Misreported and hopelessly flawed from the start, the Oslo peace process has entered its terminal phase - of violent confrontation, disproportionately massive Israeli repression, widespread Palestinian rebellion
and great loss of life, the vast majority of it Palestinian. Ariel Sharon's visit to Haram al-Sharif on September 28 could not have occurred without Ehud Barak's concurrence. How else could the paunchy old war criminal have appeared there with a thousand soldiers guarding him? Barak's approval rating rose from 20% to 50% after the visit, and the stage seems set for a national unity government ready to be still more violent and repressive. ES

In his opening paragraph, Said intimates or assumes the following: that Ariel Sharon has no right to visit on what he (Sharon) considers to be the Temple Mount; that there was a direct and justified causal connection between "paunchy, old" Sharon's visit to the Holy Mountain in Jerusalem and the Palestinian rebellion which ensued (by the way, what would you say of the bias of an article which spoke of "dwarf-ugly war criminal Arafat"?); that while the Palestinian decision to violently rebel was justified, the subsequent loss of life has no causal connection to that decision, but was purely caused only bu Israel; that Barak wanted to cause such a Palestinian reaction, and therefore agreed to Sharon's visit, all this in order to boost Barak's popularity and lead to an even more oppressive government (Said shows himself, inter alia, to tally at loss with regard to Israeli politics: since Barak was elected on a peace ticket, the failure of peace negotiations casts his political future in a very dark shadow, and increases the changes of Sharon and the Likud winning future elections!). ZZ
 

The portents of this disarray, however, were there from the 1993 start. Labor and Likud leaders alike made no secret of the fact that Oslo was designed to segregate the Palestinians in non-contiguous enclaves, surrounded by Israeli-controlled borders, with settlements and settlement roads punctuating and essentially violating the territories' integrity, expropriations and house demolitions proceeding inexorably through the Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak administrations along with the expansion and multiplication of settlements (200,000 Israeli Jews added to Jerusalem, 200,000 more in Gaza and the West Bank), military occupation continuing and every tiny step taken toward Palestinian sovereignty - including agreements to withdraw in minuscule, agreed-upon phases - stymied, delayed, canceled at Israel's will. ES

Now Said goes on to say that Likud leaders agreed to the 1993 Oslo Accords (in fact, they totally opposed it); that these agreements were totally against the good of the Palestinians -- ignoring the tremendous boost in international support for the idea of a Palestinian state, due to those agreements, and to the fact that today, there is greater Palestinian control and rule over the Palestinian population in Palestine than ever before in Palestinian history (including greater ability for violent rebellion than ever before, using weapons supplied to them by Israel!); that since 1993, 200,000 Jews were added to the population of the territories (excluding Jerusalem) -- while in fact there are not 200,000 Jews there at all, even if we count everybody who arrived since 1967; that Israel's obstruction of moves towards Palestinian sovereignty had nothing to do with actions initiated by the Palestinians -- while the Palestinians fully fulfilled their side of the agreements they signed with Israel (e.g., ceasing hate campaigns against Israel; disarming all non governmental organizations, etc.)... ZZ

This method was politically and strategically absurd, even suicidal. Occupied East Jerusalem was placed out
of bounds by a bellicose Israeli campaign to decree the intractably divided city off limits to Palestinians and to claim it as Israel's "eternal, undivided capital." The 4m Palestinian refugees - now the largest and longest existing such population anywhere - were told that they could forget about any idea of return or compensation. ES

Here, Said argues that Israel declared Jerusalem off bounds to Palestinians (while in fact, Palestinians could move about more freely in Israel than Israelis in Palestinian-controlled areas; the moot issue is Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and here indeed Israel and the Palestinians do not agree); he also intimates that the present condition of Palestinian refugees is due only to Israeli policy. However, this is at best a one-sided representation: in 1947, the Palestinians (and their Arab allies) made a crucial decision -- to reject the U.N. partition resolution. I understand the nobility and ideological purity of that decision -- but it was a calculated risk. And the Palestinians miscalculated. How much better off would all the Palestinians be today, had they then agreed to partition? Having fled and been expelled in 1948, was it then the best thing for the refugees to be denied citizenship and integration in the countries of their exile? Consider what the Jews did, after they were exiled from their land after miscalculating their chances and rebelling against the Romans in 132-135 C.E.: while never giving up hopes for return, they meanwhile made the best of their unhappy situation, and did their best to become part of the countries in which they lived. As a Jew, it it clear to me that the Jewish people would have been much worse off, and probably not have existed today, had they continued to live in the equivalent of refugee camps. Did the Palestinians continue to live in such camps, and to be denied citizenship in other countries, because of Israel? Said also says that the Palestinians were told to forget about compensation. In fact, this was (is?) one of the central issues discussed in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations over an over-all peace agreement during recent months. ZZ

With his own corrupt and stupidly repressive regime supported both by Israel's Mossad and the CIA, Yasser
Arafat continued to rely on US mediation, even though the US peace team was dominated by former Israeli
lobby officials and a president whose ideas about the Middle East were those of a Christian fundamentalist
Zionist with no exposure to or understanding of the Arab-Islamic world. Compliant, but isolated and
unpopular Arab chiefs (especially Egypt's President Mubarak) were compelled humiliatingly to toe the
American line, thereby further diminishing their eroded credibility at home. Israel's priorities were always put first, as was its bottomless insecurity and its preposterous demands. No attempt was made to address the fundamental injustice done when Palestinians as a people were dispossessed in 1948. ES

Said implies that Arafat is in some way an inauthentic and/or unauthorized leader of the Palestinians. While I strongly disagree with Mr. Arafat's views on many matters, it is clear that Arafat reached his current position because for many years he was willing to put his life on the line for the Palestinian cause, while Mr. Said only recently got up the courage to throw stones at Israeli soldiers from the safety of the Lebanese side of the border. After slinging mud at Arafat, Said turns to vilify U.S. leadership, then to discredit Egypt's Mubarak. One wonders whom Mr. Said approves of. The Assad regime in Syria, which is in power due to massive repression of its own citizens, including direct murder of 20,000 Muslim brothers by artillery fire? The regime of Saddam Hussein, known for its democratic treatment of dissent in Iraq, and its liberality toward the Arabs of Kuwait? The Saudian oligarchy? Or perhaps the true leader of the Arabs is Mr. Said himself? At the end of this paragraph, Said lets the cat out of the bag: the issue is not this or that action of Israel, but the fundamental injustice perpetrated in 1948, i.e. the very existence of the State of Israel. ZZ
 
Behind the peace process were two unchanging Israeli/American presuppositions, both of them derived from a startling incomprehension of reality. First was that given enough punishment and beating over the years since 1948, Palestinians would ultimately give up, accept the compromised compromises Arafat did in fact accept, and call the whole Palestinian cause off, thereafter excusing Israel for everything it has done. ES

Here we are told that if Palestinians accept compromises, this means that they have called off the whole Palestinian cause, and excused Israel for everything it has done. This is simply the mirror image of Israel's extreme right, who say that if Israel reaches any compromise with Arafat, they are excusing him and the Fatah for everything they did against Israel. Both Said and the Israeli rightists want to deny any possibility of compromise, and to remain ideologically pure: better to remain ideologically pure, better many continue die, than to compromise your oh-so-just-and-truthful principles. ZZ

Thus, for example, the "peace process" gave no considered attention to immense Palestinian losses of
land and goods, none to the links between past dislocation and present statelessness, while as a nuclear power with a formidable military, Israel nevertheless continued to claim the status of victim and demand restitution for genocidal anti-Semitism in Europe. Incongruously, there has still been no official acknowledgment of Israel's (by now amply documented) responsibility for the tragedy of 1948,
even as the US went to war in Iraq and Kosovo on behalf of other refugees. But one can't force people to forget, especially when the daily reality was seen by all Arabs as endlessly reproducing the original
injustice. ES
 

These lines imply that the fact that Palestinians have no state is only because of Israel. Well, if there were no Israel, Palestinians might have had a state. But that is a hypothetical. Had they agreed to partition in 1947, they would have had a state. Also, before 1967, what are now called "the territories" were not in Israeli hands, but in Arab (Jordanian) hands -- did the Palestinians get a state then? If the Arab armies had in 1948 conquered all of Palestine, perhaps each would have taken a piece (just as Jordan took the areas it conquered, the Syrians would have taken the Galilee, which they think is part of Greater Syria, and the Egyptians might have taken the Negev). Had the Arabs after their 1967 defeat said to Israel (which at that time repeatedly said it would return all conquered areas to the Arabs in return for peace): "We will make peace with you, if you agree to the creation of a Palestinians state in the areas you conquered" -- perhaps the Palestinians would have gotten a state then, entirely devoid of any Israeli settlements? So, if Palestinians today have no state, it is NOT only Israel that can be blamed. 

Said also claims that in Iraq and Kosovo the U.S. went to war on behalf of refugees. That was certainly not the case in Iraq. And in Kosovo, it was Serbian death camps that got Europe involved. With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, it was the Palestinians who rejected the U.S. 1947 decision, not Israel. If the issue Said wants to resolve is the very existence of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, then why should he expect help from the international community? If the issue is what should be the borders between the two states of Israel and Palestine, and how the future of the Palestinians now living as refugees should be settled -- this exactly the focus of the peace negotiations between the parties.

Finally, Said says that "one can't force people to forget." Who even suggested that? Should Israelis forget their suffering at the hands of Palestinians (i.e., what many consider to have been terrorist attacks)? The question is: do people think that peace through compromise (and each side believes that they are being called upon to make very painful compromises) is better than to continue present bloodshed in the hope of having to compromise less in some uncertain future? In 1947, Palestinians decided against compromise. Where did that get the Palestinian people? ZZ

Second, after seven years of steadily worsening economic and social conditions for Palestinians everywhere, Israeli and US policy makers persisted (stupidly, I think) in trumpeting their successes, excluding the UN and other interested parties, bending the disgracefully partisan media to their wills, distorting the actuality into ephemeral victories for "peace." ES

Said asserts that economic and social conditions of Palestinians "everywhere" worsened, due to the Oslo Accords. This is a totally unfounded claim, and also illogical. How did the Oslo Accords make the social and economic conditions of the refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan any worse? How did it worsen the fate of Israeli-Palestinian Arab citizens? How indeed did it worsen the fate of Palestinians in Ramallah? In addition: how does the U.S. government control the U.S. media? If there is free press anywhere, it is in the U.S., not in Palestine and not in any other Arab state. Perhaps the media coverage was indeed more objective that is Dr. Said? ZZ

With the entire Arab world up in arms over Israeli helicopter gun ships and heavy artillery demolishing Palestinian civilian buildings, with almost 100 fatalities and almost 2,000 wounded (including many children) and with Palestinian Israelis up in arms against their treatment as third-class, non-Jewish citizens, the misaligned and skewed status quo is falling apart. Isolated in the UN and unloved everywhere in the Arab world as Israel's unconditional champion, the US and its lame duck president have little to contribute any more. ES

Dr. Said moves on to his direct knowledge of current affairs in Palestine. He mentions demolished "civilian buildings." Does he know that these buildings were not the ones that Palestinian civilians were shooting from? Has Said heard of the existence of a "civilian" organization called "Tanzim," which was armed by Arafat with weapons provided by Israel and destined for the Palestinian police? Does Said recall that Arafat signed an agreement, that all weapons would be collected from civilians and that only official government forces would be armed? In addition, while activities of helicopters against armed Palestinians are well-documented, no one in the world except Dr. Said knows of "Israeli heavy artillery" acting in any of the occupied territories, ever. Of course, since Said has a laptop, he can write anything, however outrageous and unfounded.

With regard to Palestinian dead and wounded, and especially children -- Dr. Said is right. This is a terrible situation. I wish Israel would have managed to react to the Palestinian rebellion (as Said himself called it) without leading to such casualties. But why did the Palestinian leadership encourage the rebellion, in the knowledge that such casualties might result? Why does it now -- seeing the results -- not call for an immediate stop to the rebellion? The answer must be that the Palestinians believe they will achieve more for the Palestinian people by continuing the rebellion than by stopping it. If so, do they bear no responsibility for the consequences? ZZ
  
Neither does the Arab and Israeli leadership, even though they are likely to cobble together another interim agreement. Most shocking has been the total silence of the Zionist peace camp in the US, Europe
and Israel. The slaughter of Palestinian youths goes on and this band of supposed peace-lovers either backs Israeli brutality or expresses disappointment at Palestinian ingratitude. Worst of all is the US media,
completely cowed by the fearsome Israeli lobby, with commentators and anchors spinning distorted reports
about "crossfire" and "Palestinian violence" that eliminate the fact that Israel is in military occupation and that Palestinians are fighting it, not "laying siege to Israel", as the ghastly Mrs. Albright put it. While the US celebrates the Serbian people's victory over Slobodan Milosevic, Clinton and his minions refuse to see the Palestinian insurgency as the same kind of struggle against injustice. 

My guess is that some of the new Palestinian intifada is directed at Arafat, who has led his people astray
with phony promises, and maintained a battery of corrupt officials holding down commercial monopolies
even as they negotiate incompetently and weakly on his behalf. Some 60% of the public budget is disbursed by Arafat to bureaucracy and security, only 2% to the infrastructure. Three years ago his own accountants
admitted to an annual $400m in disappeared funds. His international patrons accept this in the name of the
"peace process", certainly the most hated phrase in the Palestinian lexicon today. ES

Here Said makes an amazing move: he accuses the Zionist peace camp of not supporting the Palestinian rebellion! The truth of the matter seems to be that the peace camp (with whom I agree on many issues) are amazed that although the Palestinian leadership committed themselves at Oslo and many times after that to resolve all disagreements only by negotiation -- they now openly call for armed rebellion, and encourage the Tanzim to attack Israeli civilians. They also freed Hamas and Jihad terrorists, thus enabling them to plan suicide bombings against Israeli population centers. And all this time the Zionist peace camp had been convincing the Israeli public to agree to turn over control of the territories to a Palestinian government, because the Palestinians had agreed to peace! Another interesting thought: Israel enables a wide variety of opinions, and thus it is no surprise that there is an Israeli Zionist peace camp -- to whom Said looks for assistance and sympathy. Isn't it strange that there is no Palestinian peace camp, which holds demonstrations urging Arafat to compromise more, in order to save Palestinian lives, and create some kind of independence, even if this means a smaller Palestinian state? But we all know the reason there is no such thing: the lives of Palestinians making such a demonstration would be immediately endangered. I have been told so personally by quite a few of Palestinian acquaintances -- who also beg me not to cite their names...ZZ
    
An alternative peace plan and leadership is slowly emerging among Israeli, West Bank, Gaza and diaspora
Palestinians. No return to the Oslo framework; no compromise on the original UN resolutions (242, 338,
and 194) mandating the Madrid conference in 1991; removal of all settlements and military roads; evacuation of all the territories annexed or occupied in 1967; boycott of Israeli goods and services. A new
sense may actually be dawning that only a mass movement against Israeli apartheid (similar to the
South African variety) will work. Certainly it is sheer idiocy for Barak and Albright to hold Arafat
responsible for what he no longer fully controls. Rather than dismissing the new framework being proposed, Israel's supporters would be wise to remember that the question of Palestine concerns an
entire people, not an aging and discredited leader. Besides, peace in Palestine/Israel can only be made
between equals once the military occupation has ended. No Palestinian, not even Arafat, can really accept
anything less. ES

Said outlines his hopes for a new Palestinian readership. If Arafat cannot fulfill his promises in the name of the Palestinian people, why should Israel expect that the new leadership will be different? If the new leadership, unwilling to accept anything except their own dictates to Israel, believes that this improves the lives of Palestinians worldwide they are deluded. Israel wants peace, and entered into negotiations with Arafat, ceding the civilian government to the lives of all Palestinians in the territories (excluding Jerusalem) to Palestinian rule. Israel also transferred all Palestinian cities to full Palestinian rule, on the promise that the Palestinians would not use those territories to attack Israelis. As Said so aptly notes, the Palestinians "rebelled" -- against agreements they themselves signed. Will this motivate Israel to continue negotiating for peace? Or will this motivate Israelis , many who may have supported a Palestinian state, to vote against the peace camp, in future Israeli elections?
 

read Edward Said's Double Standards