The Guardian and Al-Jazeera Great Deception -Ben Dror Yemini

The Guardian and Al-Jazeera Great Deception

Palestinian documents that were leaked were presented as a historic political turnabout. New research reveals the fact that it's a fraud

(The article - in Hebrew - was originally published in Maariv, daily newspaper, March 25, 2011)

By Ben-Dror Yemini

For brief moments we lived under the illusion that something is happening, or perhaps in the opposite direction. Only in January Al Jazeera and The Guardian loudly announced the most significant step in Palestinian history: giving up, in fact, on the right of return. This change, as I wrote then, should be blessed. But it was a short-lived illusion. It's not just the reality of rocket fire on Ashkelon and Ashdod, the massacre in Itamar and the terror attack in Jerusalem. The story goes deeper.

A new study of an American Christian organization (not evangelical), researched all the 1700 leaked documents, which unfortunately, I couldn't do despite my true will to do so. Well, the conclusion from that research is the opposite. Not only that the Palestinians did not agree to any concessions in this matter they also fooled everyone. False display of moderation, which I wish was true, but it's still far away. So that all those who had difficulty with the Palestinian conciliatoriness: The Guardian and Gideon Levy (who claimed that the documents prove that the Palestinians "are selling their souls to the devil"), the Hamas and Al - Jazeera - can relax. Palestinians have not really given up.

Or have they? It "˜s quite impossible that The Guardian will publish a huge headline announcing "Palestinians agreed only 10,000 refugees could return to Israel". After all, this is a serious newspaper. In the same announcement, on the newspaper web site appears a link (like web links on this blog) to the Palestinian document that allegedly points to the concession. But the link does not lead to anything. Nothing. I thought it was a mistake. After all, mistakes are human. Our blog also had damaged links that readers complained about and then the errors were corrected. But since it's been about 2 months since the publication we can assume that someone told The Guardian that something is wrong with the link. After all, I can't be the first one to notice that.

For reasons of caution, I turned to Ian Black: the editor for the Middle East section of The Guardian He was signed not only on the specific announcement, but also on many admonitions to Israel following the leaked documents. Even though he isn't pro - Israeli, Black is considered to be a serious journalist. He is not as verbally hostile as Robert Fisk from The Independent or Gideon Levy from Haaretz. I asked Black: Where does the amazing title about only 10,000 refugees come from? I sent him the study, claiming opposite things. I hoped he would provide me with a proof. After all, if the published an information that is true – it's a historical change in direction. But the days passed. Black chose not to respond. I bothered to search for a proof myself. Thus, there is one document, in which Erekat claims that the Palestinians have agreed to an amount of 15,000 refugees to return to Israel per year. Continuing for a period of ten years. There are three problems with this document: First, the Palestinians never accepted such a number of returnees during the negotiations. The document was referred to the Europeans, when Netanyahu was already the prime minister, in order to pretend Palestinian moderation. Second, the document contains an obstacle, which deals with the renewable right to return. Third, it is clarified in all the documents, during the negotiations, that this is a matter of a personal right to return "that is not subject to negotiations". And in other documents the Palestinians are trying to set the scientific "absorptive capacity" of Israel and reach a number of 1,016,511 refugees. Indeed, a display of moderation.

It should also been mentioned that it's not the first time the Palestinian leadership pretend to be moderate after time, but not when during the negotiations. Arafat rejected the Clinton plan, but tow years later regretted his on rejection.

The main person in the story is Erekat. He is playing with everyone, and becomes in an act of wonders, a moderate. And so, The Guardian, in another headline that supposedly proves the previous one, heralded an even more dramatic shift: "The Palestinians agree to define Israel as a Jewish state." And so again I turned to the reference. That has again proved to be nonexistent. So where does the headline come from? Well, Erekat said to Livni's exactly the same thing that Abu-Mazen claims when he tries to explain why he does not accept the demand: "Define yourself the way you desire." There is a very big difference between such evasion and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. But you can count on The Guardian that must show the Palestinians as moderates in order to show the Israelis refusing.

So the Palestinians have two approaches: First towards Americans and Europeans where they occasionally present moderation. And this happens only when they do not have to respond to Israel's proposals. The second is exposed in formulating the position towards Israel. For example, in an internal memo, the advisory team displays a clear position to negotiate much more: Resistance to the solution of "two states for two peoples", because that could be come with the recognition of the Jewish people, God forbid, maybe even people of Israel as it is defined in Hebrew. It is clarified there, that any right to Jewish self-determination would harm the Palestinian right to return to Palestine. This is the display of the dual position. A moderate attitude to the West, and blunt resistance to the formula of "two states for two peoples", and to any implied consent for such arrangement, as it indicated in the Oslo agreements or other agreements. Meaning that the attitude is harder as oppose to previous agreements.

Erekat himself settled the dispute. Was there or wasn't there a moderation? Thus, in an argument that broke out later in the Palestinian arena, Erekat bothered to clarify unequivocally: "The so-called" Palestine papers "have not revealed a single official agreement or document that offers concessions" Unfortunately, the documents prove that Erekat is right.
It also seems that Abu Mazen cleared things out. After all, he received a firm, extremely conceding offer from Olmert. And what was the answer, in the words of the qualified Palestinian leader? Well - Abu Mazen said to Jackson Diehl from Washington Post that the problem of Olmert's proposal is that it lacks a right to return in "large scale".

So how and why were they able to fabricate one of the largest frauds of the political process? Well, Al – Jazeera's goal was to embarrass the Palestinian Authority. The Guardian's goal was to embarrass Israel. All to argue "the documents reveal the depth of Palestinian concessions rejected by Israel." Deception was successful, not only Haaretz was drafted, even I was convinced that there are signs of change.

Palestinian twist, if indeed there was one, should be blessed. But unfortunately, there was no such thing. There was a deception, and this should be exposed.

Ben-Dror Yemini is a researcher, lecturer and a journalist (bdyemini@gmail.com)