Thursday, August 17th | 25 Av 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
August 21, 2011 4:17 am

Erekat’s Deceptive Numbers Game

avatar by Dore Gold

Email a copy of "Erekat’s Deceptive Numbers Game" to a friend

Chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat. Photo: Seeds of Peace.

That leaves the Palestinians with the more modest goal of obtaining a U.N. resolution that increases international acknowledgement of the 1967 lines as the border of a future Palestinian state, thereby shattering Israel’s territorial rights to defensible borders that first found their expression in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, that was adopted after the Six-Day War.

For years now, the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, has made this one of the principle goals of his diplomatic efforts. To advance this cause he uses a constant refrain during his appearances in the international media: The Palestinians have accepted and recognized Israel on 78 percent of “historic Palestine” and are only asking for the remaining 22%. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also used this argument in his May 16, 2011 opinion piece in the New York Times: “We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland.”

By framing the issue with these percentages in this way, the Palestinian leadership is implicitly asking if Israel is now demanding that the Palestinians settle for even less territory, like 18, 15, or an even lesser percentage of land. Erekat argued on Christiane Amanpour’s program on CNN in November 2009: “Now it seems to me that Mr. Netanyahu wants to partition this 22%.” This approach presents Israel as the selfish party in the conflict. Palestinian leaders hope that by presenting this line of argument they will forestall international demands on the Palestinians to make any compromises.

This narrative that Erekat has been selling for years will undoubtedly appear prominently in the media blitz he is planning for September. There are many ways to look at the issues of percentages in the Arab-Israeli conflict that can change the balance of justice for any objective observer. In a speech given on July 12, 1920, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, reminded the Arab world that the British Army had just liberated it from hundreds of years of Turkish rule; Britain was supporting the independence of what would become a half-dozen Arabs state that would no longer be “under the tyranny of a brutal conqueror.”

Related coverage

August 16, 2017 12:08 pm
0

The Cultural Appropriation That Linda Sarsour Doesn’t Care About

Omar Suleiman is an immensely popular Palestinian-American imam -- and he counts Linda Sarsour among his many ardent admirers. But as I have...

In his words, British Mandatory Palestine, which was to become a national home of the Jewish people, was only a “small notch,” when geographically compared with the vast territories where the Arabs would exercises their sovereignty. He hoped the Arab world would not “grudge” the tiny territory that was committed to the Jewish people.

In fact, the original area of Mandatory Palestine, with the present territory of Jordan included, is less than 5% of the land which the British liberated for the Arab states as a whole, as a result of the First World War. Moreover, most Palestinians at the time of Balfour saw themselves primarily as part of this wider Arab world, which had been just set free. What was to become British Mandatory Palestine was called Surya al-Junubiyya (Southern Syria) in Arabic at the time.

When trying to determine justice by using percentages, Erekat conveniently also forgot about Jordan. In 1922, Britain partitioned the Palestine Mandate by withholding the application of the Jewish national home to the territory that was to become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. As a result, the British gave 77% of the territory to the Arab population leaving 23% for the Jewish people.

That percentage would drop further after 1948 when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt ruled the Gaza Strip. To this day, Palestinians and Jordanians frequently say privately that a few hours after a Palestinian state is created, they will form a confederation. This idea was raised in the 1985 agreement between King Hussein and Yasser Arafat and it has been repeatedly proposed since then.

Thus the question of justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looks completely different if the observer zooms out from looking narrowly at the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Erekat is really deceiving foreign audiences when he talks about the Palestinians obtaining only 22% of Palestine. When Jordan inevitably comes back into any future peace settlement, the Arab side will control more than 80% of the original area of British Mandatory Palestine.

The real purpose behind the Palestinian claim that all they are getting is 22% of British Mandatory Palestine is to obtain 100% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The question of Gaza is less controversial since Israel already withdrew in the 2005 Disengagement; the heart of the conflict is over the West Bank. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 never required Israel to concede 100% of the territory it captured, in what was a war of self-defense. It was one of the greatest diplomatic achievements of Israeli diplomacy under Foreign Minister Abba Eban.

The Palestinian initiative at the U.N. in 2011 is seeking to shatter Resolution 242 with new terms of reference, which will increase international pressures on Israel. Israel’s understanding of its rights under Resolution 242 has been backed by successive U.S. secretaries of state for more than 40 years. This September. Israel’s struggle at the U.N. is not only about Palestinian statehood, but rather about Israel’s rights not to be forced back to the pre-1967 lines, which were once enshrined by the U.N., but are now facing a full assault.

This article originally appeared in Israel Hayom.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • This is way better than a brick & mortar esatblhisemnt.

  • Vacy Vlazna

    The author should not rely on the illegal British Mandatory of Palestine for a legal basis for the Zionist Homeland. He would gain from reading Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine (Adel Safty) to get his facts right:

    The Mandate for Palestine, as Joseph Jeffries pointed out, clearly violated the Covenant of the League of Nations in entrusting the British government with the administration of Palestine, and in making Palestine subservient to the establishment of the Jewish National Home. The Mandate deliberately disregarded the provision in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations recognizing Palestine as an independent nation, like Iraq and Syria, “subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as [the inhabitants] are able to stand alone”. Furthermore, Article 22 clearly stipulated that the administrative advice and assistance to provisionally recognized independent nations such as Palestine would be rendered by a country selected on the basis of “the wishes of these communities”.30 In assigning the mandate and in drafting its text, the people of Palestine, as Lord Curzon admitted, were nigh forgotten and ignored. Moreover, under Article 2
    of the Mandate the land and resources of Palestine were “used by the Mandatory for a Zionist speculation instead of being kept in trust for its lawful owners, the native population of the country”. This, as Jeffries pointed out, “was fraudulent trusteeship at its worst”.31

  • Neel

    The author needs to go back and read the balfour declaration.

    “As a result, the British gave 77% of the territory to the Arab population leaving 23% for the Jewish people….”

    Is the author implying the Jews were promised the area of Jordan as well? The British gave away lands to many other nations, are we going to count those as well to make the percentages look more favourable? Why not count in India while we are at it as well?

    The reason why Erekat counts British mandated palestine is because this is where the Palestinian people come from! He could not careless if the British gave away land to the Hashemites, or to the Indians or to anybody whatsoever. His claim is for the PALESTINIAN people to the land of PALESTINE of which more than 78% has been taken away. He really is not concerned if 100% of some other land has been given away to some other people.

    If Erekat here was speaking for the entire arab population including the Jordanians, the Iraqis and the Syrians, then yes you could argue that he should state the percentages of land that he has already been given.

    The fact is Erekat is not speaking for Jordan, Syria or Iraq. He is speaking for the PALESTINIANS who come from British mandated Palestine.

Algemeiner.com