New York Times reporter Isabel Kershner writes a news analysis of why "peace talks" between Israel and the Palestinians are at a virtual standstill, despite the "upbeat atmosphere" in Washington following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama's recent meeting.
When she attempts to contextualize the "peace talks," Kershner throws in this misleading history:
Mr. Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert made a far-reaching proposal in late 2008 to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. It included an Israeli withdrawal from 93.5 percent of the West Bank, with land swaps and a safe route for Palestinian travel between Gaza and the West Bank making up the other 6.5 percent of the land area that Israel won in 1967.
The notion that Mahmoud Abbas rejected a generous offer in 2008 is a commonly heard media trope: Last year, Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post called the proposal a "a generous outline for Palestinian statehood," and the Post's editorial board described it as a "far-reaching peace offer."
But the proposal was only "generous" or "far-reaching" from the official Israeli perspective. The Olmert plan would have had Israel annex illegal settlement blocs as well as reject the Palestinian "right of return," a position firmly grounded in international law. The “far-reaching” proposal actually would have required Palestinians to give away rights guaranteed to them, and would create a series of Palestinian islands surrounded by Israeli settlements.
Kershner also omits important context about Olmert's term as Prime Minister that would make it understandable as to why Palestinians did not act immediately on the proposal. This July 2009 Mondoweiss post quotes Ori Nir from Americans for Peace Now on settlement activity during Olmert's term:
-While Olmert held final-status negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas (between the Annapolis Conference in November 2007 and the end of his term), there was a 43% increase in construction-starts in settlements.
-During Olmert's term as prime minister, 4,560 new housing units were constructed in settlements and 1,523 new tenders were issued for new housing units.
-Almost 1,500 new housing units were constructed east of the separation barrier (not in settlement blocs).
-Some 560 new structures were built in illegal outposts during Olmert's term.
-None of the illegal outposts in the West Bank were removed during Olmert's term.
In addition, Olmert's offer kept the majority of Israeli settlements and infrastructure in the West Bank, and would have resulted in permanent apartheid in the West Bank.
Kershner's reading of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is really nothing new. Looking back at the failed Camp David talks in 2000, the U.S. press repeatedly referred to the Israeli offer in similarly glowing terms, even though that proposal, too, would have made impossible a contiguous Palestinian state and had no basis in international law.
This post originally appeared at the national media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's blog.
I’m repeating this for the benefit of the two-staters.
I much prefer the one-state concept, on moral grounds. However, if you are so certain it won’t work, I have a suggestion. Palestine should be divided into two states.
One will be a secular, democratic state in which all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, will have equal rights and equal responsibilities.
The other will be a Jewish State for those people who really want such a thing. It should take up no more than 22% of the territory between the river Jordan and the sea. It will have an enclave in West Jerusalem, connected by a land corridor to the rest of the state, which will be established in the south so that Eilat can be the sea-port.
It will, by the treaty which establishes it, be forbidden to have a military, or any weaponry aside from small arms for the police. The U.N. will guarantee its security.
Any non-Jew residing in the area will be free to leave, and will receive generous compensation and assistance in resettlement.
Any non-Jew remaining in the territory will accept second-class citizenship and acknowledge that the state is to be run by Jews for Jews, so that the Jews can get on with the main business of annoying each other.
That would be a bit more fair than the proposals that have been put forward up to now.
Shameless. We had a long discussion on one of these articles about the number of Holocaust victims the other day. This deceit, constant deceit, brazen, shameless lies – this is why I don’t put much stock in anything, anything that supports Israel or the concept of a “Jewish state, ” and for sure, that 6 million Holocaust number is the big deal of it all. I think its been shoved down our throats my entire life. If you don’t believe that, its supposed to be so terrible except that the people pushing that it and insisting its so important it has to be on our minds every day are a bunch of liars! Whatever they’re saying, theres a darned good chance they’re lying. If it serves whatever they see as their interest, they lie about it. And they’ll kill for it, either doing the dirty job themselves or by proxy getting our useful idiot politicians to attack Muslim countries.
BERTHE- The six million Holocaust number is a reasonable estimate, certainly within the ballpark. The lie is the denigration by omission of the World War II Gentile deaths conservatively estimated at over 45 million. If six million deaths is a “Holocaust,” why is 45 million plus not worth mentioning?
How can a reasonable person trust that number knowing that in the countries where it happened, anyone who would dispute the official version risks a prison sentence? Reasonably, I have to infer that the reason those laws were put in place was that there were people disputing the official version. Logically, I have to infer that the laws were put in place in order to absolutely shut down dissent that was being voiced at the time. Those countries needed capital to rebuild, the dissenters were a monkey wrench in their plans and so they shut down dissenters with those laws. That must have been how it went.
And then on top of that theres all this deceit all the time in the service of Israel, vicious deceit that has gotten many people killed, maybe millions with the Iraq war that the deceit pushed us into. And wants to kill more. I’m trying to say that the lack of integrity is amazing. I START from the premise that everything could be a lie because theres so much shameless lying.
The legal bans were part of the attempt to repress neo-Nazis, of course, though it may still be that those who were banned had no decent arguments anyway.
Raoul Hilberg, who led us towards the 6 million figure, was an honest and conscientious man and a very careful researcher, or so everyone seems to say. Keith is right to talk about reasonable estimates, though I feel uneasy about treating an estimate as somewhere between a hard fact and a religious dogma.
If a convincing book were to be written saying ‘It was much worse than we thought; there were really 8 million victims’, we would not for that reason be any more convinced than we are now that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is just. So if the figure of 6 million were to be massively dented, taken down to 2 million (say), would the reasons used by Israel (democratic elections, UN resolutions, Bible and more Bible) become objectively less convincing than they currently are?
Is debate over WW2 really that important for the debate over Palestine?
Yes, obviously. Ahmadinejad goes around the world meeting leaders and getting his photograph taken with them, smiling. But an American president could not shake his hand because he is a “Holocaust denier.” The American people are told, have been told for years, that because Ahmadinejad is a “Holocaust denier,” he is crazy and if he had a nuclear bomb, he might use it, because he is crazy because he is a “Holocaust denier.” So, we might want to bomb Iran. And “Holocaust denier” is defined by non-acceptance of the 6 million number.
Regarding Mr. Hilberg, I don’t think its reasonable to rely on one historian, especially knowing that all historical debate on the subject is shut down by law in the countries where it occurred. I came across the other day an article about someone tried in Europe under those laws and he could not put on a defense because what he would say in his defense – that he believed his own theories because of such and such evidence – would get him charged and tried again and his lawyer could not put on a defense because his lawyer would be charged under those laws.
I looked up Wikipedia and even Mr. Hilberg was denied access to the Yad Vashem archives by Israeli authorities.
Berthe, it’s not the number “six million”, it’s the fact that Zionists use the number in certain contexts. If the number was changed to any figure other than say 100 would it really make much difference?
And if the six million number is correct, how does that validate any ZIonist thinking?
Don’t get hung up on that number, it’s not worth it.
Remembering [unfortunately the 2nd link is dead now]:
In May 2008:
Probe increases calls for Israeli leader to resign
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS — Published: May 10, 2008
link to www2.timesdispatch.com
and
“…He had already resigned (in late July 2008) and was conducting the negotiations as prime minister of a caretaker government.
…According to Erekat, Olmert’s term ended before Abbas could formulate a counter-proposal…”
link to haaretz.com
Wow, only 100-93.5=6.5% would be Israeli (well, Gaza got 100% – and they’re still complaining). You know, inmates also have like 95% of the plan of a jail. The other space is for their cell-walls.
This is reminiscent of the cacopahny over Camp David .The failure was blamed on Palestinian leaders despite assurances that no blame game would be started by each sides. But Clinton dutifully after acting as “Israeli lawyers” blamed Arfat for rejecting the most genrous offer ever made by Israel.
For Israel , there is always yesterday to blame Palestine for what Israel is doing today.