By Barry Rubin
We now know what actually happened in the negotiations mischaracterized
by the "Palestine Papers," but before I tell you the true story, let me
say some words about how it has been distorted.
Maybe it's just me out of step with the rest of the world, but someone tell me where the following paragraph is wrong:
The world is judging and condemning Israel on the basis of incomplete
notes taken by people many of whom are not fluent English-speakers (of
statements made by people who are not native-speakers of English) and
who are passionate partisans of the Palestinian cause and who hate
Israel; documents that have not been authenticated by anyone and whose
translation has not been checked; documents that leave out much of what
the Israelis said and leave out the concessions they made; then are
filtered through the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-Palestinian Authority
(PA) al-Jazira (whose record of reportage is marked by some amazing
lies) and the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas, anti-PA Guardian (which is
more radical sect than newspaper); which then misinterpret them in ways
that seem deliberate to make Israel and the PA look bad; and then are
quoted by journalists around the world who know little or nothing about
the issues, haven't read the documents, have never seriously considered
the possibility that they aren't 100 percent accurate, and ignore every
other previous negotiation and public statement by Israel and the PA
that contradict the claims being made; and who then add on even more
claims that are neither in the documents nor in al-Jazira and the Guardian!
Sorry that paragraph was so long but it had to be to cover everything. Now have I missed something here?
The reaction to all of this in an age supposedly fixated on tolerance is
more like that of a lynch mob than anything else. And have no doubt
that before this is over there will be people who are lynched.
And now what actually did happen? The story is told here
from interviews with then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert before the papers
came out. Briefly, Israel offered concessions; the Palestinian side
talked about concessions. Olmert suggested they make a deal. PA leader
Mahmoud Abbas hesitated and said he needed a few days, and then never
responded, making public statements rejecting Israel's position.
So this does not prove that the PA made a generous offer of
peace and Israel rejected it, the spin put on it by the media and by
selective release of badly flawed documents. The PA rejected peace, as
usual. Of course, a big reason for doing so was the fact that they knew
they could not sell it to their people (who would denounce it as a
sell-out), or Hamas, or even the Fatah Central Committee.
Note the new spin will be that if only Olmert remained in office and
Netanyahu had not been elected there would have been a two-state
solution. In other words, it will still be portrayed as Israel's fault.
But this is ridiculous since the PA did not, and could not, agree on the
conditions it had discussed. This is the structural problem with the
peace process and it has not changed. The latest affair has made it
worse.
No Israeli prime minister could make peace with the Palestinians when the Palestinian leadership isn't ready to make peace.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader
(seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for
Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at
http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports,
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment