# Debunking 6 common Israeli myths **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2002, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462 "2002-04-19T03:46:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/41 "2002-05-01T04:17:40Z")
**Mr. S.** , Robert Malley’s(the former assistant quoted by the “debunking” site) and Dennis Ross’s (fmr Middle East envoy in charge of negotiations) quotes are not mutually exclusive. All Maley actually says is that the Palestinian delegation recognized Israel’s right to exist. He puts a positive spin on the Palestinian delegation being willing to give on Israeli control of the Jewish portions of East Jerusulam. He says nothing about the rest of it. Ross details what was on the table and Arafat’s reactions to it.He details that the “map” put forth as showing a divided Palestine as the proposal rejected is a falsehood. > [@](#): > > ROSS: …So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous. > > HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect… > > ROSS: Right. > > HUME: … that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state. > > ROSS: Completely untrue. > > And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. > [@](#): > > HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no? > > ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. > > Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you’ve got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself. Now you may not like Fox, or Hume, but Ross was there. Unless you believe that he’s lying, then I’ll believe him over a Palestinian propaganda site. ---
**Author:** ![CLedet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b487fb/32.png) [@CLedet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CLedet)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/42 "2002-05-01T05:30:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha \* > \*\ ***pantom** :I am sincerely trying to unearth as honest and unbiased a picture of the conflict as I can, without doing injustice to either side of the dispute. If I appear stubborn, its because I really need to _see_ the evidence, instead of relying on second-hand reports or “spun” news stories. \*\* After reading your posts, I doubt your sincerety. Nearly 19.9 % (apr. 1 million) of Isreals population is Arab. Of that apr. 14.4% are muslim. These Arab-Isrealis enjoy voting rights and some hold elected office. And best of all they want to live in Isreal. Can you imagine that? And if they want to leave, they can. Now lets look on the flip side. Lets see, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon (the list could go on). According to stats not one Jew. Well considering that these guvments advocate the destruction of all Jews and Isreal, that doesn’t come as a suprise. I’d provide cites but what good are “second hand reports” and " “spun” news stories". [Priceline.com](http://Priceline.com) may be able to hook you up and arange for some of that first hand knowledge your looking for. Isreal is not the extremist state. They have been attacked several times by the same countries that now are standing behind this bullshit Saudi plan. When Saudi Arabi and all of the other arab states that are backing this plan will allow a synagogue and a christian church to be built in their respective countries maybe we’ll have something. C K Dexter Haven, come on down to N’awlins, I’ll buy you lunch. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/43 "2002-05-01T15:41:17Z")
**The Ryan** : I admit I’ve never understood myself how a simple visit to a Muslim holy site by a prominent Jewish politician could result in the _intifada_. Maybe that just shows how little I understand about all of this stuff, really. **DSeid** : > [@](#): > > \*\* Robert Malley’s(the former assistant quoted by the “debunking” site) and Dennis Ross’s (fmr Middle East envoy in charge of negotiations) quotes are not mutually exclusive.\*\* Perhaps not. There are nevertheless radical differences in the way the two men reconstruct the history of the summit. _My_ understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in its turn dependent upon the “empirical evidence” presented by the media, and there can be little doubt that, in general, the mainstream media (together with most of the prominent politicians in the States) characterized Barak’s proposal as “unprecedented,” “generous,” and so forth. Barak is often depicted as offering the Palestinians something like 97% of the West Bank territory, for example. If I accept this version of the summit proposals, and their eventual rejection, I have little option other than to conclude, as Ross does, that Arafat cannot end the conflict, for whatever reason – he’s pig-headed, he likes to fight, he’s a radical, he’s a rabid anti-Semite hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, etc. Maybe this is the case, and I’m merely naive; but to be honest, such claims just don’t make sense to me. If Israel actually tabled a generous, unprecedented proposal for peace, why would Arafat reject it? And more importantly, even if Arafat himself rejected it, why would the whole of his negotiating team reject it as well? Granted, Arafat is the leader of the PA, but he doesn’t call all the shots in a vacuum; if he were to mismanage things for an extended period of time, I assume he would be replaced, one way or another. Anyway, I’m always wary of analyses that rely upon the fundamental irrationality of the Other as their basic explanatory mechanism; what is it that makes Arafat so irrational, and us so rational? Ross, as a senior negotiator, is disingenuous here anyway. He knows as well that Arafat doesn’t decide these things alone, but that all political decisions are the result of processes in groups. Either that, or his political science education doesn’t extend beyond the 1950s and Hans Morgenthau. So his attempt to pin blame for the failure of the negotiations on Arafat’s “irrationality” does not strike me as a particularly sophisticated analysis. Anyway, Ross notes, and sidesteps, a major stumbling block. When asked by Barnes why the US/Israeli proposals were never put down in writing, he replies: > [@](#): > > - We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word…. The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it.\* Right. Top level negotiations, and the US _can’t even write down its proposals_. Rather, the Pres comes in, dictates his terms, and splits. If the US negotiating team was so concerned with making sure the Palestinian delegation understood the proposal, why didn’t they just present it in writing? Well, without a written record, of course, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to sort through the claims and counter-claims made by the various groups involved in the talks. So to start with, I suspect that a major reason behind the discrepancies in the different versions of the talks is that they weren’t written down. As is observed by the _FMEP_: > [@](#): > > - Determining the exact nature of the progress achieved by negotiators has proven difficult not only for the public at large but also for the negotiators themselves. Israel’s acting foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, has spoken of “the collective memory of Camp David.” Yet, in the months since the summit, it has become manifestly clear that there is less a collective memory of what was on offer than a myriad cluster of memories that agree on some points and clash on many more….Barak’s “offer” at Camp David, to the extent that the imprecise, unrecorded discussions could be construed as such, included the following…\* So here, already, we have potentially conflicting versions of what was on offer at Camp David II. In fact, I cannot find a number of the offers mentioned by Ross in any other history of the talks. These offers include:[ul][li]”\* On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap._” Malley and other sources report this as a land swap ratio of 9 to 1. [/li] [li]”…_ a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.\*” Note as well his nonsensical assertion that the Palestinians would have a “right to return” to their own state. I mean, they’re already there, aren’t they?[/li] [li]”…_a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley._” The _FMEP_ claims in contrast: “\*\* One variant of this proposal was said to have included Israel’s annexation of a narrow strip of territory along part of the Jordan River. **” The _Guardian_ newspaper reports, “** The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state’s eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.\*\*” Anyway, given the history of Israeli intransigence regarding international military intervention, Ross’s assertion in this regard seems far-fetched to me. It may have been part of an American proposal, but I suspect that even the Israelis would have rejected it. [/li] [li]”…_to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.”_ Also not noted on any other report of the talks.[/ul] One must ask oneself, how serious were these proposals, really?[/li] If we turn, now again, to an analysis of the map: unfortunately, we don’t have access to the map Ross refers to in his interview. The only map I have is the one from the **EI** , which is taken in its turn from Gush Shalom – a small, radical faction of the Israeli peace movement. (A cool flash version of the map, by the way, can be found [here,](http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf) for anyone interested.) Of course, even these maps show that, technically speaking, the proposed West Bank territory would be “contiguous.” Granted, if you wanted to drive from, say, Hebron to Ramallah, you’d have to take something of a detour (unless you wanted to drive through Israel); but obviously, at least at first glance, the map reveals that the West Bank would have been a contiguous territory. But Ross conveniently fails to mention the fate of those approximately 60 settlements, containing 40000 Israeli citizens, that lie outside the area Israel proposed to annex. Perhaps an unfortunate oversight, but the fact is that these settlements were not even being discussed during the negotiations. The Israelis wished to postpone a discussion of their status until after the Palestinians had agreed, in principal, to the US proposal. But the _FMEP_ notes: > [@](#): > > - – The status of settlements located within the territory of the Palestinian state–estimated at around 60 with a population of 40,000, and a key factor in assessing the degree of Palestinian sovereignty–was not addressed. Provisions for the security of all settlements, including those that may be placed under nominal Palestinian sovereignty, is expected to form an important component of Israel’s negotiating position. Israeli statements subsequent to the summit suggested that no settlement will be evacuated, ever, as part of a pact with the Palestinians.\* This would seem to me to be another major difficulty, one that Ross doesn’t even address. The point being made by critics of the proposal is that even if the Palestinians agreed to it, the West Bank would still be riddled with settlements, Israeli roads, military checkpoints, and so forth. Tanya Reinhart, an “Israeli scholar” quoted at the **EI** , notes: > [@](#): > > - The situation in these areas is easily visible today: These lands are cut up by 37 isolated settlements which were purposely built in the midst of the Palestinian population to enable future Israeli control of these areas. As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank, and the other 40 percent are blocked by the defense array of some 40,000 settlers. As always, unofficial rumors were spread in the media that Israel intends to evacuate these areas in some future. But all relevant government offices clarified repeatedly that no plan is being prepared for the evacuation of even a single settlement. First, the Palestinians need to prove that our imposed arrangements work, and then we will of course discuss and consider."\* Ross states that the proposals offered at Camp David II were to be considered final; this is generally agreed upon even among critics, who claim that in taking this stance the US/Israel cornered Arafat into a “take it or leave it” situation. Arafat was apparently under incredible pressure to accept the offer, even though, at least arguably, it wasn’t a particularly satisfactory solution. He was apparently assured by Clinton before the negotiations started that he wouldn’t be pinned with the blame for a subsequent failure, should such occur; and yet when the talks broke down, both politicians and the media immediately began to blame him. Ross claims in addition that it was Arafat alone who was responsible for the failure of the talks: > [@](#): > > - It’s very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.\* This is coupled with shameless accusations that the only new proposal emanating from Arafat was that the Jewish holy site was located in Nablus, rather than Jerusalem. Could be true, knowing Arafat, but it seems clear to me that Ross has an axe to grind – and that he wants to grind it on Arafat’s head. Anyway, **EI** (again) quotes “The view of the Palestinian Authority’s Negotiation Support Unit,” which can be found at the [Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine](http://palestinecenter.org/framecpap.html). Their assessment of the proposals can hardly be quoted as support of Ross’s assertion. One final note, regarding this: > [@](#): > > \*\* Now you may not like Fox, or Hume, but Ross was there. Unless you believe that he’s lying, then I’ll believe him over a Palestinian propaganda site.\*\* I distrust Fox, but then again, I distrust almost all major news outlets. I don’t know whether he’s lying or not, or perhaps he’s just presenting the talks in the best possible light. But anyway, even if the **EI** is a pro-Palestinian propaganda site, the fact remains that they provide references for their claims, so that I can check them. Many of the references, such as articles in the _New York Times_ or the _Guardian_, are easily double-checked, and can scarcely be considered as pro-Palestinian sources. To summarize: I think Ross’s presentation of the talks, and what was on offer, glosses over a number of the real difficulties underlying the negotiations. Either this represents on his part an attempt to “spin” the facts, or it reveals that he is woefully unprepared, and simple-minded, as a negotiator. Neither possibility strikes me as particularly conducive to constructive dialogue. To debunk the claims made at the **EI** website I would need to see a much more in-depth rebuttal of the criticisms indicated above. Fox invites Ross onto a news program to defend the proposals; he gets a 5-minute sound bite to regurgitate the standard party line. He is not questioned, and opposing viewpoints are not presented or discussed. All in all, it seems to me to be an excellent example of precisely the sort of “myth-making” that **EI** is at pains to refute. \*\* Cledet\*\*: Please don’t hesitate to chime in if you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion. By the way, this thread is a debate about a particular set of “myths” regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, supposedly propagated primarily in the Western news media, not about the number of Jews in Saudi Arabia and such. You can refer back to the OP if you find this point overly confusing. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/44 "2002-05-01T18:35:42Z")
**Mr. S.** , CNN is an Israeli spin machine? Look I don’t trust the media either, but the typical sin is not out and out lying, it is selective presentation of information and interpretation presented as fact. The usual bias, IMHO, is in the pro-Arab favor, but this is a subject discussed in other threads. Nevertheless, we take our sources for what they are worth. CNN and Fox are a little more of a reliable source than a propaganda site. Do have Malley’s whole op-ed piece? I can’t get to it without purchase, so I’m left with its abstract and the snippet cut by the propaganda site. From that, all I can verify is that Malley’s _interpretation_ is that the offer was not a “dream offer” to the Palestinians (which I read as they didn’t get everything that they asked for) and that they should be creditted for acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist at all. Nothing about the facts that were on the table. CNN quotes a Palestinian negotiator who was there as the talks were in progress and you dismiss it as CNN spin. Ross says point blank what was on the table and clearly identifies his interpretation of why Arafat refused. You call it spin. You believe what the propaganda site says was on the table which they constructed after the event and from at best second hand reports. Well, the way I learned it, the more direct the evidence the better. Malley’s snippet does not contradict what Ross says, just presents an interpretation of it. CNN’s quote of a Palestinian at the time, is consistent with that version of events. You call _it_ spin. Okay, then, but it doesn’t seem too mythic to me. As to its not making sense to you. To make a bold move. To come back with anything less than 100% of what you had promised your people. To give at all on Jerusulam or settlements, even with land exchage. All this was risking a lot. Ending the conflict would’ve required cracking down on the most extreme elements of the Arab side. This is how the decision was being not made in a vacuum. These other elements to consider kill people who try to crack down on them. It is always easier to continue what you are used to doing, even if it is a bad choice … think of women who stay with abusive partners. He got scared and fell into old comfortable habits. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/45 "2002-05-02T08:06:15Z")
**Mr. D** : > [@](#): > > \*\* CNN is an Israeli spin machine? \*\*Not exactly, and you’ll note that those have been you’re words throughout this debate – not mine. In the interest of accuracy, the **EI** is accusing CNN (and most other mainstream, “western” news agencies) of presenting biased, inaccurate information regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a common accusation from the left, and from independent news sources in particular. I’m inclined to agree. I wonder how this debate would have developed if I didn’t have access to alternative news sources via the net. Part of my disgust with this subject, if I can call it that, derives from the fact that IRL I’ve been using information I’ve read in newspapers, and heard on TV, in my discussions with others on this topic; information that has, afterwards, turned out to be factually incorrect. For example, I recently had a long discussion with my old lady about how generous Barak’s offer had been at Camp David II, and how Arafat had essentially stabbed him in the back when he rejected it, virtually assuring that he would lose the election to Sharon. This was _before_ I stumbled across all this info on the net.\*\* > [@](#): > > Look I don’t trust the media either, but the typical sin is not out and out lying, it is selective presentation of information and interpretation presented as fact. \*\* This is basically my critique of the Ross interview. I noted, for example, that he totally avoided the issue of the settlements inside the “un-annexed” portions of the proposed Palestinian state, which we both agree is a major source of conflict in the region. He stated briefly that Israel proposed to annex 5% of the West Bank, and trade for 2%; no one in the interview addressed this statement critically, or asked him what he meant. He claimed that the proposed Palestinian state is “contiguous,” but no one has claimed otherwise. And so on. Yeesh, **DSeid**. What’s your definition of “spin?” > [@](#): > > \*\* Nevertheless, we take our sources for what they are worth. CNN and Fox are a little more of a reliable source than a propaganda site. \*\* To begin with, CNN and Fox are also “propaganda” sites, depending on one’s point of view. Didn’t you accuse them recently of spreading pro-Palestinian propaganda? Secondly, if the **EI** (along with its sources, the **Guardian** , the \*\* New York Times\*\*, **Gush Shalom** , the **Foundation for Middle East Peace** , and the **Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine** , to name a few) really is a “propaganda” site, then you should have no problem in debunking its claims – yes? > [@](#): > > \*\* Do have Malley’s whole op-ed piece? I can’t get to it without purchase, so I’m left with its abstract and the snippet cut by the propaganda site. From that, all I can verify is that Malley’s _interpretation_ is that the offer was not a “dream offer” to the Palestinians (which I read as they didn’t get everything that they asked for) and that they should be creditted for acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist at all. Nothing about the facts that were on the table. \*\* No, unfortunately, I don’t have access to Malley’s piece. Maybe we should try to locate it. Anyway, I can’t figure out what you’re on about, here. The snippet quoted at **EI** includes several specific proposals, including the shape of the map, the nature of the land swaps, the difficulties in negotiating over air space, the status of East Jerusalem, etc. > [@](#): > > \*\* Ross says point blank what was on the table and clearly identifies his interpretation of why Arafat refused. You call it spin. \*\* I also present, virtually point by point, the reasons behind my suspicions concerning the Ross interview. In addition, another source of confusion occurs to me. I’m at a loss as to whether or not the proposals Ross presents in the interview are _Barak’s_ own proposals, or if they are merely Clinton’s. Remember, the **EI** is specifically referring to media hype regarding the generosity of the actual, concrete concessions made by Barak. (This again refers back to the confusion over what was actually on the table at CDII, which for some reason wasn’t written down.) > [@](#): > > \*\* You believe what the propaganda site says was on the table which they constructed after the event and from at best second hand reports. \*\* Look, **DSeid** , I suppose I could have responded to your last post, i.e. the Fox interview, by simply throwing up my hands and claiming that it was Israeli propaganda. That hardly gets us anywhere. If you feel that the information presented at the **EI** is propaganda, then I suggest that it is incumbent upon you to provide good evidence to support your assertion. Ross wasn’t the only negotiator there. Malley was as well, remember? And lest you suspect Malley of being some kind of Palestinian lap dog, please allow me to provide you with the following summary of a [talk](http://palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/20010314ftr.html) he held recently at the **CPAP**. After listing a number of the mistakes he felt were made by the American side, he focused in on the mistakes made by Palestinian negotiators (which were apparently several, and significant): > [@](#): > > - An example of this failure, Malley said, was the belief that the U.S. is “hopelessly pro-Israeli.” There are different ways of “being sympathetic to Israel—there’s coordination and there is conspiracy.” In recent years, there was “much of the former, but … far less of the latter.” The Palestinians, Malley contended, did not differentiate between these two approaches and took a “bunker mentality,” thus isolating themselves. Their “primary objective at Camp David … was to survive, not to take advantage” of possible opportunities. > > “Clinton has a special relationship with Prime Minister Barak and with Israel,” yet “he was equally determined to reach an agreement that both sides could accept” or he would accomplish nothing. The Palestinian negotiators would have achieved more by “wad[ing] their way through the contradictions between those two goals” and by making “the most out of their inner tension.” They should have provided logical, concise “counter-offers; this would have been turning the tables on us and on the entire process, and it would have made it hard for us to dismiss, harder still to ignore, the ideas they offered.” Instead, they were suspicious of what should have at least received their “distant interest.” Malley referred to Clinton’s December proposal which “may not have been enough,” but it was a “failure of vision not to appreciate the evolution this stance represented.” Perhaps the game was “rigged” from the start, yet when “agreeing to play the game, the rigged game, [it would be] better to do it skillfully and to make the most of it. Instead, the Palestinian leadership at times seems to have operated without a strategy.”\* It seems to me that Malley is as critical of the Palestinian response here as he is of the proposals themselves; and even better, when criticizing the Palestinian negotiators, he doesn’t fall into this “Arafat is a mad dog” category so typical of many CNN and Fox analysts. Think about it yourself. You seem a reasonable fellow, and even started the “constructive” thread regard Israeli-Palestinian relations. If you want to work towards a constructive dialogue, you can’t begin by accusing your opponent of being violent, irrational, etc, the minute he looks askance at your proposals. You also cannot begin by soaping yourself completely clean and laying all the blame for failure at your opponents doorstep. Or do you think I’m being unreasonable here? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/46 "2002-05-02T23:06:47Z")
**Mr. S.** , Your quote: “a couple of spun CNN reports.” Your words not mine. I am still perplexed why you accept as fact second hand quotes from this website (without checking the original reference) yet doubt original sources. (And attribute information tomthese quotes not said) Again, I’ll presume that major news outlets will _select_ what to state and what to leave out, and that they may imply that opinion is fact … that is bias … but only rarely will they out and out lie. > [@](#): > > This is basically my critique of the Ross interview. I noted, for example, that he totally avoided the issue of the settlements inside the “un-annexed” portions of the proposed Palestinian state, which we both agree is a major source of conflict in the region. He stated briefly that Israel proposed to annex 5% of the West Bank, and trade for 2%; no one in the interview addressed this statement critically, or asked him what he meant. He claimed that the proposed Palestinian state is “contiguous,” but no one has claimed otherwise. And so on. Well the site claimed the offer was for > [@](#): > > no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state There other claims are without any cited support. > [@](#): > > The snippet quoted at EI includes several specific proposals, including the shape of the map, the nature of the land swaps, the difficulties in negotiating over air space, the status of East Jerusalem, etc. Malley says nothing that supports any of their assertions. Reread his quote. > [@](#): > > Many have come to believe that the Palestinians’ rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel’s right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem – neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees’ right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel’s demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel – not Anwar el-Sadat’s Egypt, not King Hussein’s Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad’s Syria – ever came close to even considering such compromises All he states is that the Arab side had not gotten all it wanted and had come to grips with Israel’s right to exist. The “myth” he is dispelling is the claim that the Arab side refused to accept Israel’s right to exist. And putting all the original sources together, what do we make of that nonmention. That the proposal was for Israel to maintain the majority of settlement areas in a land exchange that, at the time was not too objectionable to the Palestinian side. The only sources I have for the Palestinian specific reaction to what was on the table in July 2000 are Ross and the CNN quote of a Palestinian representative. Things went quickly downhill from there with both sides backtracking from previous positions. The offer was not everything that the Palestinian side wanted, but it was very generous. And it was for future with hope for kids to grow up with ambitions other than to be suicidal murderers. Arafat prefered to continue with business as usual. Could the Israelis have given up more? Maybe. But they gave up a lot to get in return only a promise of stopping the violence, which is something both sides should want. And they weren’t getting that. Arafat’s refusal of what was a generous offer, and the best that could ever be expected to occur, is no myth. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/47 "2002-05-02T23:10:38Z")
Oy I should proof first. Sorry for the typos and misspells. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/48 "2002-05-03T01:01:01Z")
**D** : It’s very late here, so this will have to be a quick reply. I’m sitting here trying to figure out why you keep repeating this stuff about Malley’s lack of specificity, and my intransigence regarding 2nd hand sources, and wondering if we are looking at the same material. The page I’ve been using as my primary reference at **EI** can be found [here.](http://www.electronicintifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html) This is the page that quotes Malley extensively, as well as others. You should find links to the other sources I’ve mentioned as well at various places on the page. Just click around a bit to see where I’ve been getting my angle – most of it, I suspect, comes from the Israeli peace movement. I mention this because you cite a “no contiguity” quote that comes from a different page on the site – one with a much less in-depth analysis. You are right about one thing, actually, I’ve noticed – I seem to have mixed Malley up with a couple of other commentators. I can’t make heads or tails of your objections regarding this; in other words, I don’t understand your point about the settlements. My sources are a bit unclear, but there are somewhere between 37 and 60 Jewish settlements, and around 40000 settlers, who would have found themselves living in Palestine had Arafat accepted Barak’s offer. Can you tell me what you think the implications of this might have been regarding the negotiations? I assume you are aware that the Israeli gov’t had no plans for evacuating any of these settlements. Would they have converted to Palestinian control? Because all of the commentaries I’ve been able to locate regarding the settlements indicate that the Israeli government intended to keep them as well, and _that’s_ where the contiguity issue comes into play – since the remaining territory of the West Bank, after the agreement had been signed, would be still be riddled with Jewish settlements, roads, Israeli military check-points, and so on. You would go a long way in convincing me of your position if you could debunk this claim. By the way, I’ve just locate Malley’s article. Should I email it to you? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/49 "2002-05-03T04:21:32Z")
**Mr. S.** , I’m also pressed for time, so I’ll be equally brief. Yes, please email me a copy. Thanks. I had been on a different page. Now I can comment on the page that you are speaking about. I’m still stuck on what witnesses to the July meetings say was on the table at that time. Noam Chomsky wasn’t there. MacAskill’s opinion piece in The Guardian doesn’t say where he got his information for what was on the table and he wasn’t there. The analysis and maps provided by Gush Shalom were based on an offer in December, long after things had fallen through and both sides were backtracking. It is also unclear to me (maybe they have it somewhere in the site, I haven’t looked that hard) what their information source was. Malley doesn’t dispute Ross’s version of what was on the table. The PA would get 91% of the West Bank and Gaza for a state, “In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept.” He does not charge that the PA would be divided into cantons. He merely points out that this was still far from what the Palestinians would describe as a “dream offer”. I am still left with the question of _what was Arafat realistically hoping for?_ Did he enter negotiations thinking that there was ever _any_ possibility of being offered more than what was on the table that July? Malley expresses the understanding that the offer was less than the Palestinians believe is “just”, but he also recognizes that Israel was going farther in its offer than anyone had possibly hoped for before the negotiations began. Haram al Sharif is built on top of the Temple Mount. This is historical fact. The Temple. The holy of holies. He _expected_ Israel to give up _all_ of the holiest Jewish site there is, because Islam built a mosque on top of it? If he ever expected more then he was hopelessly naive or dreaming. Israel had gone farther than it was ever realistically expected to go. As to former Israeli settlements which would fall under PA control. They’d probably be left as Jews living in an Arab land. **akohl** , a settler on our boards, said that he’d be willing to live there and hope that a PA would treat him with the same kind of rights that Israeli Arabs are given. Personally, I think that he’d be foolish to expect such a reception, but for the PA to do anything less would be, well, let’s just say it would be hypocritical. No Jews allowed in a Palestinian state? In reality, I think that most would flee, (and that Barak expected that to happen) some would try to stay and might offer resistance if the PA tried to force them out or if attacked by their Arab neighbors. But it wouldn’t be Israel, it would be the responsibility of the PA to ensure the safety and rights of its minority group. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/50 "2002-05-03T06:06:21Z")
I had a very long response all typed up, and then by some computer quirk, Internet Exploder deleted it all. Gotta love it. Anyway, to the OP: I think that some of those “myths” border on strawmen. For instance, the Arafat never having denied terrorism. I don’t think anyone in power has actually said or believed that. What Powell wanted before he went was a strong, public condemnation on PA media outlets, followed by action to arrest some of the known terrorists (for instance the Ze’evi killers): [http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/21/powell.arafat/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/21/powell.arafat/index.html) > [@](#): > > …Powell ordered Arafat to make a public condemnation of the attacks in both English and Arabic, arrest those responsible and bring them to justice. The rest are all opinions (Arafat has not done enough) or can be refuted by one simple fact: Israel has never annexed the territories (except Jerusalem). I think this says that Israel has never planned to hold onto those forever. The settlements are a poor bone thrown to the Jewish movements who believe Judea and Samaria are God-given. These movements are temporally concurrent or predating mainstream Palestinian nationalism, and have largely continued IMHO on inertia. Now that settlements have become a huge liability, I can’t see that any government not dependent on religious party coalition votes would tolerate them. For Camp David and Taba, the whole thing is a quagmire. Everyone who was at either has a different opinion, from [Sontag’s](http://www.mideastweb.org/CampDavidRevisionism.html) view that Barak was not operating in good faith to Ross’s aforementioned view that Arafat is a lunatic. I’m sure the truth is of course somewhere in the middle. Before going on Ross’s viewpoints, I would like to cite this article from Ha’aretz, which details criticism of Ross’s view by a religious Israeli. [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=158499&sw=ross+and+klein+camp+david](http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=158499&sw=ross+and+klein+camp+david) Apart from that, I use the [http://www.mideastweb.org](http://www.mideastweb.org) resources, which I feel to be very even-handed. It has translations in Hebrew, Arabic, and English, with columns written by all sides of the arguments. Its history of [Camp David](http://www.mideastweb.org/CampDavid2.htm) and [Taba](http://www.mideastweb.org/Taba.htm) very enlightening. Their [maps](http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm), including a Taba map adapted from FMEP, seem to be closer to what I had in mind for the Barak deal. Their histories of the conferences, including statements on the refugees leaked to _Le Monde_ after Taba are also enlightening, yet ominous. Here is my take on Camp David/Taba, which I believe is not contraindicated by the reports. Excuse my pro-Israeli bias. Most reports indicate that Barak did things at Camp David which were undeniably novel – he presented the first final status negotation. He demonstrated a willingness to cede away over 90% of the West Bank (at least), perhaps sovereignty over Jerusalem, and at least partially settle on the refugees. Oslo, Wye River, and all the others were all roads to a final status negotiation. Barak whipped out an implementation. IMHO Arafat was totally unprepared, and scuttled it based on sovereignty over Jerusalem and territory issues. While this in itself wasn’t necessarily damning, what did him in was not offering a counter proposal apart. This drove the nail in the coffin. One point, though: haggling over Camp David land percentages is moot, because these seemed to all be resolved by Taba. At Taba, one has to take it on faith that the lame-duck Barak was still operating on good faith, and could have pushed through a final status negotiation even though the intifada had shattered a peace coalition. The Taba accords were another Israeli final status proposal, cooked up in a relative vacuum from the lack of response to Camp David. These appeared to fall apart due to status of refugees. According to [http://www.mideastweb/org/Taba.htm](http://www.mideastweb/org/Taba.htm) it appears that there was not much disagreement on territory by the time Taba came around: > [@](#): > > The Palestinians, according to Israeli sources, agreed to a map that would allow Israel to keep most of the settlements and about 4% of the territory. Again, you have to accept an Israeli souce, but the maps seem to have very little to disagree over, especially if land is ceded from Israel. The resolutions leaked to _Le Monde_ demonstrate IMHO the root of the problem. The Israeli one appears to contain far-reaching compromises on refugees, with partial repatriation and financial recompensation. The Palestinian one, OTOH, demands full right of return for 4.6 million refugees with staggering economic aid. This would clearly bankrupt Israel and give it an Arab majority in the process. Israel has matured politically from its 1948 Zionist nationalistic ideals to a what’s-good-for-the-region approach. This has been helped along by lasting peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and relative calm. They are willing to give up land semi-necessary for safe defense if they can guarantee a peace deal will be honored. Everything since Oslo has confirmed this strategy of self-preservation. Even the very right wing Netanyahu negotiated land-for-peace at Wye River. The Palestinians OTOH have not budged very far from their 1967 nationalistic ideals. It remains unclear whether the PA charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, and it is a little unclear whether Arafat still considers Eretz Yisroel to be part of the occupation. Arafat is strong enough that he could turn Palestine away from this ideal to closer to the Israeli good-for-the-region approach. But he hasn’t, and I’m not holding my breath. He won’t do it because he fears for his own neck. He is the direct cause of this ugly situation, and not because he can’t/won’t reign in terror and not because he is stupid or anti-Israel or weak or old or anything else. His one fatal flaw is that he puts his own preservation over the preservation of the entire Palestinian people. He could crowbar the Palestinians to a more moderate position, he could cultivate democracy, he could repress extremism. He could do them easily just by changing the programming on his television station or giving orders to those in the Al-Aqsa Brigade who swear allegiance to him or by arresting and holding a few key figures as an example. But hey, he may end up dead. So he doesn’t. Only when the Israelis put a boot on his neck or the Americans put a match under his ass will he budge in the slightest. Arafat wants it both ways, and both ways accomplishes jack shit in this region. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/51 "2002-05-03T08:12:41Z")
**edwino** : Thanks for the excellent links! I’ll definitely look into them. (Sorry about your Exploder catastrophe as well). Regarding **myth no. 1** , you could be right. I have myself heard it reported somewhere, I think, that Arafat never condemned the suicide bombings in Arabic, and in addition I had used that factoid in earlier discussions on the situation. (Up here in the Great White North, where the media tends to be fairly anti-Israel, I have to find a way to balance that view, so I try to locate rational explanations for _Israeli_ actions, rather than the opposite.) I can only assume that I pulled it somewhere out of the media static constantly surrounding us. As wrote earlier, I’m more than willing to concede that Arafat can do more than he has thus far to counter the suicide bombings, so that wasn’t the issue. If, however, you were to ask me for a cite – where did I read on [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) that Arafat has never condemned the suicide bombings in Arabic? – I must admit, I’d probably come up empty-handed. I kinda disagree with your take on the settlements versus annexation question. Anyway, you should never feel it necessary to “excuse a pro-Israeli bias,” at least to me, as long as you can back up your arguments. **DSeid** and **edwino** : As I see it, there are two interlocking questions in that inform this debate. The first one reads: what actually happened at CDII, and what does it mean in terms of Israeli-Palestinian relations? The second one reads: how was CDII presented in the mainstream western press? If I understand the **EI** correctly, it’s beef lies primarily with question no. 2. Therefore, I would like to propose a thought experiment: If none of us had access to the internet, and its excellent resources, but instead derived our understanding of the conflict exclusively from US dailies, how do you think our view of the conflict would be affected? How would this debate have evolved? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/52 "2002-05-03T16:49:31Z")
Great summary **edwino**. Okay, let’s look at the interlocking questions. Let’s take on your thought experiment. The Web is a marvelous information and _disinformation_ source. Everything we read from every source must be read with a cynical eye. I presume that the majors are selecting what to tell and telling with an angle but that they very rarely will present explicitly false information as “truth”; they will quote predominantly from one side’s POV or another, however. I make sure to distinguish “facts” from “interpretations”. Web sources without a track record I give even less credence to. They _may_ lie. They may distort to a greater degree. Reader beware. Every individual must judge the reliability of information given based on the source. If it is a subject of great interest to you, you research and try to get as close to original material as possible, trying to avoid as many filters as you can. If filters are unavoidable then you at least hear what different filters are saying, try to interporlate a reality that is consistent with all the blind men experiencing this particular elephant and give more or less credence to a particular filter based on the known track record of the source. The Web gives me access to sources that I would otherwise have to work harder to get. Some of these resources are “excellent” some are dubious. When the facts are in question I can read a variety of sources and try to get closer to original material. I can check what various sides had said in the past, as things were happening, before they tried to spin the events after the fact. The Web also allows me to participate in debate, occasionally with intelligent people like you, and sometimes with idiots who shall remain nameless. The process of debate achieves several ends. I occassionally modify my view based on information and arguments that I had not considered. I occassionally strengthen my view by additional research and thought neccesitated in order to rebut an argument. I also experience some of the mindless points of view out there (read some of the posts from those who never listen, just repetively throw out mindless claptrap) and that solidifies my belief that “the world” is not to be entrusted with providing for the welfare of anything. With all that as preamble, if all I knew about the conflict was what I read in the dailies I would believe that Israel was a long time oppressor of Arabs. I would believe that Jews came into the MidEast and bullied innocent peaceful Arabs off their lands forcing them to live in camps. I would believe that Arab violence on Israeli civilians is not morally any different than IDF attempts to provide for Israeli security (read these boards, that is exactly what many posters do believe) I would think that the talks fell apart because the sides couldn’t come to an agreement and not know really why they couldn’t come to an agreement as the months following the collapse were filled with backtracks and soundbites from each side. A lot would depend on how throughly I read the dailies. If all I did was read the headlines and the first paragraph or two, all I’d think about Jenin, for instance, was that the IDF massacred a bunch of innocent Palestinians, hundreds maybe, used “human shields”, and are trying to hide it. I’d feel sorry for the poor Palestinian people and be understanding of their resorting to desperate measures even if I disapprove of the measures themselves. Your Great White North is not much different than most of the media, IMHO. It just makes better copy to present things this way. (Obviously some others believe that the bias is other than how I see it.) How would you see it if all you read were _your_ dailies? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/53 "2002-05-03T21:57:14Z")
**Mr. D** : Interesting that you should mention that snippet about “reader beware.” I’ve been going around all day with the phrase “caveat emptor” running through my head. There are a lot of levels to this discussion. Anyway, to the topic: I decided to try a small experiment on my ole lady, so I started by asking her what she knew, herself, about the conflict. (She’s not been following this debate, and gets most of her news from the Swedish daily press). I read your description to her, sentence for sentence, and she agreed with almost all of it; in other words, she believes that “Israel was a long time oppressor of Arabs,” that “Arab violence on Israeli civilians is not morally any different than IDF attempts to provide for Israeli security,” and so on. Regarding the CD II debacle, she knew nothing, because she had not heard about it. Regarding Jenin, at first she thought that a massacre had been committed, but later she read that they weren’t sure anymore. But the real kicker is this; I asked her where all the Palestinian refugees come from. After considering the question for a few moments, she responded that she wasn’t sure, but didn’t they come from all those settlements on the West Bank? She thought that Israelis had been moving into the West Bank and kicking Palestinians off their land; she had no idea that “Jews came into the MidEast and bullied innocent peaceful Arabs off their lands forcing them to live in camps.” This has got me to wondering about the responsibility of the media in general. In reporting on daily events, one can’t constantly include the entire history leading up to the story; the task would be impossible. So yes, caveat emptor; in the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the citizen to keep himself informed. Okay, in my version of this thought experiment, to begin with, we probably wouldn’t even be having this debate at all. That’s because I would never have discovered the **EI** or any of the other resources I’ve been using as evidence for my arguments. So I would never have gotten involved in a discussion debunking media “myths,” because, in fact, I would not be aware that my version of events were a myth. Or, rather, to be more accurate, I might suspect that they were perhaps vaguely inaccurate, or mythological, but I would have no way of knowing. Regarding CD II, specifically: I would believe that Barak made a broad, unprecedented and generous offer, granting the Palestinians a big chunk of the land that they seem to want, for some reason that I wouldn’t be to terribly clear about. I would believe that Arafat spurned this offer for some inexplicable reason, that I have yet to figure out (according to the media, he was “intransigent”); and I would believe that by doing so, Arafat also stabbed Barak in the back, virtually insuring that he would lose the election to Sharon. I can say this with confidence, because this is exactly what I believed prior to getting involved in this thread. Regarding the demands made on Arafat that he condemn terrorism: well, this is a bit of a sticky wicket. Reading Swedish press, I would not be able to understand these demands at all, or why the US and Israel are so adamant about them. (The way it works, see, is that you only present one side of the issue, and leaving the rationale of the other side “in the dark,” as it were.) Being smart, however, I read some American press; so when my ole lady and I got into a debate about this the other day, I shocked her by pointing out that in fact “Arafat has never condemned the suicide bombings in Arabic.” However, if I have been reading American dailies exclusively, I would probably believe that Arafat had never publicly condemned the suicide bombings in Arabic. Another way to go about answering this question would be to focus on a couple of specific mainstream news sources – say, [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) and the Washington Post, for example – and examine the coverage they devoted to CDII in the month or so after the talks fell through. If I have the time, I’ll see what I can dig up. By the way, at the risk of throwing salt in the wound – you’ll note from the Ha’aret article cited by **edwino** on the previous page that the version of the talks presented by Ross has been severely criticized by others. In addition, since we don’t have the map Ross was referring to during the interview, may I suggest that he could have been discussing the so-called “[bridging proposal](http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm) ” presented by the Clinton team? You’ll note that even here, at the **FMEP** , it is generally accepted that Barak’s solution would have divided the West Bank into four cantons. (Info that, I suspect, would have been generally unavailable in the “mainstream” press.) Finally, I want to strongly recommend Robert Malley’s analysis of CD II in the **New York Review of Books** , entitled, “[Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors.](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380).” Malley produces here a complex, intelligent, and wholly sympathetic analysis of why everything went wrong, with concise criticisms directed at both sides (well, all three, actually) and no name-calling. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462/54 "2002-05-04T00:05:22Z")
Malley presents (in that review and the article …thanks) an intelligent analysis. He presents his interpretation, his educated guess, as to what was going on in Arafat’s and Barak’s minds at the time and my guess is that he is likely accurate about Barak’s. Maybe about Arafat’s mind too. Notably, Clinton (by Malley’s report) had a very different assessment of what Arafat’s motivations were, as did Ross. (back to my multiple filter analogy) Who is right? Only Arafat knows for sure. The rest is speculation. For whatever reason this much is agreed upon: Arafat came to CDII with no desire to reach for a final deal, a final peace, unless he heard a near perfect final offer first. Malley explains the circumstances that led to that situation with a sympathetic voice, but agrees with that assessment nevertheless. Malley agrees that IF Arafat had come to CDII trying to deal with some back and forth that a fair and just compromise was likely, that Barak was trying to deal, to go for broke, but was trying to get the best deal he could. That is how negotiations usually work. BTW, those maps don’t look too bad, either of them. (Unless I’m misreading the key) Sure, some of the connections are narrow but they are there. 12 years or so goes quickly on the scale of history. The reality is that the future success of a Palestinian entity would be (?will be? I can still hope!) dependent upon economic partnering with Israel and Israeli co-ventures. IF peace resulted, and investments and jobs followed, then the specifics of the borders would fade into insignificance. Both county’s economies would have benefitted by making them insignificant. BTW, after the talks collapsed, CNN devoted coverage to attempts at restarting the talks and sympathetically portrayed that the Palestinian side was objecting to a variety of issues (at that point) including refugee status, water rights, borders, Jerusulam, everything. I scanned them when finding the CNN report on what the Palestinians were saying _as_ the CDII talks were collapsing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-6-common-israeli-myths/104462.md?page=2)