Last week in the JC, Jonathan Freedland asks 'Are Arabs the new Zionists?”.
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/45875/are-arabs-new-z...
He states 'it is now his (Abba Eban's) own people, the Israelis, who have become masters of having a chance - and then blowing it'. He also states 'So did Israel seize on the API, opening talks with it's neighbours based on a “Yes, but...”? It did not'.
Mr Freedland is referring to the Arab Peace Initiative. I am surprised as a journalist that Mr Freedman does not realise that Ehud Olmert did call for a conference to negotiate peace but he was rebuffed by the Arab states. A Saudi source said that there would be no talks before Olmert accepted the API. The Saudi source said the reason was that there was no point in meeting until everyone agreed on the agenda. That appears more like a call for unconditional surrender on a dikat rather than peace or negotiations.
It is also known that the Arabs interpret resolution 194 as granting the right of return of the Palestinian Arab refugees.
There was also the omission of resolution 242. The API revival in 2007 started off the peace process making accusations of Israeli aggression.
Then Mr Freedland goes on to contradict himself in his article is when he states 'And now it is surely too late. The autocratic rulers who backed the API – and who could have forced it through, imposing it on their people if necessary – are now tottering or have been toppled'.
Further into the article, Mr Freedland goes on to state 'More substantially, while peace might be easier to achieve with despots, it is surely only sustainable with democracies. The cold peace with Hosni Mubarak was better than war, but it could not hold forever. If Israel wants a lasting peace with Egypt, it will have to make peace with the Egyptians themselves.'
I cannot help but feel that his Guardian credentials are showing through.