Has the Guardian stuffed itself?

David

I do love the way that in all of this, you fail to address the point that Israel turned the offer down.

Neither side shows any real interest in peace.

Andy Gill

The Guardian finds itself in an impossible position.

Either they have to admit that Israel's negotiating position on E. Jerusalem and the settlements is fair to the Palestinians, or they have to say the Palestinian leaders are traitors to their cause for considering it.

Naturally it sticks in their throat to say anything positive about Israel, so they have to brand Abbas and Erekat as traitors.

Delicious. They've discovered a vast turd, and they are desperately spraying it with Airwick in the hope we won't notice the smell.

Mr R

Likewise, the BBC has decided that the revalations are true: The following from the Newsnight teaser: "But right now we are focussing on the Middle East. By the time we go on air we expect to have more revelations from the al-Jazeera/Guardian leak of a cache of Palestinian records which have already offered the most extraordinary insight into the peace process negotiations, just how much ground the Palestinian negotiators were prepared to give, and how hardline the response of the Israelis." British Biased Corp, all right.

Okey

Al Guardian will try to rationalise and obfuscate and apply sophistry and throw red (no pun) herrings across the path.
What a bunch of losers!

David Lindsay

There is a reason why the Cross Potent is also called the Jerusalem Cross.

Now is the moment for a Palestinian Declaration of Independence. It must explicitly lay claim to the whole of the viable Palestinian State created on both sides of the Jordan in 1948. Furthermore, it must mirror the Constitution of Lebanon in guaranteeing the Presidency to a Christian even if it guarantees the Premiership to a Muslim (as would have happened electorally anyway), and it must mirror the Constitutions of Lebanon, of Iran, and of Palestine east of the Jordan, the present Hashemite Kingdom, in guaranteeing parliamentary representation to Christians, as well as mirroring Syria is establishing Christian festivals as public holidays. And it should place the new state - not only the Christians, but the State and everyone in it - under the protection of each and all of the remaining sacral monarchies, there being no other kind, in Christendom.

Thus would that State, and those who looked to its creation, be placed under the protection of the world’s Christian monarchs and of all who professed allegiance to them. Those are the monarchs of Andorra, of Antigua and Barbuda, of Australia, of The Bahamas, of Barbados, of Belgium, of Belize, of Canada, of the Cook Islands, of Denmark, of Grenada, of Jamaica, of Lesotho, of Liechtenstein, of Luxembourg, of Monaco, of the Netherlands, of New Zealand, of Norway, of Papua New Guinea, of Saint Kitts and Nevis, of Saint Lucia, of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, of Spain, of the Solomon Islands, of Swaziland, of Sweden, of Tuvalu, of Tonga, of the United Kingdom, of the State of the Vatican City, and the Paramount Chief of the Great Council of Chiefs of Fiji, together with all Christian subnational monarchs throughout the world, and together with all Christian Heads of deposed Royal Houses. 18 of those figures are the same person. Guess who?

This would also be a wider appeal, an appeal to any and every country that regarded Christianity as fundamental to its identity. Does the American Republic so regard itself? Does the Russian Federation? Do the republics of Europe? Do the republics of Central America, South America and the Caribbean? Do the republics of Africa? Does any other country? In each country’s case, how it responds to this appeal would be its definitive answer to that question.

At the very least, this needs to appear over the names expressing the full authority of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the Latin Patriarchate, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Patriarchate, the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, the Greek-Melkite-Catholic Patriarchate, the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarchate, the Maronite Patriarchal Exarchate, the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, the Syrian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate, and the Armenian Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate. That would have an immediate and a very dramatic impact in all of the countries named or referred to above. But time is now of the essence.

ahad ha'amoratsim

"Could it be that, for once, Abbas and Erekat are actually telling the truth?" Chazal teach us that the punishment for a liar is that no one believes him when he actually does tell the truth.

ahad ha'amoratsim

David, what are you talking about when you say "I do love the way that in all of this, you fail to address the point that Israel turned the offer down?" The whole point is that OLMERT ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL MADE THSOI OFFER; THE PA NEVER DID.

It is not that Israel has no interest in peace. Israel has no interest in suicide, but is so eager for peace that she often approaches suicide in an attempt to achieve peace.

The lie that Israel does not want peace was deliberately started by who want to see Israel conquered and its people dead. The lie has been readily accepted -- not only by by those who would not lament the loss, but also by those who cannot or do not think critically, or who are ignorant of the region's history, or who are simply numbed by constant repetition into accepting the prevailing received wisdom, no matter how demonstrably false.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Barry Rubin shows that the second way of looking at these documents, i.e. to regard all this as absurd beyond belief is correct:

SCOOP: Explaining How The Palestine Papers" Story Is A Fabrication That Teaches Us The Truth

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/palestine-papers-fabrication-of-day.html

David (a different one)

@David

You completely missed Melanie's point.

If this is a reversal as suggested by Melanie, and supported Abbas' and Erekat's claims, then it was the Palestinians that turned the offer down, not the Israelis.

Happy Feet

I blame the penguins!

Gilbert Belwether

It's possible that the documents are false; at the moment, though, Haaretz is quoting "associates of Netanyahu" as saying that they show PA demands to be ridiculous, implying that Israel, at least, accepts their veracity, despite the denials by Abbas and Erekat.

In any case, it's untrue, as Melanie claims, that the alleged offers made by the Palestinians were a match for Israeli offers that were already on the table. She doesn't seem to have read the relevant document, which shows Livni rejecting Erekat's proposal to cede most of East Jerusalem because he did not also agree to cede Ma'ale Adumim and the other settlements which lie deeper in the West Bank and bisect it. In other words, Israel was holding out for more.

kate b

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/205985.php

We're still waiting for the answer - who are the Palestinians.

Ref. above courtesy of Elder of Zion

John p Reid

well said okey

Frank

You arte on the ball again Melanie.

Fernando

Cracking post Melanie.

John Russell

The leaks present a true picture of what has been happening. A complete capitilatio of palestinian rights enshrined under international law especially the right of return of the refugees.
Isreal continues to ethnically cleanse paleatnians from their land including selling its own Arab citizens.
Its curious that those ethnically cleansed from their land today and in recent history have no right of return but those with fairy tales from two thousand years ago have an automatic right of return. Indeed we live in strange times. Anwar the pa is finished.

Mustapha Bunn

Where's Derek?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

The fact is that no Palestinian position that is anything less than a stepping stone to Israel's demise e.g one that include the application of the so-called Law of Return will be accepted by a moslem leadership substantive enough to make it stick...so there can be no peace.

The Guardian and the Palestinianistas will now tend to favour Hamas - with all the implications of that..Well, well, we're in for some fun now...

Perhaps a Hamas coup in the West Bank?

Cool, baby... That will really help the peace process:)))

Ian Hills

I thoroughly recommend CIFWatch, a blog tracking Guardian antisemitism. It's funny and informative.

http://cifwatch.com/

As well as Guardian hate crime, the site mentions Al Jazeera, which the BBC - the Guardian's broadcasting wing - helped set up. It seems that one of its journalists has been imprisoned in Spain for collaborating with Al Qaida. No surprise there, then.

Frumious Falafel

David (comment #1) and Gilbert Belwether: Please read the post by ahad ha'amoratsim <�” he at least has a clear analytical mind. He adroitly mentions, these positions as ostensibly described in the �P-Papers� have been the OPEN and TRANSPARENT positions of *ISRAEL*, *not* the PA!

In this case Abbas and his cohorts ARE telling the truth! *They* more than *you* or *I* know darn well exactly what their �Palestinian Street� will and will *not* accept. Of course the reason they won�t accept these compromises has to do with the PA implementing a 20-year long vicious scholastic program in the schools, starting from the earliest grades to teach (brainwash) their children that they will eventually get ALL of Israel back (what happens to the Jews is either spelled out in blood thirsty language or merely glossed over, as an inconvenient detail).

In any case, Melanie is *merely* echoing *their* statements. Please do *not* attribute to Melanie what Abbas et al are putting forth at a rate of one press release per minute since this broke - that the offers were ISRAELI(!)

Finally, you cannot use the contents of likely false wordings in these papers to turn around to �prove� their veracity! That is buts logically. It is taking a known set of lies and/or distortions to prove the truth of the lies and distortions �” that line of argument makes NO LOGICAL SENSE.

Gilbert Belwether

So according to Melanie, if the Palestinians really were willing to concede practically everything Israel has ever asked for, that's just one more proof of their fundamental dishonesty. Not only were the settlements never a true stumbling block to peace, it turns out there are no stumbling blocks! How mendacious can you get, saying there are stumbling blocks when there aren't any? Those cunning Arabs.

AKUS

I cannot recall an instance in which Erekat told the truth. The man is a congenital liar. What is truly bizarre here is the way the Guardian has accepted these paper at face value even though they show the Arabs in a bad light. Its almost as if they didn't realize that they were actually training their venom on the side they think they support.

Ben Tzur

I endorse Mladin's recommendation to read Barry Rubin's analysis of the "Palestine Papers." Melanie Phillips is one of the very few media commentators who even takes seriously the possibility that it is a al-Jazeera/Hamas hoax, no doubt using some genuine documents, but altering others, switching the names of authors, and simply forging others. Barry Rubin's analysis shows this to be a certainty. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

But one thing is sure: the very fact that it can be an "accusation" against the PA leadership that it was willing in secret negotiations to make some compromises with Israel shows that there can be no realistic hope for peace with the Palestinians. They have simply refused to prepare their own people for that.

And it also shows that while the PA leaders dance around claiming to be genuine peace partners, they are not partners to dialogue at all, rather, Israel is actually dealing with the entire Muslim world's antisemitism and rejectionism, which the PA merely mediates as the Islamist/Arab frontline troops. There can be no peace until the entire Muslim world is ready to make peace. The peace talks are a Palestinian charade.

Grumpy true Zionist

does the quatari government or that desert dwelling'royal family' have have a stake in the guardian, as well as aljazeera

have learnt over the years ...to very simply....just follow the money

Bibi

Ms P. Writes:
“The Islamic world constantly uses it against Israel and the Jews; for example........ claiming a ‘right of return’ (to someone else’s country) in mimicry of the right of return to Israel for Jews”

An interesting sophism......Perhaps Ms P. would explain why she thinks one right is “mandated lying” whilst the other is a self-evident truth?

Neil Craig

Another option is that this is the Palestinian govt flying a kite to see how the people react. If ir were to be formally offered by them it would have to be made public then at which point the Arab "street" would have to be confronted. Now their reaction can be tested while the govt retain plausible deniability.

If so a very hopefull sign. Since the Palestionian govt is actually just the govet of the West Bank who are not in as hopeless a position as Gaza & have lost their previous relatively high standard of living by being cut off from Israel since the Intifada there is a real possibility the people may not riot over these revelations & thus show they are prepared for peace.

Grumpy true Zionist

just follow the money.....and it leads to.... iran

lebenon is on the brink
international tribunal about to finger hizbolla - all the way back to the mullahs in tehran

time to put decoy plan in motion - ie create a distraction elsewhere
and where better than on Israel's eastern flank ie fatagh contolled west bank

now you achieve your (iran,hizbolla,hamas) objective, by bringing down fatagh, and allowing hamas to take control of west bank

and aljazeera/alguardian - they get ringside seats and a pat on the head from their masters in tehran

just a thought

Ed

I thought I'd bust a rib watching this lot tie themselves in knots with their on/off Julian Assange support but this just tops the lot - I'm laughing louder than one of Hamas' Kassam rockets!

And the picture!

Self-Mutilation In The Gulag �“ indeed!

Fernando

"An interesting sophism......Perhaps Ms P. would explain why she thinks one right is “mandated lying” whilst the other is a self-evident truth?"

Because there is not such thing as "Right of return" in International Law, while dozens of countries enact "Right of return" laws for their national groups in their domestic legislations.

That's why.

Harley Braidman

Brilliant as usual. When I think
that Lionel Hetherington, the first editor of the Guardian was an ardent Zionist and close friend of Haim Weizmann, the first President of Israel, one's
mind can only boggle at the Guardian's volte-face. What I think is that today much of the
British and International Media
are objective against Israel.
I saw Melanie Phillips on Israeli TV ten days ago and I can only say that Israeli information services are not only "a joke" as she puts it, but a farce. I speak at first hand, because I worked nearly 30
years for Israel Radio's English
News Section and it was uphill because the powers that be regarded us as broadcasting to
immigrants in Israel and not as
an arm in Israel's battle for survival against enemies who want to wipe us off the map.

Ronnie

Peace process...dead for many years. Move on.

pterodactyl

On Radio 4 lat night they interviewed someone from the Guardian and some representative of the 'Palestinians' who used the interview to rubbish Israel.

The BBC man seemed outraged at the possibility of concessions to Israel.

The BBC reminds me of someone observing a fight and shouting encouragement to one side to stir it up and egg them on.

But one thing to be optimistic about is that the increasing use of the internet as a source of news means that the BBC are being more and more exposed in their bias. This is because those who would normally only hear the BBC/TV media version are, thanks to the internet, now hearing the other side also on this and many other issues, including AGW. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation must be feeling very uncomfortable about the free speech on the internet and does not know how to react; whether to become less biased, which would be unbearable to them, or to just carry on and become more and more despised.

Augustus

"Er, yes, Arafat would be rolling in his grave right now
after what he's hearing about these leaks, and about what this impotent administration, that came after him, is doing,
treating the Palestinians as animals in a farm, and as if they own Palestine and it is their farm..." (Palestinian spokesman on TV)

Oh dear! Problems for the PA. Of course, these revelations are all lies, and the document totally untrustworthy. Erekat says they are lies and half-truths, and by publishing them
Al-Jazeera has 'declared war on the PA'. And Mahmoud Abbas says that he has always kept his brothers informed about the peace negotiations.

The thing is, if these documents
bear any truth they prove without doubt the Israeli charge that they have not been
negotiating with people who speak for all the Palestinians.
You could reach an agreement with Abbas, but you would have to wonder whether any deal would be accepted by Hamas and other Arabic countries. Otherwise why would the revelations be so quickly and categorically denied?

John in Norwich

If the documents are faked then the Guardian will say that it was all the work of the Israeli Secret Services.

Derek BLADES

"It is an uncanny coincidence, is it not, that the offered concessions claimed in these papers mirror almost exactly the concessions offered by Ehud Olmert?"

Not just uncanny but sheer nonsense. It is the Palestinans who offered the concessions - ceding some settlements and part of East Jerusalem. How could these be said to mirror the "concessions offered by Ehud Olmert?"

Incidentally, the concessions offered by Abbas regarding settlements in no way suggest they are not an obstacle to peace. What they show is realism by the Palestinians in the face of Israel's overwhelming force and its brutal disregard for Arab lives.

Bibi

Fernando:
Another sophist! What you mean is that states can give people a "right-of-return" (even to those who have no connection with the land,) but a family whose ancestors lived on the land for generations can be prevented from returning to their village...What interesting moral values you must have...

John Thomas

Pteradactyl, you surely mean the Brazenly Biased Corporation. I'd like to guess they are at this moment helping a Government think tank aimed at devising a system to "screen" the internet, in order the "preserve free speech" (this is Obama-like doublespeak[ eg his words on guaranteeing "freedom" to abort], which I'm sure the BBC mandarins are getting fluent in right now).

Derek BLADES

Sorry folks. There is only one way to read the Guardian’s Palestine Papers. Wikileaks has a one-hundred per cent track record. It leaks genuine documents and the Guardian is a highly professional news orgnisation that will have made its own background checks on the documents.

They are genuine and what they show is the utter hypocrisy of the Israeli leadership when it pretends to want peace in the West Bank. It wants land, more land and, eventually, a one-state, apartheid-style solution. Israel is happy to accept universal opprobrium in pusuit of its landgrab safe in the knowledge that it is fully insured by the Israeli lobby in the United States.

Abbas is honest when he says he wants peace. The Israeli leaders are liars. Any pretence to the opposite is plain silly.

Fernando

I don't "mean" it, I stated very clearly what are the actual laws, since the issue was framed in terms of "right-of-return", which, as the word "right" indicates, is a legal concept.

If you want to discuss it in ethical terms, I'm happy to do so, but then do not forget to mention the 850.000 Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab countries whose communities were inhabiting those lands for hundreds of years before the first Arab showed up.

There are some differences with the Arabs refugees, for example:

Those Jewish refugees didn't start a war, unlike the "Palestinian" "refugees".

Those Jewish refugees have not received any compensation whatsoever, unlike the "Palestinian" "refugees".

Those Jewish refugees are not being funded by my taxes, unlike the "Palestinian" "refugees".

Also, do not forget the millions of Germans refugees ethnically cleansed from East Prussia etc...and in fact do not forget the tens of millions of refugees worldwide since WW2.

Oh, and by the way: the "even to those who have no connection with the land" and the "whose ancestors lived on the land for generations" are pure sophistry on your part, Bibi.

Harvey

As Melanies rightly states , this makes an absolute mockery of every word ever written on the subject of ROR and settlements as being essential to a final Peace Accord .

I trust that Israel and its supporters use every opportunity to remind the rag tag army of delegitimsers that ROR and settlements are only relevant to them and not the PA . It nails the lie that a Peace Agreement depends on either . This should be rammed home at every opportunity .

Steve

Fernando,

Well said.

I cannot understand why those that speak up for Israel almost never mention the hundreds of thousands of Jewish evictees or the large numbers of Jewish people living in Israel even in the Ottoman days. The notion that there is only one set of victims and that all Jews are intruders in that bit of land should be opposed regularly and loudly. There can be no worthwhile debate at all without recognizing these facts.

Celato

I'm somewhat baffled by the is-it-true-ain't-it-true theorizing in Melanie's blog.

Among the reasons for my confusion is the inter-splattering of this discussion with speculation on the Guardian's 'stuffing' of itself.
So I'm going to ignore the Guardian issue for the moment in an attempt to unravel.

Hopefully someone will put me right if the following analysis is askew:

From what I can discern, either secret concessions were made by the Palestinian Authority negotiators and rebuffed by Israel; or no such concessions were made and the 'Palestinian Papers' are an elaborate hoax.

If the former transpires to be the case - i.e, the Papers are a genuine record of Palestinian concessions - the leaker had one of three possible motives:

1. To 'show up' Israel as intransigent - unwilling to concede an inch and then backtracking when its conditions were met.

2. Embarrass the PA negotiators - expose them as weaklings going against the grain of Palestinian public opinion.

3. Place a truthful account on record - 'clear the air' and test public opinion in the hope of spurring future talks which were honest, open and realistic.

If, however, the Papers are a hoax, only the first two possible motives hold good for the leaker, plus this one as a modification of the third:

To 'fly a kite' and see what responses there were to such concessions being on offer.

In view of the REPORTED responses (so far) the main parties to 'benefit' from the leaks seem to be Israel and Hamas. Any criticism flying in Israel's direction of 'intransigence' has been deflected - even drowned out - by embarrassed denials from the PA negotiators; Hamas, meanwhile, can hurl 'sell-out' accusations against PA negotiators if the Papers prove to be true and 'Israeli stitch-up' allegations if the Papers are a hoax.

My guess, for what it's worth, is that Papers are genuine. The leaker wanted to clear the air and pave the way for transparent talks, leading to an agreement in line with the PA negotiators' concessions. He/she misjudged how far this would backfire when the concessions were widely condemned as 'weakness' - a pratfall fully anticipated by the negotiators, which was why they'd kept their rejected concessions secret and now denied having made them.

Result: Both Hamas and Israel are rubbing their hands; and it's only the hapless PA negotiators who are 'stuffed'...

Bibi

Fernando:
It may be news to you but a claim can be either a moral claim or a legal claim....You are at liberty to stick legalities, I prefer universal moral values.

Palestinian refugees and your 850,000 Jewish refugees have an equally valid claim to be allowed to return to their ancestoral homelands. The Jewish refugees did not start a war, but then neither did the Palestinian refugees.

Most Jewish refugees, however, were minorities in the land of their fathers and were not subject to a massive alien immigration designed to remove their right to self-determination.

ahad ha'amoratsim

John in Norwich "If the documents are faked then the Guardian will say that it was all the work of the Israeli Secret Services.
" Some in the Arab street are now saying just that, that Al Jazzera is a willing tool of America and the Zionists, and made up these fabrications in order to split the Palestinians.

Augustus

Celato - See Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews.com
Heading:- Leaked Documents: PA Gave Israel Most of Jerusalem by
Elad Benari.

Grumpy true Zionist

oops...sorry folks
appears some useful idiot believes that the (sound the horns)'palistine papers' are ex wikileaks and therefore 100% factual
trouble is, nowhere (not aljezeera/guardian) does it say that these 'documents'are leaked from that source ie wikileaks

just thought i'd help derek understand that little detail'so he won't make a fool of himself.. again

Mustapha Bunn

Derek,I was with you until you said,"the Guardian is a highly professional news organisation",now I think that I will go and tidy my sock drawer.

Marianne Conley

Good article, Melanie.
Strange, isn't it, that nobody seems able or willing to investigate whether the documents are true. After the Guardian's rush to involve Jews/Zionists with the Wikileaks"perfidy", and Israel/Jews were never in that fight -and that failed, then yes, you are right - they are stuffed. About time.

Augustus

Grumpy - Quite right. In his haste yet again to paint Israel black Derek Blades has shot himself in the foot. These Palestine Papers, of which there
are purported to be 1600, were not leaked by WikiLeaks to Al-Jazeera. However, Wikileaks is intending to post some hundreds
of thousands of American diplomatic cables, some of which
involve Israel, in the next few days. Israel may face some diplomatic embarrassment, but so will several other countries.

Reuven

Murk abounds here, as Melanie says, and the Guardian are up to their neck in it. How they will come out of the slippery mess remains to be seen, let alone the Palestinians.

C.Gee

"I do love the way that in all of this, you fail to address the point that Israel turned the offer down."

David,

I would be very grateful if you could point to the Palestinian Papers in which these "concessions" were presented as an offer to the Israelis, and when that occurred. Then perhaps you would refer me to when Israel turned it down.

Herzen

Take the sagacious advice of C. Gee.

Unless we have a sworn affidavit from the Israeli government, how can we know what was offered it?

Until the Israeli government tells you all what to think, better to hold off firing your blunderbusses every which way.

Thank you, C. Gee. We can leave it at that.

C.Gee

Celato,

In countering the Al Jazeera/Guardian revelations one does not need to hypothesize that the documents are a hoax. They can be genuine and still not prove that the Palestinians gave "concessions"; that these concessions were taken to Israel; that that Israel refused them; that they were not abandoned by the Palestinians themselves; or would not be abandoned during negotiations when push came to shove. As far as I can see, the documents do not provide sufficient evidence of any of this, let alone all of it. Without that evidence the story of intransigent, duplicitous Israel and beleaguered, earnest Abbas fails. As does any story that Abbas has betrayed his cause.

The characterization of the positions as “concessions” forming an offer made and rejected by the Israelis - is a story put upon the Papers by Al Jazeera. What motivated Al Jazeera to concoct that spin is not too hard to guess at, but one does not need to examine motives to show the spin. The documents themselves do not support the story.

In fact the documents could be given an altogether different spin: Abbas, as leader of Fatah (and that is what he is leader of, not the Palestinian people) never deviated from the bad faith demanded by his organization in his conducting of peace negotiations with Israel: negotiate, but never sign away our rights.

Were I a newspaper looking into the story put out by Al Jazeera, I would like to see:

- the documents where the claim is made that they took the concessions to the Israelis, then verification of this in records of the negotiations with the Israelis from all sources.
- documents where the claim is made that the Israelis turned them down, and when.
documents where the Palestinians explain on what grounds the Israelis turned them down. Verification and cross-checking of these Palestinian claims with other statements by the Palestinian negotiators and with Israeli records.
an evaluation of how the ‘Negotiating Support Unit‘ is constituted, what its political role is and whether the minutes reflect what was actually said, or a glossed account which positions the speakers - and the unit - correctly for the historical record. In reading minutes of this Unit, one gets the impression that one is witnessing a soviet committee at work: each comrade is afraid that every other comrade might catch him deviating from the party line and denounce him and displace him. There is none of the candor one might expect among negotiating advisors and their negotiators, and certainly no unambiguous adoption of “concessions”. When AM says “it is illogical” to demand the return of a million refugees, he is saying that it is a pointless negotiating demand, not that it is a concession, not that he has agreed to forfeit the right of return. Everybody in the room would use and understand such code. We see the typical inner workings of a totalitarian system. One can sympathize with AM’s outrage that the very thing he tried to avoid - an interpretation of his statements that he is betraying the cause - has come about.
an independent translator verify the Al Jazeera translations of the documents are correct.

One may step outside the documents to discount the Al Jazeera story. The recent history of negotiations shows time and again that an agreement, with hard compromises from both sides, is in the bag, that it merely awaits signatures, only to have it be abandoned. So far, the evidence points to Palestinian balking. The reasons given are always that the positions described as “concessions” by the Palestinians (and “demands” by the Israelis, which, given the power balance, is perverse) are too onerous and conflict with the inalienable rights of the Palestinians: to their ancestral homeland; to the right of return; to resistance. Sometimes they give procedural reasons: they never the saw the maps, the maps were given to them late, the maps shown did not give as much land as the Israelis claimed, the settlements after all take up too much space.

One explanation for the Palestinian bosses’ behavior is that any “concessions” resulting in an actual peace would be justification for their rivals in Fatah and for Hamas (a rival organization) to topple them, on behalf of that useful, angry, imaginary electorate, Arab public opinion. If they wish to stay in power, they must fulfill the statesman role expected of them by the world and negotiate for a state, but never deliver it, for fear of their rivals ousting or even offing them. The negotiating process must be justified to the rivals ( as avatars of Arab public opinion) as part of the “resistance”. This is supported by recent statements by the Palestinians in the wake of the scandal, that the leaks put in jeopardy their successes in “isolating Israel diplomatically”. It is in their interest (which is not to say it might not also be in the Israeli interest, but for different reasons) to spin out the peace process, but never sign a peace treaty. Why else would the Palestinians now be working towards a unilateral declaration of a state with recognition by the UN or individual nations?

Herzen

C.Gee
January 26th, 2011 9:17pm

"The recent history of negotiations shows time and again"...etc. etc. etc.

"I would be very grateful if you could point to" your evidence.

C.Gee

Herzen:

I seem to remember advising you - was it? - to beware of biting yourself with your biting wit.

Now I am even more concerned. You carry a blunderbuss. That is one mother of a persuader. But I'm horribly afraid you might shoot yourself in the foot - the one still in your mouth.

pterodactyl

John Thomas - or maybe it should be the 'Bash Britain Corporation'

As for control of the internet, the dream of the BBC is for the whole of the internet to be controlled in the same way that they control 'Have Your Say'.

Herzen

C. Gee,

"The recent history of negotiations shows time and again"...etc. etc. etc.

"I would be very grateful if you could point to" your evidence.

Okey

Given that under the act of international law of 1922 that decreed, in effect, a Jewish nation-state in the entire area west of the Jordan River, the Arab "Palestinians" are doing no favours in supposedly "giving" this or that territory to Israel.
It is Israel that has already been the magnanimous party to the conflict by giving away the entire Gaza Strip as well as parts of Samaria, and offering to give the Arabs even more territory in Judea.
Most of these self-styled "Palestinians" are second and third-generation illegal aliens who settled in The Land of Israel when the Zionists had turned it into habitable land.

C.Gee

Herzen
January 26th, 2011 10:46pm

I did: "recent history"

Herzen
January 27th, 2011 10:57am

I did: still "recent history".

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

Rich

C. Gee,
Would it not be simpler just to give us the evidence on which you base your "recent history"? I don't quite see why you wouldn't. Why shred your own credibility?

Herzen

I believe C. Gee has been reading previews of Ehud Olmert's memoirs on the subject of the mythical "Generous Offer" (Mark the Umpteenth). The source is an Israeli politician (and a politician of the highest probity) so it must be true. This is his "recent hisotry". Who needs evidence, let alone independent corroboration, (or sworn testimony and "due process") - that is just the humbug and hypocrisy (or "shtick")we use when averting our gaze from inconvenient information that doesn't support our cause.

Has he also been reading the Deputy PM? It appears the Palestinians did indeed make the concessions, they just weren't enough!

Celato

C.Gee:

I do appreciate your very lengthy reply. The core challenges you seem to raise are: (a) whether or not significant concessions were offered by the PA negotiators; (b) if such concessions were offered, did Israel reject them, despite the prospect they presented of a peace settlement?; (c) even if these concessions were actually made and accepted, would they have been honoured?

Such questions, unfortunately, can't be answered conclusively as long as the provenance of the Palestinian Papers remains unclear. The embarrassed denials of the negotiators makes it impossible to confirm either that the reported dialogues took place or to assess the power invested in those who participated.

Perhaps, in the end, the only usefulness of these leaks will be as a 'kite-flying' exercise.

So far, we have heard quite a wide variety of voices, but perhaps the missing one is yours. As a representative of what I see as the 'hard line' in Israeli politics, what would be your response if...

(a) the reported PA concessions transpired to be true; and (b) you believed the PA negotiators making making these concessions were genuine in their desire to deliver?