IN PUBLIC Mahmoud Abbas said only last week that “there are no negotiations over Jerusalem”. Now, if we are to believe notes made by the Palestinian president’s own aides, not only have there been discussions with the Israelis about the future of Jerusalem, but privately some very substantial concessions are on offer from the Palestinian side.
Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the 1,600 documents on a decade of failed peace talks with Israel, leaked to al-Jazeera, have a ring of truth about them. And it is precisely their plausibility that has upset chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and Mr Abbas. The revelations will be grist to the mill of Hamas attempts to discredit Abbas and the PLO leadership by confirming that the latter, already widely seen as corrupt, are also selling out the Palestinian cause too cheaply.
The most controversial of the leaks suggests the Palestinians would accept, in the context of an overall agreement, annexation by Israel of all but one of the settlements built in East Jerusalem. They would also be prepared to work on the joint administration of the Old City’s Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, the most holy of sites for both Muslims and Jews.
Just as the Wikileaks revelations have substantially complicated the work of US diplomats, the new leaks cast a cold and difficult light on the inevitable differences between the public utterances of political actors and their conduct behind the scenes in attempting to broker unpalatable deals.
For some the leaks will be evidence of hypocrisy, for others, of a genuine and courageous willingness to engage and to face up to difficult compromises. Indeed, the revelation that Israel was saying the same thing in private as in public in refusing to budge on Jerusalem does not exactly inspire confidence.
Mr Abbas undoubtedly will face major political difficulties explaining away the nuanced reality that such negotiating offers are both inevitable and necessary in the context of “nothing-is-agreed-until-everything-is-agreed” talks. And particularly when there appears to have been no quid pro quo on offer. But the idea of such concessions in a final settlement deal is not new and has already been discussed, if not officially, certainly among informed observers of the peace process. No-one should be surprised by such discussions but the leaks, apparently from dissident Palestinian sources close to the talks process, will probably delay yet further any prospect of a resumption of stalled dialogue.