secret negotiations held by Olmert's  and Abbas' governments. Fresh start to a dead thing. Basically, repetition of the 2000-1 journey. As per usual, everything bears on the territorial question. Story reported by papers (JPost, Haaretz, //_)

""Palestinian officials close to peace talks said Sunday that Israel has offered a West Bank withdrawal map that leaves about 8.5 percent of the territory in Israeli hands, less than a previous plan but still more than the Palestinians are ready to accept....


The Palestinian officials said that Israel presented its new map three days ago in a negotiating session. The last map Israel offered had 12 percent of the West Bank remaining in Israel. Israel wants to keep West Bank land with its main settlement blocs, offering land inside Israel in exchange. The land would be between Hebron in the southern West Bank and Gaza - at least part of a route through Israel to link the two territories.""

It seems, the discrepancy in fugures (8.5% vs. 12%) is explained by the compensation offered inside Israel. Meaning 12% of the WB would be permanently annexed while an Israeli area equal to 3.5% of WB would offered as compensation. 8.5% net loss for the Palestinians. But...

""One of the Palestinian officials said the 8.5% figure of West Bank land Israel would retain with its new map does not include east Jerusalem, where Israel has built a string of Jewish neighborhoods it intends to keep. Israel wants to put off dealing with Jerusalem until the end of the process.""

So it's 8.5% of WB minus EJ. There is an old contradiction between the sides as to whether to consider the Eastern Jerusalem a part of the West Bank.

Of course the denial of EJ to the Palestinians makes the initiative hopeless at once.

""The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors, said Palestinians were ready to trade only 1.8% of the West Bank for Israeli land.""

So we have a seemingly unbriddgeable (and charmingly familiar) chasm between the positions of the sides. Palestinians agree to exchange 1.8% of WB for equal area in Israel, and obviously insist on having most of EJ; Israelis "offer" 8.5% net annexation, and, looks like, not an inch of EJ. And the refugees question is not even discussed.

In 2000-1 Barak went down to about 4% annexation and a siginificant part of EJ. The "offer" was rejected (rightly so). What makes Olmert think that a far less "generous" offer would be now accepted? He is hardly mistaken to believe that time is on Israel's side (himself stated the opposite). Of course, Likud and the holy people will not allow him to implement even this insufficient "concessions". I wish I knew what's on his mind. His "offer" is not sellable in Palestine. I think its a depserate transfixation on peacetalks where people understand the dire need for a deal but are totally incapable of paying the price of it.

BTW, simultaneously there also secret talks with Syria. Where Syria is unable to accept less than the entire Golans, and Israel in unable (politically) to provide that. Nothing will move until a major shift of power in the region (world).

I failed to grasp that. Need explanations.


OK, Israel isn't interested in peace because Israel wins wars. OK, got it. "Land for Peace" is trash. Forget it.

Simple, IF Syria gets Golan Heights it must do certain steps to assure Israel that it would never attack. Like any peace treaty claims but most of Syrian main figures claim that they will fight Zionist regime, support Hezballah and will have strategical commitments with Iran that claims to wipe Israel off once in a while.

Same goes with Palestinians and other Arabs, they act like they are winners when they are the losers who suppose to take what given to them and shut up


Do Arabs interested in peace? Why wouldn't them become flexible in first place ? Was Germany one to decide what it gets and what its not after WWII?

You must be joking, don't you ?

Check speeches from recent visit of Syrian minister in Iran for latest example.

We still got time to make them, don't we?