News
Confusion over Palestinian position as new demands published
Differing reports emerged yesterday over the Palestinian position for extending negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) beyond the current 29th April deadline.
According to reports in the Israeli and Palestinian media, during a heated meeting on Wednesday evening, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat made a series of demands to his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni, including issues which Israel has previously deemed unacceptable. They apparently included explicit Israeli recognition of the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, an end to restrictions on Gaza, a halt to Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and a ban on Israel entering areas under PA control to make arrests. The demands also reportedly included the release of a further 1,200 Palestinian prisoners, including high-profile leader Marwan Barghouti, currently serving five life sentences and leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Ahmed Saadat, accused by Israel of organizing the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister, Rehavam Ze’evi in 2001.
However, according to Haaretz, Erekat denied that his team presented such a list, arguing instead the demands had been issued by Fatah officials, rather than the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation), and did not represent the official Palestinian negotiating position. He said that while he did tell US envoy Martin Indyk and Israeli negotiators that the Palestinians wanted to discuss the dispute’s core issues, he did not go into detail nor make the demands reported.
Erekat negotiates with Israel under the framework of the PLO of which PA President Mahmoud Abbas is the Chairman. Fatah meanwhile is the largest Palestinian faction within the PLO; Abbas is also its leader. In this context, the disagreement may reflect growing tension between different Palestinian factions over the direction of peace talks and the Palestinian national movement as a whole. It also adds confusion over which Palestinian body is responsible for negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians.