calling for negotiations on the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’, with mention to Resolution 181 on the division of Palestine in 1947. ‘Unfortunately the Americans failed to convince the Israelis to accept this version’, senior European diplomats said”.

This news was at the bottom of the Haaretz report, written by Barak Ravid — while the main thrust of his article was to report that the Palestinians will probably go first to the UN General Assembly in (late) September to seek confirmation of its status as a state, before attempting to challenge or risk a U.S. veto on a bid in the UN Security Council for full membership in the UN, at least for the moment. This is posted here.

Meanwhile, the JMCC added material translated from the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam newspaper, which reported Sunday that it had “the actual wording of the US text” — but the JMCC noted that they translated it from Arabic to English, after Al-Ayyam translated it from the original English into Arabic, meaning that the original wording could have been somewhat different.

According to the JMCC report, “The US text stipulated the following: ‘Permanent peace means two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and a homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as homeland for the Palestinian people and each state enjoys self determination and mutual recognition and peace’. The US text also opposed the Palestinian move towards the UN; it said: ‘The two-state solution cannot be achieved through the UN or permanent occupation’ [...] The text said: ‘both sides shall negotiate on the borders of Palestine and Israel which will be different from the borders that existed on June 4, 1967, in order to take into consideration the changes that occurred in the past 44 years, including the new demographic facts on the grounds and the needs of both sides’.” This is posted here.

This is despite the Palestinian reconciliation deal that was finalized by a public ceremony in Cairo on Wednesday.

It was the announcement of Fatah-Hamas reconciliation a week ago Wednesday [27 April] that inspired the Israeli decision, announced by Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz on Sunday 1 May and backed by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to “freeze” transfer of tax revenue collected at Israeli ports on behalf of the PA — money which Palestinian Authority Minister Salam Fayyad announced was needed for payment of May salaries to nearly 200,000 PA employees in government ministries and security services.

The Israeli decision was reportedly questioned by the American government.

The U.S. has said that its contributions to the PA will continue for the moment, but will be reviewed after formation of a new PA cabinet in which Hamas is asking for some key ministerial posts. Financial arrangements will be reviewed, U.S. officials have indicated, after examination of any new Palestinian post-unity government.

Palestinian statements — including earlier suggestions from Fayyad himself — are that a new PA government will be composed of “technocrats” selected on the sole basis of who can best do the job.

Problems would certainly arise, however, if some of these “technocrats” just happened to be affiliated with Hamas.

This is a story of multiple uses of pressure.

Haaretz reported that the “world” [meaning Quartet Special Envoy Tony Blair who met Netanyahu on Tuesday 3 May, the current British Prime Minister who met Netanyahu on Wednesday 4 May, and American officials] was pressuring Israel to release the money, at least this time, at least for now, pending expected Palestinian political announcements.

The report in Haaretz, here, by Barak Ravid, said that “The international community is pressuring Israel to transfer NIS 300 million of Palestinian tax money to the Palestinian Authority, despite the reconciliation agreement signed by Fatah and Hamas yesterday in Cairo. Both United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Quartet envoy Tony Blair have spoken to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and requested the funds be allowed through. ‘The money is Palestinian money so it must be transferred. That is a quartet position. Hillary Clinton made the same point’, Blair told Haaretz. ‘I think what happens when the new government comes to power is another thing, but at the moment Salam Fayyad is the prime minister and the arrangements are what they were always’ … The State Department confirmed to Haaretz that Clinton spoke to Netanyahu on the Palestinian reconciliation and related developments”.

The same Haaretz story has reported that “Behind closed doors, [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak was reported describing the delay as ‘capricious’.”

After the decision — and probably as a consequence — it was announced that U.S. President Obama has given Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a date at the White House, on 20 May [during Netanyahu's planned and much-touted visit to Washington to address the U.S. Congress, again.]

Considerable American pressure has reportedly been applied to Netanyahu to come up with his own peace plan — to be announced during the trip to Washington, and possibly also earlier to his constituency in Israel.

Netanyahu’s support for reported Israeli decision to withhold the transfer of tax revenue to the PA because it might somehow go to Hamas has now resulted in his date with Obama at the White House.

And, the spectre that not only tax transfers but also all other donor payments to the PA would be withheld if Hamas get any posts in any new PA government — without major change of public posture by Hamas — is being applied as weighty [though humiliating, while to be maximally effective pressure should never be humiliating] leverage on Palestinian politicians.

The tax refund payments are an outcome of arrangements made in the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1993. These tax refund payments were supposed to finance the costs of the Palestinian Authority (PA) established in the occupied Palestinian territory under the Oslo Agreements — but now make up only one-third or one-fourth of the Palestinian budget [depending on how you calculate the budget].

Donor funding provides another one-third or so of the PA budgetary needs — including particularly but not exclusively all salary and pension costs for some 180,000 PA employees in the West Bank and Gaza (most of those ordered to stay home and not work for Hamas) and security forces in the West Bank. Some one million people are estimated to be dependent on these salaries.

Israel withheld these tax payments at various other moments, notably after Hamas won the majority of seats in the PA Parliament, the Palestine Legislative Council, in January 2006 elections.

International donors withheld all contributions — though the EU set up a special funding mechanism to deal with critical sectors — and did not restore funding until Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas created a Hamas-free government in the immediate aftermath of a Hamas rout of Fatah/PA Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007.

PA employees were not paid for a year and a half — and do not want to imagine a return to the difficulties they faced in that period. In that time, the PA arranged for its employees to take bank loans [but the PA did not pay the interest costs, or monthly payments due on the loans] which were put on the responsibility of the employees.

It is very hard to imagine how the PA would meet its operating expenses if Israeli and international funding is cut off all at once now.

The Haaretz story by Barak Ravid — apparently based on his interview with Tony Blair — is also reporting that “Blair said that in the future the international community would find it difficult to assist the new Palestinian government if it fails to accept the conditions of the Quartet ? recognizing Israel, abandoning terrorism, and committing to agreements previously signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization … ‘It is easier for the international community to deal with the government if it adheres to those principles. If not, it will complicate the situation’, he said. ‘I will still do everything I can to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The donor support from the EU and the U.S. comes under very clear conditions’. Blair went on to say the United States has laws that would not allow the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority if the new government fails to abide by the Quartet’s conditions. ‘That is why it is important that the new government is very clearly constituted’, he said. ‘The Europeans will still expect the Quartet principles to be upheld. It is a difficult situation, we want Palestinian unity but in terms that promote peace. For us in the international community it is very simple ? we have certain principles ? recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence. Those principles stay. We will judge the new government by its conformity to those principles’. Blair said current security arrangements in the West Bank must remain in place”…

The announcement came at the end of the day, in the early evening. Reuters broke the story. Hamas and Fatah, meeting in Cairo, had reached agreement on reconciliation. Further details were not immediately available, and only a few pieces of information filtered out as evening became night, and later.

With the lack of information, there was much scepticism.

And, signs of possible trouble just ahead.

Isabelle Kershner (and four other correspondents in Cairo, Gaza and Washington) wrote in the New York Times that “In a televised address on Wednesday, even before the Fatah-Hamas press conference, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, sent a stern warning to the Palestinian Authority president and Fatah chief, Mahmoud Abbas.  ‘The Palestinian Authority has to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas’, Mr. Netanyahu said, adding, ‘Peace with both of them is impossible, because Hamas aspires to destroy the state of Israel and says so openly’.  The choice, he said, was in the authority’s hands”. This story is published here.

One Twitterer (from Gaza) called Netanyahu a “Drama Queen” after these remarks.

A Tweet from the Palestinian President’s office said, in response to Netanyahu’s remarks: @MahmoudAbbas – #Netanyahu has to choose between #Peace or #Settlement’s construction.

The NYTimes added, in its report, that Netanyahu said “Hamas ‘Fires rockets at our cities and anti-tank missiles at our children’, referring to a recent attack by Hamas militants on a school bus in Israel that killed a 16-year-old Israeli youth.  ‘I think the very idea of the reconciliation shows the weakness of the Palestinian Authority, and leads one to wonder whether Hamas will take control over Judea and Samaria as it did over Gaza’,  Mr. Netanyahu added, using the biblical name for the West Bank”.

While there is certainly deep apprehension among those Palestinians who hate and fear Hamas, many of the organized Palestinian factions and others expressed satisfaction and relief that the intensely destructive Palestinian division might soon be over.

The end to this division was one of the three main calls of the Palestinian March 15 Youth movement, headquartered (loosely) in Ramallah’s Manara Square, as well as in the internet.  Their reaction was sober, and focussed.  On Twitter, @PalYouthVoice wrote:  “Now the work starts to demand a PNC elections, we want to be represented, we will not sit and celebrate yet”.

In a joint press conference in Cairo at 8pm, Fatah’s Azzam al-Ahmad said that the agreement was a translation of the efforts of the March 15 Youth movement.  He and Musa Abu Marzouk of Hamas both paid tribute to Egypt’s “tremendous efforts”.

The NYTimes reported that Hamas’ Taher Nounou  “credited the new mediators from Egypt, put in place after that country’s revolution, with ‘an exemplary performance’, including weeks of courtship at private meetings with each side before they met face to face with each other for the first time today”.  The NYTimes added that  “The tentative deal is the first sign that the recent upheaval in the region, and specifically the Egyptian revolution, has reshuffled regional diplomacy. Previously, efforts to reconcile the two Palestinian factions fell under the jurisdiction of Mr. Mubarak’s right-hand man, Omar Suleiman. Although he talked to both sides, he and the Egyptian government were considered openly hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot”…

Some analysts speculated that the Hamas leadership in Damascus was especially eager to reach agreement now because of the bad political situation in Syria at the moment.

Celebrations broke out in Gaza, which has been under a Israeli military-administered siege that was tightened after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Preventive Security forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007. These celebrations were reportedly quickly disbanded by Hamas security in Gaza. There were no equivalent celebrations in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).

But no one was thinking much, on Wednesday night, that they might be facing another international financial and political boycott such as the one that happened after a Hamas-backed party won Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006. Due to sanctions demanded by Israel and imposed by major donors, starting with the U.S., some 180,00 PA employees were not paid their salaries for a year-and-a-half, and had to obtain personal bank loans to live. They were responsible for the interest payments on these loans, apparently even after their salaries were later reimbursed in full by the PA following the complete rupture between Hamas and Fatah in mid-June 2007.

The U.S. State Department reaction on Wednesday afternoon in Washington was muted.  Haaretz reported that a State Department spokesman said: “We have seen the press reports and are seeking more information. As we have said before, the United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace …  To play a constructive role, any Palestinian government must accept the Quartet principles by renouncing violence, accepting past agreements, and recognizing Israel’s right to exist”.  This was published here.

The NYTimes reported that “Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said that the administration was seeking more information about the agreement and its terms, but sharply warned that it considered Hamas a terrorist organization that would not be a reliable partner in peace talks with Israel.  ‘As we have said before, the United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace’, Mr. Vietor said.  ‘Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization which targets civilians’.”

UPDATE: But, in a separate article, the NYTimes later reported that the surprise reconciliation announcemen might compel the U.S. government to cut off aid to the PA, as it has done to Lebanon since Hizballah joined the government there. And, “It also casts doubt on American efforts in recent years to build up the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, led by Fatah, as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians … There were … immediate calls by pro-Israeli members of Congress to withhold American aid to the Palestinians if their leadership included Hamas. ‘It calls into question everything we have done’, Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said in a telephone interview. He later issued a statement saying the United States would be compelled by ‘both law and decency’ to cut off all aid [n.b. - to the Palestinians]. ‘I don’t think there is any will on the part of the administration or the Congress to provide funds to a government that is dominated by a dedicated terrorist organization’, he said. The administration is already on record warning of that”. This is reported here.

UPDATE: Later reports gave more details about the agreement and about Hamas’ positions: YNet reported Thursday morning that Fatah Central Committee Member Azzam al-Ahmed, who has been involved in these reconciliation talks for at least three years, said at the joint press conference in Cairo that “The agreement is the beginning and we shall take quick steps to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state”.

According to the YNet report, published here, Al-Ahmed said that the Palestinian people have waited for the agreement for many years, adding that the prayers of Palestinian youth have been answered. He accused Israel of using the division to ‘shirk its international responsibilities’ and added that the US also abandoned its responsibility for ending ‘the longest occupation in history’. ‘We as Palestinians have learned a hard lesson for the past three years in our struggle against the occupation. The occupation exploited the division to judaise Jerusalem, complete the fence and seize lands in the West Bank’, al-Ahmed said. ‘We felt a need to end the division to end the occupation’. The Fatah official stated that Israel had warned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of the consequences of such an agreement. ‘When Abu Mazen (Abbas) presented his initiative, Netanyahu warned him, but Abu Mazen answered him from Moscow – Hamas comes first. Hamas is part of Palestinian life – it is the forefront of the struggle. Our unity is our best weapon against the occupation’. Hamas’ deputy politburo chief Moussa Abu Marzouk announced during the press conference of the coming of a ‘new age’ and said that all Palestinian factions will meet over the weekend to sign the agreement. ‘This is not the end of the dialogue’, he said. ‘After all the factions sign the understandings with Fatah and Hamas we shall form a new government and embark on a new era in the Palestinian struggle – in order to obtain our rights and preserve the Palestinian people’s national rights’.”

The same YNet report added that “Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader who participated in the talks said that peace with Israel was not on the table.’Our program does not include negotiations with Israel or recognizing it’, Zahhar said in Cairo. ‘It will not be possible for the interim national government to participate or bet on or work on the peace process with Israel’.”

Though storm clouds are gathering, at the moment, however, the Palestinian leadership seems more pleased than worried.

The reconciliation conforms to a general Palestinian demand for reunification of the two major Palestinian political movements [Fatah die-hards and strict, usually leftist, Palestinian secularists excepted].and of the separated parts of the occupied Palestinian territory — which the PA had apparently even considered doing by force [with the support of third and fourth parties].

No one is in the mood to be pushed around any more.

Because of perceived intransigence and bad policies, Hamas has lost much sympathy it had gained among Palestinians on account of the the unfair treatment it received after its 2006  electoral victory.  Many in West Bank were sure Hamas would lose badly in any new elections.  But now, if it turns out that Hamas has made big concessions in order to reach this new agreement, it may stand to regain some of the support it had lost.

In general, Hamas appears to have more to gain from a reconciliation than the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank.

UPDATE: Taking a different view, Noam Sheizef has written on +972 magazine here that “The Hamas-Fatah agreement seems like another victory for Abbas, whose legitimacy crisis might come to an end. It also shows that the Palestinians have decided to take the lead in the diplomatic process, and not let the US, or even Europe, dictate their path to independence. Naturally, Jerusalem claims that the Palestinian unity proves there is “no partner” on the other side, but it’s interesting to note that Washington didn’t shut the door completely on the new Palestinian government. Finally, Netanyahu has a new dilemma: after his comments tonight, could he still come to Washington and call for direct negotiations between the two parties, when Fatah shares power with Hamas?”

Even after the double coups in mid-June 2007, Hamas continued to recognize Mahmoud Abbas as the elected President.  When his term came to an end in January 2009, some in Hamas said that was the end of their support.  Abbas extended his term for a year so that presidential and parliamentary elections could be held simultaneously, and Hamas seemed to tacitly agree, for the most part.  Then, Abbas cancelled both elections, and later also municipal elections — ostensibly because of the continuing Hamas-Fatah feud — and said he would continue in office until new elections could be held, or until he couldn’t take it any more, whichever came first.

In solicited reaction after tonight’s announcement on agreement to reconcile, at least one Hamas official politely referred to Abbas as “President”.

Abbas has consistently said he wanted  nothing less than the return of the status quo ante — the situation before the “military coup” of mid-June 2007.  Gaza must come under PA rule, he has insisted.

Abbas recently responded to an invitation from Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh by saying that he was ready to go to Gaza “within days”.   However, Abbas said, he was not going to negotiate but only to sign an already-reached agreement.

If agreement was reached today, it was almost certainly Hamas who made the greater concessions.

The NYTimes reported that “Palestinian officials said Hamas and Fatah agreed on three main issues that had thwarted previous rounds of talks aimed at reaching a national reconciliation.  Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, told Al-Jazeera from Cairo that the issues included the interim leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian umbrella organization from which Hamas has so far been excluded;  a tribunal for elections;  and a deadline for elections.  Mr. Zahar said they were to be held within a year of the signing of the final agreement, which is expected to take place in Cairo next week.  Mr. Zahar added that Hamas and Fatah would together nominate the members of the technocratic government and of the 12-judge elections’ tribunal.  He also said that an agreement was reached on another contentious issue, control of the security services, but he did not elaborate.  In November, officials from the two movements met in Damascus but failed to reach an agreement due to differences on security”.

According to a report by IMEMC, Zahar indicated that “this agreement will be presented to Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, for approval.  He said that consecutive legislative and presidential elections will be held within a year after signing the final deal”.  The report also said “The Hamas leader added that an agreement was reached to reform the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in order to restructure it to include all factions”.  This report is posted <a href=”http://www.imemc.org/article/61146″>here</a>.

Israel’s interest in developing Gaza gas field — now, perhaps urgent, after today’s sabotage in the Sinai which again damaged an Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel as well as to Jordan — is a big incentive to Hamas, which does not want to be left out.  Netanyahu said in February that he was willing to reopen discussions with the Palestinians — because the Palestinians wanted it, he said.  Then, a seemingly-preposterous [but quite serious] Israeli proposal was recently floated on building an artificial island in the sea offshore to house not only gas installations but also a desalinization plant, an airport, a seaport, and hotels and other attractions.

——————————————————————————————-

BACKGROUND

2005 – Cairo agreement between Hamas + Fatah that Hamas would join the PLO, Protracted discussions ever since without any resolution. [This would be a way to mute concern about Hamas' problems with prior agreements concluded by the PLO -- including the Oslo Accords and their recognition of Israel.]

2006 – Hamas, responding to demands that it should change into a political party, ran a slate under the name of the “Change + Reform Party” and contested January elections for the Palestinian Authority’s parliament, the Palestine Legislative Council. They won a majority (over 65%) of seats, to general surprise, including their own. Fatah, a poor loser, decided not to participate in the new government, and grew increasingly furious with Hamas. Israel demanded that the international community boycott the Hamas governed PA, and major donors, led by the U.S. complied. For over a year-and-a-half, PA employees were not paid their salaries, and had to take out bank loans and pay the interest on the loans themselves, too.
The major sticking point in the argument since then was that Hamas wanted seats in the PLO’s Palestine National Council (PNC) proportionate to its electoral seats it won in 2006 elections. Fatah said absolutely not, Hamas should not get more than 25% of seats. (Now, Fatah people say this is all moot, there should be new elections first, and they are sure Hamas will not win very many seats at all…)

2007 – A Saudi-brokered agreement was reached in Mecca on formation of National Unity Government, which took shape in March. But, in mid-June, Hamas — suspecting that PA Fatah-led Preventive Security backed by U.S. and others were about to make a military move to oust them from power — routed Preventive Security in Gaza. Abbas said this was a “military coup”, and dissolved the National Unity government. In a political coup, he established an new Hamas-free Emergency Government with Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister.

———————————————————————————————-

Now, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Nabil el-Araby, has announced he will be visiting Israel soon.

Can he do anything to moderate the negative reaction in Israel?

Blair’s presence — and its overbearing security requirements — has contributed to ruining the American Colony Hotel’s former unique atmosphere as the meeting place for Palestinian political and economic notables with international visitors and the occasional Israeli official.

The American Colony — now a five-star establishment, one of the Leading Hotels in the World, run by Swiss hotel management — is also now too expensive for most Palestinians, who have moved en masse up the road and up the hill to the Ambassador Hotel, where le-tout-jerusalem-est can now be seen doing business throughout the day and evening [nobody stays up late in East Jerusalem, where there is no night life, but insomniacs].

[The American Colony has managed to fill the void by receiving the Shabbat weekend business of nouveau riche Israeli businessmen and their highly made-up fertility goddess wives in skin tight clothes, who feel safe enough there despite the titillatingly exotic location, and who do enjoy the buffets. The late-Ottoman-era central courtyard with bubbling fountain and lemon trees, and the summer garden with tall palm trees and a grassy lawn remain popular places to sit and relax, despite the change in clientele.]

Now that Blair has ruined the American Colony, he’s following the Palestinian notables up the road and up the hill to a new building, constructed by a member of the Nashashibi family, just below the Ambassador Hotel on Nablus Road.

There goes the neighborhood.

And the parking availability.

Last year, during the UNRWA strike, its management moved out [or were blocked out] of their Sheikh Jarrah field headquarters, and decamped — with all their UN cars and their drivers and their laptops — to the Ambassador Hotel, sorely testing the staff and the regulars. The Blair presence will probably be about the same, if not worse. And, the greater expense account capability of his colleagues and visitors will also probably have a severely inflationary impact on the Ambassador Hotel restaurant menu.

Blair will reportedly be renting the whole new almost-finished Nashashibi building on Nablus Road for something around $1.2 million dollars a year, which is just about what his office used to be paying the American Colony Hotel until now.

The payment was being processed through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which in Jerusalem has run for almost two decades a special Program of Assistance to the Palestinian People [PAPP].

Blair’s security people are putting the final touches on the special systems they are installing, and construction is being rushed to completion.

It’s a sign, of course, that neither Blair nor the Quartet is about to throw in the towel and quit — even though the peace process they were supposed to encourage is now moribund, and the situation is at a tense and dangerous impasse…

(It is not clear if Blair’s residential address, for the one-week-per-month that he spends in Israel/Palestine will change as well, or whether Blair will keep a room in the American Colony Hotel, or will simply check in whenever he arrives, like any ordinary business traveller.)

Netanyahu did specifically mention Egypt in the announcement on Friday, saying: “Most of our [natural gas] supply today is coming from Egypt”, Netanyahu said. But, he added immediately, “It’s important for us to develop additional resources”.

The exact situation on the ground, resulting from the Egyptian-Israeli natural gas deal, is rather unclear.

The announcement – as CNN’s Jerusalem correspondent Kevin Flowers pointed out in a Tweet on Friday afternoon – came on the eve of the first meeting of the Middle East Quartet principles of 2011 on Saturday (February 5) in Germany, on the margins of the Munich Security Conference.

The Quartet meeting will be chaired by Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, and will be attended by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the Quartet Envoy Tony Blair.

In a statement released by the EU on Friday, Ashton said: “This meeting comes at a crucial time when we are witnessing significant events in the Middle East region. It is therefore extremely important that we stay the course in the Middle East Peace Process. We must remain focused on making progress on a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and Palestine — a key component in bringing about peace and stability in the wider region.”

In his announcement in Jerusalem on Friday, Netanyahu didn’t utter a word about Gaza (nor did he mention Hamas, who now control the Gaza Strip) – he mentioned only the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Netanyahu said: “It’s important for us to develop additional resources but it’s also important for the Palestinians. There’s a Palestinian Authority gas field adjacent to an Israeli gas field. We need to develop both simultaneously. This is something that the Palestinian Authority expressed interest in. I think we’re going to begin discussions and negotiations to facilitate both, where the revenues from the Palestinian field go to the Palestinian Authority and the revenues from the Israeli field go to the Israeli government and I think this is good for stability, good for prosperity and good for peace”.

Previous hard-nosed Israeli negotiations with BG (formerly British Gas – whose commercial interests in a long-pending Gaza gas deal were strongly backed by Tony Blair when he served as British Prime Minister) were stuck for some years on an Israeli insistence on negotiating a highly-concessional long-term and below-market price for the gas it would buy from the Palestinians – similar to the deal it had signed with Egypt.

These negotiations were conducted between BG and the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructure (then headed by Benjamin “Fouad” Ben Eliezer, who is of Iraqi origin).

However, BG was consulting closely throughout the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah – and could not have concluded a deal without PA approval. The PA position was, and still remains, that it will not sell Palestinian natural gas for anything less than the going market rate (apparently, at any given time).

The broad outlines of the deal were that the gas would be piped, underwater, to an Israeli refinery near Israel’s southern port city of Ashkelon, which would process the gas and then re-ship a small quantity back to Gaza for the Palestinians’ own needs (at the time, it was assumed that the Palestinian usage would be small – but this might not be realistic any longer).

The gas could be used to fuel Gaza’s only power plant, and a possible water desalination plant, as well as other domestic needs. A pipeline to the West Bank was not apparently envisaged. The PA in Ramallah would receive about 25% of the profits, which was projected at the time to be about $1 billion dollars.

Somewhat surprisingly, these profits would not go to the PA governmental coffers directly, but would instead go to the extra-governmental Palestine Investment Fund (PIF), originally set up to receive many of the assets in the portfolio of the late Yasser Arafat, when donors demanded greater transparency in PA operations. The PIF itself, led by a group of prominent Palestinian businessmen, has itself adopted a policy that seems rather less than transparent.

Political and legal challenges to the highly-concessional Egyptian-Israeli gas deal were raised by the Egyptian opposition in the wake of the unprecedented Israeli military operation, Cast Lead, ostensibly against Hamas forces in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. These challenges were discussed, then dismissed, first in the Egyptian parliament then in the courts.

But, there appear to be significant technical problems that have not been overcome. It had been announced with much fanfare in May 2008 (after an earlier disappointment in March) that gas had started flowing from Egypt to Israel in an underwater pipeline. Since then, not much clear information has been given publicly.

There have been indications of problems with the pipeline itself, then with the particular mix or chemical composition of the Egyptian gas being fed through the undersea pipeline, which apparently was not suitable to the needs of the Israeli refinery (though this is something that is usually clarified at a very early stage in any negotiation).

Before these disappointments – but within weeks of the BG announcement that it was freezing negotiations with Israel – then-Minister Ben Eliezer told participants at the right-wing Jerusalem Conference in Jerusalem in January 2008 that even with the 15-year Egyptian gas deal in place, Israel needed to diversify its sources for security needs – because it lived in a “rough neighborhood” and had relational problems. Ben Eliezer specifically said at that time that Israel should ideally have at least five different sources of supply for natural gas.

Despite the BG statement that negotiations had been frozen, Ben Eliezer said Israel was still interested in concluding a deal with the Palestinians. But, it became clear that the real problem – as much for the PA in Ramallah as for anyone else – was Hamas. Israel had increased its price offer to about half of the going market rate – still not enough to satisfy Ramallah’s requirement – by the time of the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security Services in mid-June 2007. When it became clear, about six months later, that the resulting split between the two parts of the occupied Palestinian territory was not about to change any time soon, BG “froze” its negotiations with Israel, and closed its office in Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv (though a small Ramallah office has been maintained).

The unstated reason was that nothing could be done as long as Hamas was in control in Gaza.

Hamas had said in late 2007 that it wanted to have a say in the negotiations, and suggested it would like to see a revision of terms already agreed.

Since then, everything went quiet.

Some thought that Israel would completely lose interest in pursuing any gas deal with the Palestinians following announcements, first in 2009, and then in 2010, of one large natural gas discovery, then a second, possibly huge, gas under the Mediterranean Sea off Haifa on Israel’s northern coast (more or less on the same latitude as the Israeli city of Hadera, a bit inland). If the promise lives up to expectations, and all arrangements put into place, these wells could come online in 2012 or 2014, respectively.

Netanyahu said, in the announcement with Blair on Friday, that “Israel has of course its own gas supplies down the line in the close of the decade, but we have interim gas needs”.

A day before (on Thursday 3 February), the largest-circulation Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, published an article discussing “the day on which Egypt will close the [natural gas] pipe.” The Yediot Ahronot article said, according to an English-language translation provided by the Israeli Government Press Office, that “It has become clear, in the wake of the recent events, that it is difficult to depend on others. Accordingly, what is necessary is to prohibit natural gas exports [from Israel, once these new finds become productive]…That would ensure the supply of gas to Israel for decades.”

But, Netanyahu’s remarks suggested a far more wide-reaching strategy.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s remarks on Friday, with Blair by his side, are yet another of several indications that some kind of multi-sided deal has already been sketched out, and agreed in private, with both Hamas and the PA on board.

The move also sends a signal (the significance of which is not yet totally clear) to Egypt.

This implies a deal on Palestinian reconciliation is in the works, which would be another a major shift in the regional equation – but it is one demanded by most Palestinians.

Egypt had been playing a role in inter-Palestinian reconciliation talks for the last couple of years, without results. These efforts may have been, in part, a stalling tactic.

It also signals that Israel is not quite as dependent on Egypt as some in Egypt may have thought.

For Israelis, it may remove anxieties about Israel’s dependency on Egypt.

For international actors, it suggests a way to defuse the ramifications, in Palestinian territory, of the potentially-destabilizing effects of major changes that are now expected in Egypt.

The discovery of these large – possibly huge – offshore deposits of natural gas in areas of the eastern Mediterranean that Israel in effect must share with neighboring countries, not all of them friends, has been expected to cause a positive change (a “mellowing”, one regional diplomat predicted) in Israel’s regional and international outlook.

Israel will have to clarify its Mediterranean maritime claims by reaching negotiated agreements with its neighbors. So far, Israel has only reached agreement with Cyprus (and this is still subject to parliamentary ratification, but no problem is envisaged).

With Lebanon, it is another story. Israel has asserted that it possesses rights that, in reality, must be negotiated. But, the two countries remain in a state of war, and Lebanon has said several times that it is prepared to defend its own economic interests in Mediterranean waters. Even more, Lebanon is not ready to negotiate with Israel (unless there are big regional changes – including Israel’s acceptance of the Arab Initiative offering recognition and full normalization of relations if Israeli withdraws from territory occupied in the June 1967 war.

This will also require Israeli ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty – a move that Israel had been considering anyway, apparently even before the discovery of the large new undersea gas deposits.

Netanyahu also said on Friday that “We’ve had a series of meetings and we’re concluding with the announcement of several steps that we take to, first of all to enhance stability. I think people understand that stability is important at all times, but it’s especially important now and the first set of steps that we’re taking are to continue the policy we’ve advanced to enable economic growth in the Palestinian areas. I think this has contributed to stability; it’s contributed to a better life for the Palestinians and I think it’s contributing to peace and security in the long term”. Netanyahu added that Israel was also going to take steps which he said were “intended to make Gaza independent of Israeli infrastructure by helping to develop their electricity plants; water, sewerage treatment. I think this is important. There are significant international projects that we want to advance. We talked about the ways to do it in specific concrete terms”.

Netanyahu added: “I don’t delude myself for a second that an economic peace is a substitute for political peace. We need both, and I hope that Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] will heed my call and enter direct negotiations with us. And one of the things that I think people can appreciate today is the importance we attach to the security arrangements on the ground because as recent events have shown us, the peace agreement has to take into account not only the situation that is present today, but the situation that could unfold tomorrow. So I look forward to resuming these negotiations with the Palestinians”…

The Palestinians suspended direct negotiations with Israel in December 2008, a few days after the start of Operation Cast Lead. Under pressure from the Obama administration that took office in January 2009 (just hours after two unilateral cease-fires — one by Israel, one by Hamas — that ended the massive Israeli military operation) the Palestinians agreed in March 2010, then again in September, to engage in indirect talks, but only if Israel stopped its settlement building. There are no negotiations at the moment.

This article was first posted on Bikya Masr here.

UPDATE: Haaretz reported the following, in an article by Barak Ravid published here:
“The package of confidence-building measures that Israel will offer the Palestinian Authority is seen as a bid to moderate the Quartet statement at the end of its deliberations, which is expected to criticize Israel for its continued construction in West Bank settlements … In the end, Netanyahu’s offer did not include measure that would enable the PA to take over land required to build the new town Rawabi. Blair added, however, ’5000 Gaza-registered residents of the West Bank will be given West Bank identity cards’. Israel’s forum of seven senior ministers discussed the proposed gestures to the Palestinians last week. Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and minister Dan Meridor supported the gestures, while ministers Benny Begin, Moshe Ya’alon, Avigdor Lieberman and Eli Yishai objected. The gestures will also ease the blockade on Gaza, permitting more items for export and permitting a limited amount of construction materials. Blair also announced the agreement to establish ‘mobile desalination plants to meet Gaza’s needs for clean water and approval in principle for a larger permanent desalination plant’. Netanyahu agreed to the Palestinian Authority’s request to renew discussions on the development of an offshore natural gas field opposite Gaza’s shores, and agreed in principle for the gas to power the new power plant to be built in Gaza, which he also specifically approved. Netanyahu said that although Israel’s natural gas needs will be satisfied by its Leviathan and Tamar gas fields in ten years’ time, it needs other sources of natural gas in the interim, and it is currently dependent upon supply from Egypt. Netanyahu pointed out that the profits from the Palestinian gas field will go to the Palestinian Authority, and not to Hamas, who rules Gaza”…