Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Out of date and out of touch

  Out of date and out of touch
BY BARRY RUBIN
21/02/2010 22:51
Many in the Muslim world, including the Palestinians, and in the West
still have a distorted knowledge of Israeli positions toward peace-making.
Whenever I deal with Palestinians, Arabs, or those describing themselves
as supporters of these groups, whether in the Middle East or in the
West, what makes the greatest impression is their total lack of
knowledge about Israeli positions toward peace-making.
Among Palestinians, and more broadly with most of the public in the
Muslim world and many of those in the elite classes in Europe, there
exists a mythical Israel, reminiscent of the fabricated anti-Semitic
stereotypes of the past and which has little to do with reality. They
believe Israel isn't interested in peace, doesn't offer the Palestinians
anything, opposes any real Palestinian state, intends to keep the West
Bank (until Israel's withdrawal from all of the Gaza Strip in 2005, they
would have added that territory as well), and is led by intransigent
hardliners. Such a concept was comprehensible - if not fully accurate -
and describes the situation in parts of the 1980s but has nothing to do
with the two decades.
In 2010, they have no idea what Israel actually offered during the 1990s
peace process, or at the Camp David summit in 2000, or what former
president Bill Clinton offered with Israel's agreement in December 2000,
or what former prime minister Ehud Olmert proffered in 2008, or what is
in the current Israeli government's peace offer. All proposed the
creation of an independent Palestinian state, the first three in close
to 100 percent and the last three as equivalent to 100 percent (with
some small, equal land swaps) in size to the pre-1967West Bank and Gaza
Strip.
Lacking any knowledge of these offers, or at least knowing only very
distorted versions, they can maintain that Israel has offered "nothing"
and that therefore the continuation of the conflict is not due to
Palestinian intransigence but Israel's alleged opposition to the
creation of an independent Palestinian state. This reminds me of how
Mahmoud Abbas, today the leader of the Palestinian Authority, responded
to some reasonably accurate descriptions in the Palestinian media of
whatIsrael offered in 2000 at Camp David. It is better, he said at the
time, not to talk about these things at all, presumably lest some
Palestinians might think that it was a reasonable deal.
INDEED, THERE are a surprising number of people who have not absorbed
the changes made since 1994, when the Palestinian Authority began to
take control of theWest Bank and Gaza Strip. After all, it has governed
these territories for more than 15 years and certainly has
responsibility for what has happened there. And even whileIsrael has
real ability to restrict travel, control access for trade, and is able
to send in troops at times - along with the continued existence of
settlements - these powers are only exercised in response to high levels
of terrorist attacks from these places.
Equally, many don't seem to realize that Israel withdrew from the Gaza
Strip in 2005 - that's almost five years ago - and that if Hamas didn't
persist in attacking Israel or openly planning for future attempts to
destroy it, Israel would leave that area alone entirely.
Anyone who actually lives in Israel knows - whether they like it or not
- that Israel is ready to make big concessions and take reasonable risks
to achieve peace. They know, whether or not they agree, that the
overwhelming majority is ready to accept an independent Palestinian
state as long as it is willing to end the conflict and live side by side
in peace.
Outside Israel, far fewer people understand this reality. And that
includes journalists, academics, and politicians. If they address the
issue at all, they presume thatIsrael is asking the Palestinians to make
some huge or unreasonable concession. Often, as noted above, their
understanding of Israeli views is more than 20 years out of date.
But the Palestinians especially and Westerners generally know even less
about Israel's own demands, which is not surprising since they are never
explained in the Arabic-language media and virtually never mentioned in
the Western media. These include security guarantees, non-militarization
of a Palestinian state, an end to the conflict, and the resettlement of
Palestinian refugees in Palestine.
The above observations can produce a simple definition of the difference
between moderates and radicals. The radicals, both among the
Palestinians and their Western sympathizers, know - even if they pretend
otherwise - that they want all the land from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea along withIsrael's elimination.
This is true whether they seek it through a two-stage process, the
dispatch of a million or two Palestinians to Israel in a peace
agreement, a one-state solution, or a temporary binational state.
Consequently they are indifferent to what Israel actually offers except
to distort it for propaganda purposes.
A moderate is someone who actually thinks the Palestinians today want a
two-state solution and is genuinely fooled by the ploys outlined above.
Consequently, the moderates - few as they are among Palestinians, more
numerous in the West - can have the facts explained to them. But the
radicals know precisely what they are doing and don't care about any
chance for compromise.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=169301

 still have a distorted knowledge of Israeli positions toward peace-making.
come si fa ad avere conoscenza distorta di qualcosa che non esiste?