Palestine Papers

[Talhe]

An anonymous source has released a large amount of papers detailing negotiations from the Palestinian side on the matter of Jerusalem and the settlements:

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=204914

Huge cache of confidential Palestinian documents leaked

With the Palestinian Authority making an international incident over every plan to build in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line, a cache of some 1,600 documents –mostly form the Palestinian Negotiating Unit -- shows that in 2008 the PA was willing to recognize eventual Israeli control over all those neighborhoods, with the exception of Har Homa.

In dramatic fashion, both Al Jazeera and The Guardian published excerpts Sunday night of what they are calling "The Palestine Papers," providing details –through the eyes of Palestinians involved in the negotiations -- of nearly a decade of talks.

According to The Guardian, the documents were leaked over a period of months to al-Jazeera, and shared with the Guardian, which said it authenticated the bulk of the documents.

According to the paper, the documents, which will be published in coming days, will show the "scale of Palestinian concessions," including on Jerusalem and on the issue of refugees; the level of Israeli and Palestinian covert security cooperation; how Israeli leaders "privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state;" and how British intelligence played a key role in drawing up a plan to crush Hamas.

In addition, the Guardian reported, the documents – not a part of the WikiLeaks dump of US diplomatic cables – will also show that the PA was tipped off about Operation Cast Lead.

Israeli government sources Sunday night refrained from reporting on the documents, saying they needed to see them first.

According to the paper, the PA privately suggested swapping part of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.

The paper said the offer on Jerusalem was rejected by Israel because the Palestinians insisted on Ma'ale Adumim, Har Homa and several other settlements, such as Ariel. The Palestinians did agree to Israeli annexation of French Hill, Pisgat Ze'ev, Neve Ya'akov, Ramat Shlomo and Gilo.

"We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," then foreign minister Tzipi Livni told the Palestinians according to the documents, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".

According to the documents, Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat told Livni, "It is no secret that … we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim in history. But we must talk about the concept of al-Quds. We have taken your interests and concerns into account, but not all. This is the first time in Palestinian-Israeli history in which such a suggestion is officially made."

One of the documents is a summary of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer to PA President Mahmoud Abbas on August 31, 2008.

According to the offer, which Israel maintains Abbas never responded to, Israel would annex 6.8% of the West Bank, including the four main settlement blocs: Gus Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, Givat Ze'ev, and Ariel, as well as all of the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line, including Har Homa, in exchange for 5.5% of Israeli territory elsewhere.

A special road would connect Bethlehem with Ramallah that would bypass east Jerusalem and go around Ma'ale Adumim. East Jerusalem would be divided territorially along the lines of the Clinton parameters, meaning Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, and Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians, with the exception of the "Holy Basin," whose sovereignty would be negotiated later with the involvement of the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

On refugees Israel would acknowledge the "suffering" of refugees, but not take responsibility for it, and there would be mention in the agreement of Israeli or Jewish "suffering."

Israel would take in 1,000 refugees a year for five years on "humanitarian grounds, and would contribute to compensation of refugees "based on suffering."

This package made no mention of the Jordan Valley, nor of Israel's security requirements.

PA leaders also mentioned the possibility of a one-state solution. At one meeting, Erekat said that if Israel does not stop building in the settlements, "we will announce one state and struggle for equality in the State of Israel."

I'm vaguely torn, yet a touch optimistic by hearing about this. On the one hand, I'm disappointed by the Israeli government (my default mood towards it) for not taking the deal. Scratch that; I'm fairly pissed off, even though there are some issues they took up with it. On the other hand, the fact that they were negotiations, and plans were exchanged, gives me a touch of optimism, especially since the Olmert plan and the PNA's plan is somewhat similar.

Just my two cents, anyways.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why would Israel be interested in that offer, they want their Lebensraum devoid of those dirty Muslims, not live beside them.

[Thanas]

This is disappointing and shows how non-committed to peace Israel really is - they would not even come back with a counter offer.

[SirNitram]

Link

The revelations from the heart of the Israel-Palestine peace process are the product of the biggest documentary leak in the history of the Middle East conflict, and the most comprehensive exposure of the inside story of a decade of failed negotiations.

The 1,600 confidential records of hundreds of meetings between Palestinian, Israeli and US leaders, as well as emails and secret proposals, were leaked to the Qatar-based satellite TV channel al-Jazeera and shared exclusively with the Guardian. They cover the period from the runup to the ill-fated Camp David negotiations under US president Bill Clinton in 2000, to private discussions last year involving senior officials and politicians in the Obama administration.

The earliest document in the cache is a memo from September 1999 about Palestinian negotiating strategy. It suggests heeding the advice of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you can get what you need." The final one, from last September, is a Palestinian Authority (PA) message to the Egyptian government about access to the Gaza Strip.

The Palestine papers have emerged at a time when a whole era of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, starting with the Madrid conference in 1991, appear to have run into the sand, opening up the prospect of a new phase of the conflict and potentially another war.

In particular, they cover the most recent negotiations, before and after George Bush's Annapolis conference in late 2007 – when substantive offers were made by both sides until the process broke down over Israel's refusal to freeze West Bank settlement activity.

The bulk of the documents are records, contemporaneous notes and sections of verbatim transcripts of meetings drawn up by officials of the Palestinian negotiation support unit (NSU), which has been the main technical and legal backup for the Palestinian side in the negotiations.

The unit has been heavily funded by the British government. Other documents originate from inside the PA's extensive US- and British-sponsored security apparatus.

The Israelis, Americans and others kept their own records, which may differ in their accounts of the same meetings. But the Palestinian documents were made and held confidentially, rather than for overt or public use, and significantly reveal large gaps between the private and stated positions of Palestinian and, in fewer cases, Israeli leaders.

The documents – almost all of which are in English, which was the language used by both sides in negotiations – were leaked over a period of months from several sources to al-Jazeera. The bulk of them have been independently authenticated for the Guardian by former participants in the talks and by diplomatic and intelligence sources.

The NSU – formally part of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – is based in the West Bank town of Ramallah under the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat. It has drawn heavily on the expertise of Palestinian-American and other western-trained diaspora Palestinian lawyers for technical support in negotiations.

In the case of one-to-one talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders – especially between Mahmoud Abbas and the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert – NSU officials were not present, but reports on the outcome of the encounters were often given later to the unit and records made.

After the breakdown of the Camp David talks, which Clinton and Israeli leaders blamed on Yasser Arafat and a lack of technical Palestinian preparation, Palestinian leaders went to great lengths to ensure that the fullest records and supporting documents were drawn up for later talks. Among NSU staff, the Arab-American lawyer Zeinah Salahi drew up many of the meeting records, while others were made by the French-Palestinian lawyer Ziyad Clot, author of a book about the negotiations, Il n'y aura pas d'Etat Palestinien (There will be no Palestinian state).

The role of the NSU in the negotiations has caused tensions among West Bank-based Palestinian leaders and officials, and widespread resentment about the salaries paid to its most senior managers, notably Adam Smith International's Andrew Kuhn, who stepped down from running the unit last year.

But as the negotiations have increasingly been seen to have failed, and the Ramallah-based PA leadership has come to be regarded by many Palestinians as illegitimate or unrepresentative, discontent among NSU staff has grown and significant numbers have left. There has also been widespread discontent in the organisation at the scale and nature of concessions made in the talks.

Among NSU staff cited in the documents, Salahi now works for the US embassy in Cairo, Clot has returned to France and Rami Dajani works for Tony Blair in his role as the Middle East quartet's envoy. Kuhn is working elsewhere for Adam Smith International, including on projects in Afghanistan.

In response to the leaks, PA and PLO leaders such as Saeb Erekat can be expected to point out that one of the core principles of the negotiations is that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". As such they are not necessarily committed to provisional positions that in the event failed to secure a settlement – though Erekat made clear to US officials in January 2010 that the same offers remained on the table.

Critics are likely to argue that concessions – such as accepting the annexation of Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem – are simply pocketed by the Israeli side, and risk being treated as a starting point in any future talks.

Some Fatah leaders are likely to accuse al-Jazeera of having an anti-PA agenda by publishing the leaked documents, which they believe will benefit their Hamas rivals, backed by Iran — as shown in critical comments about the TV station in the documents themselves.

Relations between al-Jazeera, the most widely watched TV channel in the Middle East, and the PA leadership have often been strained after it has run reports regarded by the administration as hostile – as is the case with regimes throughout the region.

The documents have been redacted to remove details such as email addresses, phone numbers or other information that could identify those who leaked them.

Substansive new information, hence me risking the IvP flamestorm that inevitably follows. Throughout seems to be a theme: The Palestinian leaders offering ever-more to the Israelis, and getting nothing. There's gonna be some chaos from the sheer amount of concessions offered by some of the Palestinian negotiators; I doubt those in the settlement communities will like the idea that they were offered to be annexed.

[Alyeska]

Threads merged

[SirNitram]

Threads merged

Thanks. Sorry for the duplicate.

As with other stuff, the Guardian has the entire 1,600 pages for searching.

[Talhe]

This is disappointing and shows how non-committed to peace Israel really is - they would not even come back with a counter offer.

The Olmert plan was brought up, here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palesti ... ments/4736 Granted, it's far from perfect, but I personally believe it's a (small) step in the right direction.

If there's luck, the Left in Israel will be able to use it as a rallying point. But then, that assumes competency in an Israeli politician.

As an addendum, the PA denies making any of the offers: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=204916

A senior Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah on Sunday strongly condemned the Al-Jazeera TV network for publishing hundreds of documents concerning the peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis.

"Al-Jazeera has declared war on the Palestinians," the official told The Jerusalem Post. "This station serves the interests of the enemies of the Palestinians."

Asked if the PA was now considering measures against Al-Jazeera, the official said he did not see how a TV station that "incites" against the Palestinians would be able to continue operating in the West Bank. However, he said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently in Cairo, would decided on the PA's response to the exposure of the documents in the coming hours.

In his first response to the documents that were revealed by Al-Jazeera, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he did not know how the TV network had obtained secret documents.

"We don't hide anything from our Arab brothers," Abbas told editors of Egyptian newspapers in Cairo. "We have been briefing our Arab brothers about all our activities with the Israelis and Americans."

PLO Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat denied that the PA had agreed to make far-reaching concessions on Jerusalem.

Erekat criticized Al-Jazeera for reporting about the documents. “This is a theater,” he said. “This is part of a campaign targeting President Mahmoud Abbas and the PA at a time when we are going to the UN Security Council regarding the settlements.”

Erekat confirmed, however, that the Palestinians and Israelis had talked about land swaps in Jerusalem and the West Bank. “Yes, we talked about land swaps,” he told Al-Jazeera. “Olmert presented us with a map about the land swap. The swap is part of international law.”

Erekat said that Abbas, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, refused to make far-reaching territorial concessions to Israel in Jerusalem. “East Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state,” he stated. “All of east Jerusalem.”

Erekat also strongly denied that former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei [Abu Ala] had agreed to give up parts of Sheikh Jarrah, in east Jerusalem, to Israel. He also denied that the PA had voiced opposition to giving Jordan any role in east Jerusalem.


“We are now facing a battle with [Prime Minister] Binyamin Netanyahu and we are facing threats and pressures,” Erekat complained. “I don’t know where these documents came from and I would like to know who gave them to Al-Jazeera.”

Erekat also denied that the PA had agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said that when he was asked by Israel to accept this demand, he replied that it was tantamount to asking a Palestinian to join the Zionist movement.

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, responded angrily: “Who gave the PLO the right to make concessions on Jerusalem? The PLO does not represent the Palestinians.”

Atwan said it was outrageous that four Palestinian offcials were negotiating on behalf of all Palestinians and making concessions without being authorized to do so. He named the officials as Saeb Erekat, Salam Fayyad, Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Abed Rabbo.

[bobalot]

What's amazing is that the Israeli's wanted to do "population transfers" of their own Arab Population. The opinion of Arab Israeli's didn't seem to matter. At least we can shoot down the next Israeli cockgoblin apologist who tries to claim that Arabs aren't second class citizens in their country. They just tried to trade them as if they were fucking cattle.

[Duckie]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

Honestly, with the situation as fucked up as this, going back to the older standards of diplomacy in the 20th century and before really isn't inconceivable.

And legality is as much a non-issue when one can simply rewrite the laws.

[Talhe]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

The transfer of populations has been a part of the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian/Israeli-Arab conflict for sometime, as well as for some parts of the world. As odious as it seems, it is/was something of the standard. However, the Israeli counter-proposal doesn't seem to be giving up any Arab towns within the Green Line proper (I'm not quite sure about Jerusalem, as the map is quite small).

The Guardian hasn't yet released the papers yet detailing the transfer, and whether it'd be voluntary or not. That doesn't let Israel off the hook for its bigotry and Other-phobia, mind; Israeli society has become much more intolerant of who they'd want to live next to lately, something that is highly discouraging.

[eyl]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

Strictly speaking, as far as legality is concerned I don't see an issue. Assuming this proposal is similiar to those which have been proposed in the past (all of which were promptly shot down on the Israeli side before they went anywhere, mind), what's being transferred is the sovereignity of the territory - which is perfectly legal (if it isn't, then any proposal involving a land swap would be illegal). The people living there are still Israeli citizens and can either stay and thus join the new state or move to Israeli territory (some right-wing politicians which made similiar proposals implied that the Israeli Arabs involved would lose their Israeli citizenship, but the IIRC the Supreme Court has already ruled that would be a violation of Israeli law some years ago).

EDITED TO ADD:

However, the Israeli counter-proposal doesn't seem to be giving up any Arab towns within the Green Line proper (I'm not quite sure about Jerusalem, as the map is quite small).

At most, a few small villages (I haven't found asufficiently detailed map to say for sure about those, but there don't seem to be any substantial towns in that area) - at least as far as Jerusalem is concerned, there doesn't seem to be any of the yellow of the "swapped from Israel to Palestine" (it's possible there are small neighborhoods which can't be seen in the map, but I doubt it; the Arab areas of Jerusalem are largely east of the Green Line anyway)

[Serafina]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

Tough it was a different situation, this sort of thing actually happened before:
West Germany gave money to East Germany in exchange for east german citizens (typically those imprisoned for political reasons).

Of course, that only happened to individuals who already wanted to leave East Germany (and often were imprisoned for that very reason), so that was a pretty different ethical situation.

[cosmicalstorm]

Such a depressing situation. I have to say that my impression is that Palestine will gradually disappear. It seems that the Israeli's have "won" although it will take another 50 years for it to happen.

[bobalot]

Such a depressing situation. I have to say that my impression is that Palestine will gradually disappear. It seems that the Israeli's have "won" although it will take another 50 years for it to happen.

The can take by force anything they want, why should they negotiate?

They got offered huge swathes of Palestinian land they have illegally squatted on and other massive concessions but that wasn't enough. Unbelievable how greedy these assholes are.

[bobalot]

Seriously? Israel tried to sell its Arab population to Palestine in exchange for concessions?

Is it even legal to sell your population against their will to someone else?

I'm serious- If you can sell people in peace negotiations for territories, and use money to compensate for territory in peace, logically you should thus be able to conduct a person for actual money deal.

I imagine it's not, but I haven't the faintest why besides the fact that it'd be odious and anti-human rights to do so (which wouldn't stop Israel of course).

The transfer of populations has been a part of the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian/Israeli-Arab conflict for sometime, as well as for some parts of the world. As odious as it seems, it is/was something of the standard. However, the Israeli counter-proposal doesn't seem to be giving up any Arab towns within the Green Line proper (I'm not quite sure about Jerusalem, as the map is quite small).

The Guardian hasn't yet released the papers yet detailing the transfer, and whether it'd be voluntary or not. That doesn't let Israel off the hook for its bigotry and Other-phobia, mind; Israeli society has become much more intolerant of who they'd want to live next to lately, something that is highly discouraging.

As I understand it, most Arab Israeli's are opposed to population transfers. So wouldn't it have to be forced? The language of the article makes it look forced.

In several areas, Livni pressed for Arab citizens of Israel to be included in a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal – raising the controversial spectre of "transfer". In other words, shifting Palestinians from one state to another without their consent – a demand backed in its wholesale form by rightwing nationalists.

Livni explained privately that there are "some Palestinian villages located on both sides of the 1967 line about which we need to have an answer, such as Beit Safafa, Barta'a, Baqa al-Sharqiya and Baqa al-Gharbiya". Earlier, she had made clear that such swaps also meant "the swap of the inhabitants". But Palestinian negotiators rejected the proposal.

Here is a howler.

Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state under George Bush, suggested in 2008 Palestinian refugees could be resettled in south America. "Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind," she said. "Chile, Argentina, etc."

Did she even ask these countries?

[Zaune]

Such a depressing situation. I have to say that my impression is that Palestine will gradually disappear. It seems that the Israeli's have "won" although it will take another 50 years for it to happen.

Given that Arab Israelis are already a significant voting bloc, that might not be the worst possible way the conflict could end.

[Talhe]

Such a depressing situation. I have to say that my impression is that Palestine will gradually disappear. It seems that the Israeli's have "won" although it will take another 50 years for it to happen.

Given that Arab Israelis are already a significant voting bloc, that might not be the worst possible way the conflict could end.

As much as I'd like the idea of two peoples living side by side, past and present experiences (especially in the Middle-East) seem to point to another conflict if the One-State/Bi-National state occurs.

It would be best if both governments listen to their peoples, especially the Israeli government. But again, that assumes competency on their part.

[Zaune]

As much as I'd like the idea of two peoples living side by side, past and present experiences (especially in the Middle-East) seem to point to another conflict if the One-State/Bi-National state occurs.

It would be best if both governments listen to their peoples, especially the Israeli government. But again, that assumes competency on their part.

By and large, politicians will do whatever they think will win them votes, and taking the credit for giving the vote to a large chunk of your citizens tends to be a vote-winner.
Besides, the increasing percent of Israeli Arab voters must eventually lead to a non-trivial number of Israeli Arab MPs, unless they abandon any pretence at being a representative democracy.

[Talhe]

Responding to your comment on the transfer, bobalot, I believe I found the area that Al-Jazeera referred to when they discussed Livni and transfer in this article:

http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinep ... 79946.html

The minutes are here: http://transparency.aljazeera.net/document/3027

TL:

Two issues related to the borders. When you talk about the line of 1967, there were some Palestinian villages separated by 1967. I visited an Israeli Palestinian village on Friday in Wadi Ara.


AA:

What were you doing there? Campaigning?

TL:

There are 12,000 Palestinian members of Kadima.

D:

Israeli Arabs.

[TL defends using “Palestinians”. She also notes that all they want are equal rights in Israel and “they deserve it”.]


I said from the beginning that it can be part of the swaps.

AA:

Absolutely not.

TL:

We have this problem with Raja in Lebanon. Terje Larsen put the blue line to cut the village in two. [This needs to be addressed.] We decided not to cut the village. It was a mistake. The problem now – those living on Lebanese soil are Israeli citizens.

UD:

Barka, Barta il Sharqiya, Barta il [Garbiya], Betil, Beit Safafa…

AA:

This will be difficult. All Arabs in Israel will be against us.

TB:

We will need to address it some how. Divided. All Palestinian. All Israeli.

From the looks of it and in the context, it seems that Livni was discussing the fact on how dividing villages arbitrarily wasn't a good idea, and that some areas should be swapped instead. Looking at the rest of the document, I couldn't find the words 'transfer', and the word 'swaps' seems to only arise at the beginning, and Israel investing in lands that are to be exchanged to the future Palestinian authority to increase their value.

[bobalot]

How exactly are they going to "swap" populations who don't want to be "swapped" other than force?

[K. A. Pital]

Here is a howler.

Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state under George Bush, suggested in 2008 Palestinian refugees could be resettled in south America. "Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind," she said. "Chile, Argentina, etc."

Did she even ask these countries?

Isn't this the same person who said the minerals of Siberia do not belong to Russia and are "property of everyone" instead?

[Talhe]

How exactly are they going to "swap" populations who don't want to be "swapped" other than force?

She made no mention of arbitrary transfer at all, merely saying that it would be best not to split villages down the middle. And after it was rejected, it wasn't brought up again, it was simply one of dozens of ideas floated between the two; she hasn't joined Lieberman's side.

[eyl]

How exactly are they going to "swap" populations who don't want to be "swapped" other than force?

As I said, the "swap" (if it even happened) wouldn't be of people per se, but rather of the border; the people wouldn't actually physically move. Those people who find themselves on the "wrong" side would retain Israeli citizenship and could move if they wish (given that what she was discussing were cases of villages split in two by the border, presumably the assumption is that the inhabitants would prefer to stay put, but they don't have to do that).

Throughout seems to be a theme: The Palestinian leaders offering ever-more to the Israelis, and getting nothing.

Ironically enough:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday denied offering secret concessions to Israel and said that reporting of purportedly leaked documents had presented Israeli positions as those of his own negotiators

"What is intended is a mix-up. I saw them present things yesterday as Palestinian, but they were Israeli ... This is therefore intentional," Abbas told reporters in Cairo after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

[Samuel]

Or he could be lying to cover his ass. I don't think his constituients would like to know he has been selling them out.