So much for the settlements


By Stephen Pollard
January 24, 2011
Share

JC Contributing Editor Robin Shepherd has a superb post on the so-called Palestine Papers affair.

As he puts it:

To the horror of a European political intelligentsia which has been
steadfast to the point of fanatical in its opposition to Israeli
“settlements” in east Jerusalem, the Palestinian leadership itself, we
now know, has long accepted that the vast majority of Israeli
settlements can be considered legitimate and would become part of
Israel under any reasonable peace agreement.

This is utterly devastating since it simultaneously shows that
everyone from the British Foreign Office and the BBC to the European
Commission and the continent’s passionately anti-Israeli NGO community
have been adopting a position which was significantly more
uncompromising on “settlements” than the Palestinian leadership itself,
and also that that same Palestinian leadership had accepted that the so
called 1967 “borders” — the gold standard for practically every
anti-Israeli polemic around — are irrelevant to the prospects of a
lasting peace.

 

COMMENTS

mattpryor

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 16:36

Rate this:

-1 points

This is utterly devastating since it simultaneously shows that everyone from the British Foreign Office and the BBC to the European Commission and the continent’s passionately anti-Israeli NGO community have been adopting a position which was significantly more
uncompromising on "settlements" than the Palestinian leadership itself

And so too, of course, has the US administration, the most vocal opponents of "settlement" building on the international stage.

Or, to put it another way, the most vocal proponents of a hostile Juhdenrein Arab state within Israel's borders.

The world is being run by madmen. There's no other explanation.

Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:08

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-concessions-in-pales...

Mahmood Abbas is saying that the "documents" REVERSED the Israeli and Palestinian positions.

In other words, it was Israel which was doing the compromising and the Palestinians who were being hardline!

My conclusion: To serious analysts, these documents are worth about as much as the Hitler Diaries were. I'm not saying they are forged but I am saying they are incomplete and that some are transcripts written by people who were not even in the meetings.

newsmax

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:08

Rate this:

0 points

Yes, but even when the Palestinians compromised on settlements in East Jerusalem the Israelis wanted more. More occupation and more blood.
The intransigence of israel has just been further confirmed.

newsmax

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:13

Rate this:

0 points

The easiest way to solve the 'riddle' of these documents would be for israel to release its documents.
Simultaneously Israel coudl return (without the data deleted) all the cameras, laptops, mobile phones taken from the passengers on the Mavi Marmara.
Then we could all look at some alternative footage.

mattpryor

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:39

Rate this:

-1 points

Without officially recognising Israel as the Jewish State any promises made by the Palestinian Authority are not worth the paper they are printed on as far as I'm concerned. Netanyahu was dead right to insist on this.

The "peace" on offer is the peace of Saladin. Not good enough when the future of the Jewish people is at stake, I'm afraid.

raycook

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:51

Rate this:

1 point

@newsmax yes and then when they showed Israel was telling the truth, you and every other Israel hater would say that the Israelis 'doctored' them.

Surely you know that Israel lies and falsifies all documents. You are not saying you would trust the Israelis, are you?

Truth denying ideologues are never satisfied, they'll always find a reason to deny hard evidence at the same time accepting everything those of the same persuasion say without a shred of evidence.

You have also taken the Guardian line that Israel 'wanted more' in the peace negotiations. So you believe that Israel first must accept the Palestinian absolutist position of no compromise and then, when they apparently have offered compromises (even though they deny it) Israel has to bite their hand off.

However, these negotiations were suddenly ended - why? Why did the Palestinians not carry on negotiating with the Netanyahu government starting at the point they left off with Olmert?

Reason: Obama stuck his oar in on settlements and changed the conversation. Possibly. We don't know.

Why should Israel now release documents just because Al Jazeera has released the Palestinan ones - allegedly.
If Ha'aretz had released the Israeli docs, would you be asking the PA to release theirs? Somehow I doubt it. And if they did, everything Israel released would be a lie and everything the PA released would be the truth.

mattpryor

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:57

Rate this:

0 points

Hi Ray, nice to see you. Out of interest, would you describe yourself as "dovish" or "left wing"? I presume like many people in Israel you were supportive of a two-state solution at the time these memos were written?

How would you say the attitude of people like "newsmax" (and other pro-Arab spokespeople) has altered your view? Has it made you more or less likely to trust the international community to guarantee Israel's security and future survival?

raycook

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:08

Rate this:

0 points

@newsmax and how do you explain Pollard's point about settlements? If the PA were prepared to compromise (although they deny it) why has the US, media, Arabs and Palestinians themselves presented this as the main obstruction to peace?

Maybe some of the documents are true - the ones that can be used to denigrate Israel, and some are false, the ones that show the PA in a good light? Is that th ecase?

Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:16

Rate this:

0 points

ha mr pollard is a land grabber who would have thought it ( sic ) the pre 1967 borders are highly relevant because some weak hick negotiator might grovel and offer to accept way less ( only to be turned down by israel whose land grabbing greed is insatiable )means nothing. the only formula for lasting peace is outlined by the EU , the arab league and the entire world, ie pre 1967 borders, jerusalem as a shared capital.

Any " negotiator " who accepted less would be swept away in five minutes

Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:21

Rate this:

1 point

I don't think in my entire life I have witnessed such confused and desperate thrashing around. You are even fighting among yourselves but don't even realise it

Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:27

Rate this:

-1 points

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6644269/has-the-guardian-stuf...

Melanie spot-on as always

mattpryor

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:30

Rate this:

0 points

(Referring of course to A.Q. not Jonathan)

raycook

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 18:36

Rate this:

1 point

@mattpryor

Am I dovish? I am dovish when I see Palestinians negotiating in good faith and prepared to live in peace,mutual security and mutual respect with Israel. All I see is a desire to destroy Israel.

No 1 priority is the security of Israel and its right to exist within recognised borders and an end to the conflict. This means that the PA and the Muslim world has to accept Israel at the end of a negotiated settlement and declare an end to that conflict.

Am I left-wing. I have always been, in UK politics, somewhere towards left of centre and I guess I hope to remain there, but age has a tendency to move you to the right. I see things to admire in much of the left-wing but Israel is a blind spot and that alienates me from people like Benn and Livingstone and even more centre-left figures.

My sympathies within Israeli politics are complex and based on pragmatism and survival. I'm not a big fan of Lieberman, for example, but I think he does make sense sometimes. The far-left and the religious right do not have my political sympathies but each has an important part to play in making Israel a diverse and vibrant society. I was never a big supporter of the settlement of the West Bank but I don't much like the idea of a divided Jerusalem either. Greenline 'settlements' and the Etzion bloc should remain part of Israel and a land swap is not an unreasonable compromise

A 2-state solution is a compromise to end the conflict and ensure Israel remains a Jewish state.

Israel must remain a solid democracy but also has to take actions that democracies sometimes have to take under threat which run counter to democratic ideals.

At the moment the int'l community cannot be trusted to guarantee anyone's survival and the west sometimes appears unwilling to guarantee its own.

Israel's survival will only be seen as important to the West when they see it as being important to their own interests. So at the moment I don't trust them.

Israel's survival is less secure than ever before.

People like newsmax have not changed my mind, they just make me feel angry and frustrated. I don't much like ideologues of any stripe but neither do I like ad hominem attacks. He's entitled to his views. This is a democracy still.

If you want to know more, read my blog at http://www.raymondcook.net (plug plug)

Armchair Quarterback

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 19:37

Rate this:

1 point

"Israel must remain a solid democracy but also has to take actions that democracies sometimes have to take under threat which run counter to democratic ideals."

That is code for what exactly Ray ?

amber

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 19:57

Rate this:

-1 points

Don't you dare armchair - youi demand answers from others, when you consistently run away when you are challenged.

You're such a hypocrite.

amber

Mon, 01/24/2011 - 19:59

Rate this:

-1 points

newsmax says the Israelis wanted "more blood".

You are a disgusting Jewbaiter.

raycook

Tue, 01/25/2011 - 14:01

Rate this:

0 points

@newsmax 'code' for having to do things like targeted killings of terrorists, building fences, waging wars to pre-empt attacks or to quash those determined to destroy it, blowing up Iraqi nuclear plants ...

No other country is existentially threatened, some actions are justified in these circumstances though all are debatable in a democracy.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    FOLLOW ME

    LATEST COMMENTS