The Al Jazeera release of documents re Israel/Palestine negotiations is not getting as much coverage as I would have expected. And the coverage all focuses on the effect of disclosure of Palestinian positions to the Palestinian public. No doubt, there is plenty there to consider, and the reactions are important, I think. As one might expect, there is a certain amount of outrage (real and feigned) about the extent of concessions by the PA. Those concessions are interesting -- much more extensive and greater than I would have expected in light of the public positions of the interlocutors. (Of course settlement talks tend to diverge significantly from the public stances.) I don't know whether the concessions were wise, under the circumstances (not saying they were unwise, I just have not come to a conclusion on the question). What is clear to me is that all the talk by Israeli government et al that there was no Palestinian partner was false. The documents show an interlocutor committed to reaching an agreement at the cost of considerable sacrifice. All of which is introduction to what is most interesting to me at this point -- the absence of discussion of the Israeli side of the negotiations. The news coverage on that aspect is very skimpy. Does the material released by Al Jazeera not provide any information about the Israeli responses and offers? Are the reporters not interested? According to the reports I've read, the Palestinian side offered major concessions on land and population -- giving up claims on almost all of Jerusalem and re settlements, gave up any military force, and only a token right of return. What kinds of responses did they get?
My speculation is that the problem for the PA in these documents will be short-lived, and not serious. The revelations will be a long term problem for Israel. I understand that more documents are to come. In any event, it is a much more interesting set of disclosures than the Wikileaks set of diplomatic cables.
Recent Comments