When journalistic credibility is questioned

[shira]

<snip>

For example, The Guardian concludes that the Palestinians accepted the return of 10,000 refugees, when the evidence shows they were demanding the return of at least 150,000. Similarly, the paper claims they privately agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, when the documents show them rejecting the demand in private in exactly the way they do in public.

The Guardian claims Israel rejected a Palestinian territorial offer out of hand, but the documents clearly show Israeli negotiators proposing that the experts sit together and find ways to overcome the differences between the two maps.

Apart from its misrepresentation of the documents, The Guardian focuses attention selectively. It largely ignores significant Israeli final-status proposals which belie the narrative of Israeli intransigence. It also chooses to ignore numerous examples of Palestinians standing firm on their positions, such as their rejection of an Israeli proposal to annex Ma’aleh Adumim and several other large settlement blocs.

ON TOP of all that, The Guardian’s reporting fails to take any account of the gamesmanship involved in complex and high-stakes negotiations of this kind. The negotiators are human beings interacting with counterparts whom they have come to know, in some cases for years. They employ many tactics to test the other side and avoid revealing their own hand. Naturally, they exaggerate the significance of their own offers and avoid overreacting to what the other side has put on the table. This doesn’t mean they are not committed to a deal, but that they are seeking to get the best deal they can.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=206448

[ananda]

1. I definitely trust The Guardian here.

nt