Mahmoud Abbas: I Reached Understandings with Olmert on Borders, Security

We Agreed on 1967 Borders, NATO Presence in Palestinian Territories

"The years 2000-2005 were very barren years [on the diplomatic front]. We have paid a heavy price, and we must carefully rethink where we are headed. We have decided... to give the option of peace negotiations another try, upholding the slogans of 'No to Violence,' 'No to Rockets and Use of Force.' We want peace with our Israeli neighbors...

"At the end of Bush's term in office, when he knew and sensed our inclinations, he convened the Annapolis Summit, with [representatives from] 50 countries and international organizations, in order to launch the peace process, and [the process] was indeed launched. The day after the summit, we embarked on a long path of negotiations with then-Israeli prime minister [Ehud] Olmert, discussing in detail all the issues of the final settlement...

"We agreed on [a Palestinian state within] the 1967 borders, [that is,] that the basis for peace would be an [Israeli] withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with an option for certain border corrections, as long as the [overall size of] the West Bank territories [handed over to the Palestinians] remained the same. This may be the first time we are announcing [that we reached such an understanding]. The dialogue on this issue continued, and then we went on to the [issue of] security, and reached a full understanding that this [task] would be entrusted to a third party. We [Palestinians] had no objections as to the identity of this third party. Some held it should be NATO, but that required American consent. [At the time,] we had American General Jim Jones, who later became [Obama's] national security advisor, [until] his resignation two weeks ago. He undertook to handle this task. We spoke to Bush, and he agreed that the third party would be NATO. We have no objection to NATO forces deploying in the Palestinian territories in order to defend Israel's borders, [and also in order to] complete the training of the Palestinian forces, which was begun by experts from America, Europe, and some Arab countries.

"This issue requires considering the positions of two neighboring countries: Jordan and Egypt. They agreed to the idea [of a third-party force in the Palestinian territories], because the [state of] security [in the region] affects them both, negatively or positively. They agreed [to this], on two conditions: that no Egyptian or Jordanian forces would be [required to] deploy in the Palestinian territories, and that is their right; and that the third-party force would not be present in Egypt and Jordan, and that too is their right. This issue was wrapped up and put on the table, so we could [turn to] the other issues. We discussed Jerusalem and the refugees, but did not reach an understanding, because Olmert's [personal] circumstances caused negotiations to stop and Olmert to be replaced by Tzipi Livni. Later [Benjamin] Netanyahu came to power.

"So that is the basis we established after discussing the details ad nauseam for eight months. Some say, and the Israeli press has repeated this [claim] again and again, that the Israelis made us offers and we rejected them. This claim is utterly groundless. That's the truth. We reached [understandings], and we could have completed the dialogue, but domestic circumstances in Israel caused Olmert's government to collapse.

On December 19, [2008], that is, three or four weeks before Bush left [the White House], we visited him for a concluding talk. He suggested that we [i.e., the Palestinians and Israelis] meet again, and we [Palestinians] agreed. On December 27, [2008], the attack on Gaza began, but we still agreed to go [to the meeting]. However, the Israelis did not agree, so the opportunity was lost..."

Netanyahu Rejected the Understandings Reached with Olmert

"[Then] the Netanyahu era arrived. Obama said in his [June 2009] Cairo [speech] that Israel must stop all [construction] activity in the settlements. Could we have [settled for] less than that? So we said: 'Israel must stop all construction in the settlements...'

"[However,] Netanyahu insisted that he could not stop [the construction], and focused on issues we could not accept. First, security. He completely rejected [the idea of] a third party, [because] he wants to remain in the Palestinian territories for decades to come, that is, along the Jordan River and on the western hills of the West Bank, in order to defend [Israel's] security. We told him: 'That means perpetuating the occupation, and we cannot accept it under any circumstances. We agreed with the previous [Israeli] government on [the presence of] a third party.' He replied: 'I do not recognize past [understandings], and I do not trust anyone to defend my borders but the [Israel] Defense Forces.' With that the discussion ended, and he did not say a word about the '67 borders. According to his logic, the issue of security must be concluded first, and only then the issue of the borders. That is obviously incorrect. The borders must be determined first, and only then can the issue of security be discussed. But we could not resolve this matter."

"Let's Put the Refugee Problem on the Table and Discuss It"

"The second issue I want to discuss is [the demand to recognize Israel] as a Jewish state. I don't know where [the Israelis] came up with this. They said: 'You Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.' We know exactly what the goal of this demand is, and that is why we reject it. We asked them: 'Why didn't you present this demand to Egypt and Jordan when you signed the peace [agreements] with them? Why do you present this demand to us?' The answer is clear...: There are 1.5 million Arab Palestinians [who are Israeli citizens]. There are [also] half a million Christian Russians [who are Israeli citizens, but] they do not concern us. We are talking about the 1.5 million Arabs. If we say [we recognize Israel] as a Jewish state, it would be a sufficient excuse [for Israel] to deport [the Israeli Arabs]. And [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman is indeed talking about evacuating or returning the Triangle [a region in Israel populated predominantly by Arabs] and its Arab residents. We have noticed this. In addition, they want to close the lid on the refugee issue. When they say the Palestinians want to flood Israel with five million refugees, it's an attempt to deceive public opinion. We never said anything like that. We are committed to the Arab Peace Initiative, [which speaks about] a just and agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem. So let's put the refugee problem on the table and discuss it...[2]

"We want a complete freeze [of construction in the settlements]. We do not want to be swindled with a 50% freeze or a 25% freeze... We have decided on alternatives [to the negotiations]. If Israel refuses to freeze construction in the settlements, we will demand that the U.S. present a plan. We will submit a plan to the U.S., and it will decide on a plan and present it to both sides. If that fails, we will appeal to the [U.N.] Security Council, so it will tell the world to recognize the Palestinian state. Obama has said that a Palestinian state will be established within a year, and will be a U.N. member. If that does not happen, there are [more] alternatives. There are six or seven alternatives that we will establish and line up... If one fails, we will present another, and if that one fails [too] we will present the next. If all of them fail, we will say to Israel... 'We have fulfilled all our obligations, and you have not fulfilled yours. Therefore we are freed from fulfilling [ours].'"

Both Israel and Iran Must Be Free of Nuclear Weapons

"In our visit to Hiroshima [two years ago] we said that we demand a world free of nuclear weapons, [a world] that solves its problems through negotiation, because any military solution leads to destruction. If possible, we want a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, that is, that [both] Israel and Iran be free of nuclear weapons... With two nuclear countries, we are lost. That's what we said then.

"After the Islamic Revolution, we visited the Iranian leadership, [that is,] Khomeini and all the [other] leaders of the revolution. We advised them not to export the revolution, especially since the Arab countries were very concerned about what would happen if the Iranian Revolution was exported to Arab countries, such as the Emirates, who had felt the heavy hand of the [Iranian Shah], the tyrant Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when he occupied [their] three islands. [We said to the Iranians:] If your intentions are good and you want good relations with the Arab and Islamic world, return the islands and be careful not to export the revolution."