tisdag 25 januari 2011

Analys av innehållet i Al-Jazeera dokumenten (uppdaterad)

En analys av dokumenten som Al-Jazeera publicerat skriven av Herb Keinon kan läsas här: Analysis: Reading between the PaliLeaks lines
Enligt Keinon: Inte mycket ny information, oklart varifrån informationen kommer och hur den redigerats och en oroväckande reaktion från de palestinska ledarnas sida: Vi har inte gjort några eftergifter och kommer aldrig att göra några.

Uppdaterar med några länkar:
SCOOP: Explaining How The "Palestine Papers" Story Is A Fabrication That Teaches Us The Truth (Barry Rubin)

The selling of the 'Palestine Papers' (Jackson Diehl)

Wailing over the Palestine Papers (Benny Morris)

Wiki-Palestine (Michael Freund)

Herb Keinon:

"It is not clear if, or how, "The Palestine Papers" were edited, and very little new information can be found in the documents.

- First, WikiLeaks it ain’t.
While many of the US diplomatic cables published on the WikiLeaks site were written by relatively objective US observers in capitals around the world, the PaliLeaks documents were written by a party to the negotiations – invested in the negotiations – who present a Palestinian perspective of events that transpired.

- It is not clear if, or how, the documents were edited.
With the WikiLeaks cables, one reads the entire US diplomatic cable, complete with all the diplomatic shorthand (like GOI for Government of Israel).Here, the reader does not know exactly what kind of document one is reading – whether it is the full document, or if not, what has been left out.

- The Israeli public does not pay enough serious attention to what the Palestinians say.
One of the glaring elements in the documents has to do with the Palestinian position on Ma’aleh Adumim.Since a parade of Israeli politicians, from Yossi Sarid and Yossi Beilin on the Left, to Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon in the Center, have said in the past that Ma’aleh Adumim will be part of Israel in any future agreement, there is a tendency among the Israeli public to believe that this is indeed what eventually will transpire.Read these documents, however, and it becomes clear that this given – it even appeared in the Geneva Accords – is no given at all.

- There is not that much new there, though just a little.
After the dust settles, it will become apparent that there is nothing earth-shatteringly new in the documents. That the Palestinians were willing to let Israel annex the Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line, with the exception of Har Homa, is not new, nor a sign – whatever Al-Jazeera and the Guardian would have one believe – of unsurpassed flexibility.This was discussed at Camp David, and enshrined in the Clinton parameter formula – that the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem would be under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty.It was part of the 2003 Geneva Accord, as well as one of the principles of the 2002 agreement drawn up by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh.If anything, the Palestinian demand in the documents for Har Homa is a step back from this benchmark.

- The PA reaction shows we’re moving backward.
Rather than taking the publication of the documents and saying loudly and proudly that this shows a willingness to give up on maximalist Palestinian demands, the PA reaction was the complete opposite. It was to deny everything, and to say that the PA would not give in an inch.And that’s a problem."
Läs hela artikeln i Jerusalem Post här.

Inga kommentarer: