Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DIE, PARADIGM, DIE!
Noah Pollak is concerned that the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in Annapolis might subvert the dominant paradigm:
"The risk is that if and when the peace conference fails — these events do not exactly have a promising track record — Israel will have set itself up to be blamed for the debacle, and we will then witness a reversal of the paradigm that has been dominant during the past seven years, since the failure of the Clinton-Arafat-Barak negotiations at Camp David in 2000. That summit was certainly a failure in delivering a peace agreement, but in historic and diplomatic terms it was actually something of a victory -- it demonstrated to every fair-minded observer that Yasser Arafat and his minions were not actually serious about peace. For American policymakers, the conflict was thus cast in a stark light, and Israel thereafter enjoyed a great deal of latitude in defeating the terror war that the Palestinians launched in 2000, and more generally in achieving for Israel the perception -- a correct one, I think -- that it had made an unprecedented and genuinely good-faith attempt at ending the conflict.America, Israel, and the Palestinians have just set out on the most ambitious peacemaking project since Camp David in 2000, and Palestinian strategists are well aware of what has come into play -- namely, the ability to chip away at the idea that Israel is a constructive partner for negotiations. Israel's reluctance to agree to timelines and specifics that it knows the Palestinians cannot fulfill will thus be portrayed as Israeli bad faith, and if not played correctly Israel could suffer a serious diplomatic and public relations defeat."
I appreciate Pollak's attempt to speak for the views of "every fair-minded observer," (yes, nothing says "fair-minded" like a reference to Arafat's "minions") but the actual consensus among scholars (as well as participants who, unlike Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross, weren't looking for someone to blame for the failure of what was intended to be their crowning diplomatic achievement) is that there were serious failures on both sides of the table, and moreover that Arafat was arguably justified both in refusing what was offered him at Camp David, and in recognizing that Barak's offer at Taba was essentially a dead letter (That is, Arafat refused to agree to timelines and specifics that he knew Barak could not fulfill, which the Israelis then portrayed as bad faith.) There is a rather substantial literature on this subject, of which Pollak is apparently unaware, or more likely simply ignores because it threatens to intrude on his Manichaean fantasy of peace-loving Israel and warlike, duplicitous Arabs.
It is unfortunately correct that the "Arafat refused peace!" myth has become the dominant paradigm in regard to the way the Israel-Palestine conflict is presented in U.S. media. In the wake of the failure of the Camp David and Taba negotiations, Israel's apologists (with the aid of Bill Clinton, who publicly blamed Arafat for the talks' failure after explicitly promising beforehand that he would not, in the event that the talks failed) constructed an entire propaganda framework around the contention that Arafat's "refusal" proved that Israel had "no partner for peace." This has been hauled out to defend every questionable Israeli act since 2000, to propagate the ridiculous idea that it is Israel, with the most powerful military in the region, who is under siege, to obscure the brutal reality of Israel's occupation and the provocative, illegal settlements that the occupation facilitates, and to effectively retroactively discredit the peace process itself. This is one paradigm that can't be subverted soon enough.
--Matthew Duss
COMMENTS (18)
Right! Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross are biased--unlike your trusted source from Beirut.
Posted by: bmz | October 5, 2007 9:44 AM
The point is almost irrelevant. There was no follow-up at the same level and intensity. Why wasn't there another attempt -- at Camp David led by the president?
The question is obvious. The presidency of George Bush is marked not only by the various disasters that we're all too familiar with, but with an extraordinary loss of opportunities whether that be global warming or, in this case, mid-east peace.
Yet another thing for Bush's successor to take up.
Posted by: leo | October 5, 2007 10:07 AM
'the "Arafat refused peace!" myth'
Which unfortunately isn't a myth at all, because that's precisely what he did. Talk about an inability to be fair-minded.
Posted by: Vidor | October 5, 2007 10:44 AM
My understanding as a relatively neutral outsider is that the problem wasn't so much that Arafat turned down Barak's offer, as that he refused to negotiate in good faith by coming up with a counter-offer.
Posted by: The Navigator | October 5, 2007 10:53 AM
Re. Navigator's point: Yes, Arafat bears some responsibility for not having come up with a counteroffer, but he had been reluctant to come to Camp David because he said that he wasn't ready; he went to the negotiations only on Clinton's promise that he wouldn't be blamed if the talks failed. The Palestinian Authority, after all, wasn't a real government of a real country, with the extensive and sophisticated staff support capable of formulating a necessarily complex proposal in a short amount of time.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 11:19 AM
'The Palestinian Authority, after all, wasn't a real government of a real country, with the extensive and sophisticated staff support capable of formulating a necessarily complex proposal in a short amount of time.'
Excuses.
Posted by: Vidor | October 5, 2007 11:31 AM
I know the spelling is different, but isn't it a rule of thumb that anyone named pollack is incapable of telling the truth?
Posted by: benjoya | October 5, 2007 11:34 AM
sorry,my bad; that's the kagan rule
Posted by: benjoya | October 5, 2007 11:36 AM
Which unfortunately isn't a myth at all, because that's precisely what he did. Talk about an inability to be fair-minded.
And your support for this is what, exactly?
Posted by: T. Paine | October 5, 2007 11:44 AM
The Palestinians were dead men walking into the negotiations. US negotiator Aaron David Miller's revelation afterward that too often the US acted as "Israel's lawyer" says it all. So much for honest brokering.
Posted by: eskaydee | October 5, 2007 11:59 AM
'And your support for this is what, exactly?'
What actually happened, instead of the excuse-making for Arafat that we see in the main post and some of these comments. To review, Yasser Arafat was offered 94% of the West Bank outside of Jerusalem, and all of the Gaza Strip. He rejected it. It was a colossal blunder that his people will suffer for for God only knows how long. But one thing we can count on is that for however long they suffer, there will still be people making excuses for Arafat's successors and recoiling at the notion of holding Palestinian leaders to anything remotely close to the standards of conduct or levels of accountability Israeli leaders are held to.
Posted by: Vidor | October 5, 2007 12:29 PM
Arafat wasn't offered 94% of the occupied areas. If you would bother to read about these things, you would find out that there is no consensus on how much of the occupied areas Barak was ready to withdraw from. From the Palestinian side I have seen 83%, from the Israeli side 58%, 67%, 90%, 92%, 95% and 98%. In most of these a small area (2-3% of the occupied areas) that would have been joined to the Gaza strip is included. What Arafat wanted was 100% of the occupied areas; some settlements near the Green Line would have been given to Israel and it would have compensated by giving over an area of equal size. There was some willingness to accept this on the Israeli side, but Dennis Ross opposed it. He himself later wrote that Palestinians didn't need even that amount (22% of the British Palestine) of land, whereas Jews did need as much land as possible.
Also, Barak wasn't ready to accept really independent Palestine. He wanted Israel to control the borders, air space and water resources of the statelet, thus making the claim of independence a joke.
Lastly, Barak wasn't ready to accept any kind of decent deal when it comes to refugees. As much as USA wants to think that Israel can do whatever it wants, the fact is that if Israel is not forced to follow international laws and UN resolutions on refugees, then others should not either.
Posted by: Justme1 | October 5, 2007 12:42 PM
Wait, he wasn't offered 100% of what he wanted? Well, then clearly the right thing to do was take 0%, go home, and piss away the best opportunity the Palestinian people have ever had.
Posted by: Vidor | October 5, 2007 2:17 PM
What actually happened, instead of the excuse-making for Arafat that we see in the main post and some of these comments.
Wow, some guy on the internet! You're an awfully persuasive source! Meanwhile, we have actual, y'know, reporting on the issue linked to in the original post.
The basics are:
-Israel maintains control of airspace
-Israel controls the borders
-Israeli roads would cut through the Palestinian "state," preventing territorial unity
-The Palestinians would be denied a military
-Some Israeli settlements would remain in place
-No land swap to adequately compensate the Palestinians for lost territory.
That's not a "generous offer" or a two-state solution, that's a recipe for more of the same.
If you think that's a good deal, I have a very nice bridge to sell you. Just send me a check - I promise you'll like it.
Posted by: T. Paine | October 5, 2007 2:36 PM
Sorry...this is too simple. did arafat make ANY offer or counter offer at either Camp David or Taba...the answer, as you know, is no.
you need to stop writing about this. you make all progressives who actually believe in a two state solution looking like flaming maniacs
Posted by: A bored reader | October 5, 2007 6:12 PM
'Just send me a check - I promise you'll like it.'
No, that's OK. I'd rather stay home and get nothing, ever.
Just the fact that some liberals can compare the offer made to Arafat to a fictional bridge is ridiculous, and shows the limitless amount of excuse-making and ass-covering that folks will engage in for the Palestinians. Arafat was recklessly stupid. He pissed away a golden chance. Those are the facts. But by all means, let's continue to cast Israel as evil, and never hold the Palestinians to any standard, ever.
Posted by: Vidor | October 6, 2007 9:04 AM
"Arafat was recklessly stupid. He pissed away a golden chance. Those are the facts."
No, those are your opinions. We get it. Now shut up.
Posted by: brewmn | November 5, 2007 2:40 PM
To A Bored Reader:
Yes, there was a Palestinian counteroffer after Camp David and at Taba.
As Robert Wright writes (from the linked article in Slate)...
In any event, depicting the Palestinian silence at Camp David as signifying opposition to a two-state solution doesn't mesh well with subsequent events. In the ensuing months, Palestinian negotiators got quite explicit about their position. By the time of the Taba negotiations, they were drawing maps and talking numbers: Israel could annex 3 percent of the West Bank and compensate Palestine with the same amount of land from Israel proper.
***
Also, a map of the Palestinian counteroffer:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/maps/taba_proposals_palcounter_1.html
Posted by: Anonymous | November 6, 2007 2:47 AM