Palestinian leaders to blame for failure of two-state solution bids
Peter Wertheim says the Israel conflict could have been resolved
IT is not unusual for anyone with a dogmatically one-sided view of an issue to blame the media for the lack of support.
That is what Greg Barns has done in his latest antiIsrael diatribe (Talking Point, February 17). According to Barns, the only reason Australians don’t share his take on the Israel-Palestinian conflict is because we see the Palestinians as “the other”, and only recognise the unique identity of Israelis, who are seen as living among the savage others in an inhospitable land.
That’s a roundabout way of calling Australians racists.
Barns indulges in a bit of stereotyping of his own. Australian attitudes are shaped by media, he tells us, and Israel is “a rich nation with a large diaspora that knows how to influence politicians — they are master lobbyists — and use the media”. Elsewhere he refers to “the Israel lobby and its media friends”.
That “large diaspora” apparently means Jews living out of Israel, specifically the vast majority of Jews who feel a sense of responsibility to ensure the State of Israel continues to exist. According to a 2017 survey, 88 per cent of Australian Jews fall into that category.
The juxtaposition of Israel, Jews, supposed wealth and alleged control of the media is all too familiar.
It is a fallacy to suggest that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The serious charge of antisemitism should not falsely be made in order to stifle debate. However, it is equally fallacious to assert that there are no forms of criticism of Israel which are antisemitic.
It is beyond belief Barns accuses the Sydney Morning Herald of underplaying the Palestinian perspective. Has he forgotten the incident in 2014 when, after a public outcry, the newspaper apologised for publishing an antisemitic cartoon about the conflict in Gaza alongside a vicious polemic against Israel?
Barns quotes another habitual critic of Israel, Peter Manning. Barns and Manning rarely look to the Palestinians and their leaders to understand why they do not have their own state. They do not treat the Palestinians as
active actors in history who have made, and continue to make, their own choices for which they should be held accountable. Many choices made by Palestinian leaders over the past 100 years have had disastrous consequences.
The latest offer of a Palestinian state made by the US in January was rejected by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas more than two years earlier, well before the details were crafted. He refused repeated offers to discuss the matter, and now complains Palestinians were not consulted.
In 2008, Abbas did not respond to a generous offer of a Palestinian state that was made by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert. Now he insists any resumption of negotiations must use the Olmert offer as a starting point.
In 2001, the US President Bill Clinton put forward proposals for a Palestinian state to bridge the gap in negotiating positions between Israelis and Palestinians. The negotiators issued a joint statement declaring they were “never closer to reaching an agreement”, and they believed the remaining gaps could be bridged with intensified negotiations. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat then ordered an escalation of suicide bombings and other violence against Israeli civilians, which continued for another four years.
Barns and Manning do no favours to the Palestinians by overlooking the shocking choices their leaders have made in rejecting every twostate proposal ever put to them, and blaming the media.