I apologize to the board, but I'm not just gonna leave this as a one line rebuttal. It takes 15 seconds to tell a lie and 15 minutes to dissect it:
As I stated previously, the biggest obstacles to peace have been US and Israeli rejectionism. To assert otherwise is to engage in fantasy. To repeat, the US endorsed Israel's rejection of the Jarring Mission in 1971, they vetoed a UNSC resolution regarding Palestinian self-determination in 1976 and in 1980, the Israeli government rejected the Palestinian Declaration of Independence that was issued by Arafat in 1988 adding that there can be no "additional" Palestinian state, and the US has vetoed every single UNGA resolution regarding the Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question. They have been steadfast in blocking peace for going on 50 years together. Accusing the PLO/Hamas of same is just petty projection at best, flat out dishonesty at worst.
They did. Here's why, starting with a quote from Avi Schlaim:
"The key figure on the Israeli side throughout the first Arab-Israeli war was David Ben-Gurion. As the strongman of the Yishuv, Ben-Gurion relentlessly concentrated power in his own hands. In 1946 he assumed the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency Executive and immediately started preparing the Yishuv for a military confrontation with the Arabs, which in his view was inescapable. He accepted the UN partition plan, but he did not accept as final the borders it laid down for the Jewish state. Although he valued international support, especially that of the United States and the Soviet Union, for the idea of a Jewish state, he did not expect statehood to be delivered on a silver platter. Realizing that ultimately the Jews would have to fight for their state, he wanted a clear-cut Jewish military victory. That is why he assumed personal responsibility for directing the military struggle and left it to Moshe Sharett to conduct, in New York, the diplomatic campaign for a Jewish state.”
He then goes on to explain “acceptance of the UN plan implied acceptance of a Palestinian state, but in practice the Zionist leaders preferred to seek an understanding with one of the rulers of the neighboring Arab States. They had their greatest success with their neighbor to the east, with King Abdullah of Transjordan. Did they have any diplomatic alternative? Did they have a Palestinian option in 1947-49? The answer to this question must be no, because under the leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husseini the Palestinian national movement remained as uncompromising in is opposition to Zionism in the late 1940’s as it had been over the preceding quarter of a century.”
The reason for that “uncompromising opposition” was what Benny Morris, Israel's leading historian (and propagandist) pointed out: that inbuilt into Zionism was the idea of Arab expulsion and thus the “chief motor of Arab resistance” to the Zionist movement was the “fear of displacement and dispossession from their homes.” It had nothing to do with Arabs being some inherent war mongers or anti-semites or anything of that sort.
They rejected the partition because inbuilt into the Zionist movement was the idea of Palestinian dispossession and expulsion. Who here among us finds fault in that? Who here scoffs at the idea that a people reject the idea of dispossession and expulsion? We're supposed to sympathize with the Israeli position here?
But it is interesting that Israeli apologists keep referring to this rejection. As it were, progress has been made. The 1988 Declaration of Independence was predicated on Arafat's notion that he was making these claims based on the "unfinished business of 1948." But instead of rejoicing in the Palestinian position of compromise, which had already been established in 1971, they make excuses. They project. They lie. They blame charters and covenants and empty rhetoric of that sort, while wholly ignoring the sheer ugliness of their own (current) governing party's rhetoric in the same documents of their own. It's political theatre, and the US-Israeli contingency happens to have very bad actors in it.
That's quite the artful dodge. Israel not only rejects the idea of the right of Palestinian self-determination, they reject any manifestation of that right, including the right of the Palestinians to choose their own representatives in potential negotiations. Arafat had been signalling a willingness to settle for decades, and the Israelis/Americans did absolutely nothing but undermine and sabotage his efforts beginning with the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and ending with pulling the rug out from under him nearly 20 years later at Taba. So it's very easy to criticize the Palestinians for supporting Hamas, but what other options do they have? They tried the more secular route with the PLO and that turned out to be a multi-decade waste of time. What else are they supposed to do? Support that pushover Abbas and the so-called Palestinian Authority? Sure, keep fucking that chicken.
Again referring to documents crafted over 30 years ago by a handful of angry people during an uprising rather than the present day. That's more tail wagging the dog.
That's a very dishonest sleight of hand. You'll notice the author just casually refers to "Arab countries." If Israel was not interested in the existence of a Palestinian state, what obligation to be interested in same did Egypt and Jordan incur? The occupations of Gaza and the West Bank by same were utterly brutal, but that tells us absolutely nothing about Palestinian self-determination. These are just excuses to try to evade a peaceful settlement. Egypt has no responsibility to negotiate for a Palestinian state on Palestine's behalf, neither does Jordan. That's just fucking stupid, if you really think about it.
Again, Camp David was impossible, which is what Israel's negotiator admitted on US public airwaves.
Skip to the 4:00 mark if you want to get to the concession, but honestly I would urge anyone curious about this to watch the full debate because there's more accuracy coming out of the mouth of even Shlomo Ben Ami in this program than there is in an entire volume of articles the NYT has composed over the years.
As Finkelstein later points out, Taba ended prematurely because Barak withdrew his negotiators. We can get into the issues of the timing and the Israeli elections and what not, but let's be clear about one thing: the PLO did not reject or walk out on Taba. They rejected Camp David, but that's why Clinton came forth with his parameters in the first place. The Americans, even Dennis Ross (though he later decided to play make believe in that piece of shit book he went on to write), recognized that Camp David was ridiculous, but they didn't want to miss an opportunity to define Clinton's legacy with this negotiation, which is why they rushed into it merely days before Clinton's term ended. Arafat wanted assurance from Clinton that he wouldn't throw him under the bus if Camp David failed, and that was largely because Camp David was so rushed. Clinton assured Arafat that he would do no such thing...and then he did. Slick Willy! Once again, blaming the Palestinians for these failures is not only false, but very stupid.