Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 54,554
- 10,508
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #1,221
The article continues:
After Arafatās refusal to agree to the US-brokered Israeli peace offer at Camp David that would have created a Palestinian state, a rejection that President Clinton called āa mistake of historic proportionsā, he launched an intifada ā using Ariel Sharonās peaceful visit to the Temple Mount as a pretext ā to turn attention away from his widely criticised rejection.
Then, the Economist buries the lede:
The Economist article ends thusly:
But, thereās one more major error in the Economistās analysis.
(full article online)
This is revisionist history.The failure of the Camp David talks in 2000 sparked the second, and far more violent intifada, which shifted from stone-throwing to the use of weapons, not least by the Palestinian Authority established under the Oslo accords, and more suicide-bombings
After Arafatās refusal to agree to the US-brokered Israeli peace offer at Camp David that would have created a Palestinian state, a rejection that President Clinton called āa mistake of historic proportionsā, he launched an intifada ā using Ariel Sharonās peaceful visit to the Temple Mount as a pretext ā to turn attention away from his widely criticised rejection.
Then, the Economist buries the lede:
A more accurate take-away ā which would contradict the desired narrative ā is that, despite of Israelās unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Palestinians in Gaza handed Hamas ā the group committed to Israelās annihilation ā a victory in parliamentary elections, ushering in, not more peace as most commentators predicted following the disengagement, but year after year of terror and war.It prompted Israel to build a security barrier in the West Bank and to withdraw from Gaza in 2005. And since Hamas seized power in the enclave, there have been repeated rounds of fightingāthe deadliest of which erupted in 2014.
The Economist article ends thusly:
First, itās misleading to claim that Israelis have ālost faith in peaceā. Itās more accurate to say that, whilst a plurality of Israelis (including the alternate Prime Minister) still support two states, most Israelis, due to Palestinian peace rejections, the rise of Hamas and the barbarism of the 2nd Intifada, have lost faith in the Palestinian leadershipās desire to truly live in peace with the Jewish state.ā¦in the 15 years between the second intifada, which began in September 2000, and the end of the second Gaza war in August 2014, 800 people died each year, on average. Since then, victims have numbered 175 a year. In the same period, Israeli deaths fell from 85 a year to 14.
Israelās military might, its erection of security barriers and its deployment of anti-missile defences mean that, for most Israelis, most of the time, the conflict is out of sight and out of mind. Relations with Palestinians barely featured as an issue in the four elections Israel has held in the past two years. The international outcry over the plight of Palestinians is unlikely to change this mindset. The latest fighting may show how the unjust treatment of the Palestinians stores up trouble. But even now, the endless occupation seems tolerable to many Israelis who have lost faith in peace.
But, thereās one more major error in the Economistās analysis.
(full article online)
Economist gets Israeli view of Palestinian conflict completely wrong
We recently came across an Economist article published during the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel that gets the Israeli view of their conflict with the
camera-uk.org