<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Occupied Palestine | فلسطين]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[occupiedpalestine]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/author/hajarhajar/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Erekat&#8217;s solution for the Haram &#8211; The Palestine&nbsp;Papers]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<div id="ctl00_cphBody_dvArticleInfoBlock">
<div id="ctl00_cphBody_dvSummary" class="articleSumm"><strong>The PA&#8217;s chief negotiator suggested unprecedented compromises on the division of Jerusalem and its holy sites.</strong></div>
<div class="articleSumm"></div>
<div class="Tmp_hSpace5"></div>
<div id="dvByLine_Date"><span id="ctl00_cphBody_dvByLine" class="byLine"> Clayton Swisher</span><span id="dvArticleDate"> Last Modified: <span id="ctl00_cphBody_lblDate">23 Jan 2011 14:39 GMT</span> </span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;">
<div><strong>Erekat proposed a &#8220;creative&#8221; solution for the Haram al-Sharif in a private meeting with US envoy George Mitchell.</strong></div>
</div>
<p>Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Authority (PA),  had suggested unprecedented compromises on the division of Jerusalem and  its holy sites, the Palestine Papers obtained by Al Jazeera show.</p>
<p>Minutes of negotiations at the US State Department in Washington DC  indicate that Erekat was willing to concede control over the Haram  al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, to the oversight of an international  committee.</p>
<div class="srelated">
<h4>Related</h4>
<p><a class="InternalLink" href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011123134738643818.html">Daud Abdullah: Shocking revelations on Jerusalem</a></p>
<p class="caption">&#8220;The chief Palestinian negotiator appeared totally  disconnected from his own people, as well as his wider Arab and Muslim  constituency, when he made this &#8216;creative&#8217; overture about Old City and  the Haram.&#8221;</p>
<p><a class="InternalLink" href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011123133117236157.html">Watch: Creative solutions</a></p>
</div>
<p>The highly controversial issue of who controls the Haram al-Sharif  (Noble Sanctuary), home of the Al Aqsa mosque &#8211; Islam’s third holiest  site &#8211; has been a major sticking point during decades of negotiations  between Israelis and the Palestinians.</p>
<p>Israel calls the Haram al-Sharif the “Temple Mount” because Jews  believe it was the site of the Second Temple destroyed during Roman  times. In recent years, Jewish settler groups – some with close ties to  the Israeli government – have advocated building a “Third Temple&#8221;, which  would necessitate the destruction of the existing Muslim holy sites.</p>
<p>The site has often been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict. On October 8, 1990, Israeli forces shot dead 21 Palestinian  civilians at the Haram al-Sharif. The Palestinians, whom Israel said  were throwing stones at Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below the  Haram, were protesting plans by a settler group called the Temple Mount  Faithful to lay a cornerstone for the Third Temple.</p>
<p>Palestinians have accused Israel of trying to undermine the  foundations of the al-Aqsa mosque through what Israel describes as  archaeological excavations. In September 1996, Israel opened what it  called a tourist tunnel along the foundations of the Haram, touching off  violence that left dozens of people dead – the vast majority of them  Palestinians.</p>
<p>In September 2000, Ariel Sharon, the then-Israeli opposition leader,  visited the Haram al-Sharif accompanied by hundreds of armed Israeli  police. Palestinian protests at what was seen as a provocation, and  Israel’s armed response to them, marked the beginning of the second  Palestinian Intifada.</p>
<h3>&#8220;There are creative ways&#8221;</h3>
<p>In a meeting on October 21, 2009 with George Mitchell, the US Middle  East envoy, David Hale, Mitchell’s deputy, and Jonathan Schwartz, the  then-US State Department legal adviser, Erekat told the Americans that  they would need a “creative” solution for the division of the Old City.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Erekat:</strong> “It’s solved. You have the Clinton  Parameters formula. For the Old City sovereignty for Palestine, except  the Jewish quarter and part of the Armenian quarter … the Haram can be  left to be discussed &#8211; there are creative ways, having a body or a  committee, having undertakings for example not to dig [excavations under  the Al Aqsa mosque]. The only thing I cannot do is convert to Zionism.”</p>
<p><strong>Schwartz:</strong> To confirm to Sen. Mitchell, [this is] your private idea …</p>
<p><strong>Erekat:</strong> This conversation is in my private capacity.</p>
<p><strong>Schwartz:</strong> We’ve heard the idea from others. So you’re not the first to raise it.</p>
<p><strong>Erekat:</strong> Others are not the chief negotiator of the PLO.</p></blockquote>
<p>This was a surprising statement from Erekat: The status of the Haram al-Sharif has rarely been discussed during negotiations.</p>
<div class="sidebar">
<h4>No different than Jericho?</h4>
<p>In a November 2010 interview with Al Jazeera, Saeb Erekat says all occupied territory is the same.</p>
</div>
<p>The 2000 Camp David talks marked the first time leaders from both  sides bargained directly over the status of occupied East Jerusalem and  its holy sites.</p>
<p>International law and the 1967 borders clearly show that the Haram  al-Sharif is within the occupied Palestinian territories. Thus the  discussion– between Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian  president Yasser Arafat – proved highly controversial. Many participants  in the talks say that their failure to resolve the status of the Old  City&#8217;s holy sites proved the ultimate deal-killer.</p>
<p><strong>Arafat&#8217;s stance</strong></p>
<p>Bill Clinton, the then-US president advanced various proposals for  dividing or sharing sovereignty, but Arafat proudly defended  the unwillingness of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) to  compromise on the Haram al-Sharif’s sovereignty. It was a principled  position that earned him scorn among Israelis and Americans, but  universal support at home and throughout the broader Islamic world.</p>
<p>The status of the Haram al-Sharif was also seldom raised in more than  280 bilateral meetings during the Annapolis process (November  2007-December 2008). The main reason for this was domestic Israeli  politics: Then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s coalition partners demanded  that the status of Jerusalem’s holy sites remained unresolved; the  religious right-wing Shas party threatened to leave the government if  the issue was even discussed.</p>
<p>Thus the Israeli delegation was not allowed to speak about it, as reiterated to the PA <a class="InternalLink" href="http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2870">in a July 2, 2008 meeting</a> by Udi Dekel, Olmert’s top negotiator:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Why does your side keep mentioning Jerusalem in every meeting &#8211;  isn’t there an understanding on this between the leaders?” Dekel asked  Erekat.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Israelis, in other words, freely admitted that they could not entertain any bargain on Jerusalem.</p>
<div class="sidebar">
<h4>Carving up the Old City</h4>
</div>
<p>Yet the PA went ahead and presented its ideas &#8211; regardless of the tactical consequences.</p>
<p>During a <a class="InternalLink" href="http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2681">May 29, 2008 post-Annapolis meeting</a> in Jerusalem, Dekel told PA officials that the parameters of the peace talks had shifted.</p>
<p>“Since 2000, something happened in those 8 years so we are not at the  same starting point. You started a terror war on us and we created  facts on the ground. This is the reality that we live in today, so we  can’t go back to Camp David. Circumstances changed considerably since  then. Facts have changed. So we can’t freeze time and consider that we  are in 2000 reality. The Middle East has changed,” Dekel told Samih  al-Abid, a PLO map expert.</p>
<p>A month later, on <a class="InternalLink" href="http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2826">June 30, 2008, in a meeting with Tzipi Livni</a>,  the then-foreign minister, Ahmed Qurei, the former PA prime minister,  tried to persuade the Israelis to roll back their stance on the starting  point of the negotiations.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Qurei:</strong> “Jerusalem is part of the territory occupied  in 67. We can discuss and agree on many issues relating to Jerusalem:  religious places, infrastructure, municipal function, economic issues,  security, settlements. However, the municipal borders for us are 67.  This is the basis, and this is where we can start.</p>
<p><em>[Silence]</em></p>
<p><strong>Livni:</strong> Houston, we have a problem.</p>
<p><strong>Qurei:</strong> Silence is agreement …</p>
<p><strong>Erekat:</strong> It is no secret that on our map we proposed  we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim in history. But we must  talk about the concept of Al-Quds [Jerusalem].</p>
<p><strong>Livni:</strong> Do you have a concept?</p>
<p><strong>Erekat:</strong> Yes. We have a detailed concept – but we will only discuss with a partner. And it’s doable.</p>
<p><strong>Livni:</strong> No, I can’t.</p></blockquote>
<p>By the end of the Annapolis negotiations, the PA appeared to believe  that some internationalising of the Haram al-Sharif would be required.  In an <a class="InternalLink" href="http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/4736">offer conveyed orally to [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas on August 31, 2008</a>,  Olmert suggested that the US, along with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi  Arabia, should take membership on a committee to determine the fate of  the Haram al-Sharif.</p>
<p>The committee would not have had the ability to force either Israel or the weaker Palestinian party to accept an agreement.</p>
<p>Erekat seemed willing to claim that such an arrangement would be  acceptable, even though the US has no historic standing on the issue of  holy sites and considers itself Israel’s closest ally. The other Arab  participants would each have brought their own baggage, in particular  the Saudis, who viewed resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a core  concern.</p>
<p>At the end of the Annapolis negotiations, on December 2, 2008 &#8211; just  weeks before the Gaza war &#8211; Erekat said to David Welch, the US Assistant  Secretary of State, that: “Saudi’s main concern is Jerusalem &#8211; not  swaps and neighbourhoods”.</p>
<p>“To them Jerusalem is the Haram,” Erekat added.</p>
<div class="pp-footer">
<div><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html"><img src="https://i2.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/imagecache/160/106/mritems/Images/2011/1/23/2011123101739724112_20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p>
<h4><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html">&#8220;The biggest Yerushalayim in Jewish history&#8221;</a></h4>
<p class="caption">PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return.</p>
</div>
<div><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114545946119.html"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/imagecache/160/106/mritems/Images/2011/1/22/2011122114731590140_20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p>
<h4><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114545946119.html">Erekat&#8217;s solution for the Haram</a></h4>
<p class="caption">The PA&#8217;s chief negotiator suggested unprecedented compromises on the division of Jerusalem and its holy sites.</p>
</div>
<div><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/imagecache/160/106/mritems/Images/2011/1/23/2011123132544241436_20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p>
<h4><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html">The &#8220;napkin map&#8221; revealed</a></h4>
<p class="caption">The Palestine Papers include a rendering of the Israeli land swap map presented in mid-2008 to Mahmoud Abbas.</p>
</div>
<div><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html"><img src="https://i0.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/imagecache/160/106/mritems/Images/2011/1/23/2011123153129186148_20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a></p>
<h4><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html">Glossary</a></h4>
<h4><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011123114726552723.html">Frequently asked questions</a></h4>
</div>
<div class="separator"></div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114545946119.html">Erekat&#8217;s solution for the Haram &#8211; The Palestine Papers &#8211; Al Jazeera English</a>.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i2.wp.com/english.aljazeera.net/imagecache/160/106/mritems/Images/2011/1/23/2011123101739724112_20.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>