|
By BICOM
28.1.2011
via BICOM (click for original)
Some in the Guardian appear to have a perception of what the basis of an agreement should be
which is out of touch with the reality of where an agreement can actually reached. They seem
outraged by concessions long regarded as necessary for a two-state solution. They also seem
desperate to portray statements in a negative light, regardless of the context and actual words,
which often tell a different story.
The reality is that agreement needs to be made based on what the parties can agree between
them, what the two societies will back, and what can be sustainably implemented. At no point
since Oslo has anyone thought that a final status accord is possible without the kinds of
compromises envisaged in these negotiations. As such, describing the Palestinians as ‘craven’ on
the basis of the concessions described here is a mistaken reading of the evidence. The real
picture is a complex one, of both sides showing some flexibility in certain key areas, whilst
standing firm on other issues where they feel they cannot compromise.
Seen in their proper context, the real story of the negotiations that seems to come out of these
documents is not all that remarkable. It is a partial account of an effort on both sides to explore
ways to reach an agreement that was cut short by Israeli elections and Operation Cast Lead. It
shows a degree of seriousness, methodological rigour and attention to detail from both parties
that was not before known. It tells us that in negotiations many things are said, often for tactical
or political reasons, but it is hard to discern from partial records the exact nature of what was
and was not agreed. Whilst those interested in the politics of the region will understandably be
fascinated by this glimpse behind the curtain, this should not be confused for genuine insight
and true appreciation for what actually transpired. Both sides sought to advance their interests,
but showed a willingness to explore compromises. Surely, these efforts should be encouraged
rather than sneered upon. One can only hope that the possibility of agreement that these
documents indicate, is not drowned out by the misleading and callous reporting about them.
To continue reading, click here. |
