More “Palestine Papers” the Guardian chose to bury

Elder of Ziyon again has a great scoop – another “Palestine Paper” the Guardian chose to bury.

This document demonstrates that, in 2008, the PLO wrote a paper describing the legal rights of Jews to lands that they owned prior to 1948 in Judea and Samaria (land confiscated by the Jordanians when they took control of the territories after 1948 war).

Here’s one paragraph:

“Jews who owned land have the right to have their land restored to them or to be compensated, if restitution is not materially possible. Jews are entitled to compensation for other material and non-material losses, including lost profits, lost income, etc. caused by their displacement and dispossession.”

As we reported during the “Palestine Papers” expose, the Guardian didn’t so much as mention compensation for such refugees, and, indeed, in a piece prior to the “Palestine Papers”, Rachel Shabi completely dismissed the broader issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands – characterizing the issue as relatively unimportant, and Israeli efforts to highlight the plight of such Jews, during the course of negotiations, as insincere or cynical.

As Elder noted, the Palestinians likely wrote the above passages to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy in the context of their own demands regarding the rights of Palestinian refugees.

Apparently, such moral consistency (concerns about the appearance of employing double standards) is not something the Guardian spends too much time worrying about.

8 replies »

  1. MTC

    A very good article today on Harry’s Place

    The article’s main assertion have been totally demolished by the posters both from right and left. If I say that it is laughably stupid and ignorant crap then I can be accused with seriously understating its quality.

  2. The posters you refer to seem to feel that the “main assertion” is that Lieberman is the cause of deligimisation. However the article never says that. The point of the article is summarized in the last paragraph:
    “No amount of social media, nor build-up of global strategic planning, will help as long as Lieberman is in place. Hague’s comments are just a start –Israel has never been more ill prepared for the diplomatic assault that is about to hit. Israel would never go to war under a general who had lost every skirmish they had ever fought, what makes people think that the diplomatic world is any different?”

  3. Did you also read this:

    ‘After the 1948 war, as a matter of international law, Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the West Bank respectively. Both Egypt and Jordan appointed custodians in whom vested the properties of the Jews who fled in 1948 (See Annex I for details).’

    But, with respect to the article, I suspect the P.L.O’s calculation was with regard to the much greater area of land lost of Palestinian Arabs before 1949.

    What they don’t factor in is restitution required to be paid to Palestinian and Israeli Jews for having rejected partition and fought a war of subjection, expulsion or elimination until at least 1988.

  4. Actually that was exactly their calculation:

    ‘As pre-1948 Jews’ rights are an issue of importance to Israel – not Palestinians – Palestinian negotiators may wish to wait for Israel to raise it in negotiations, rather than raise it themselves. Once Israel does so, Palestinian negotiators could opt to recognise pre-1948 Jews’ rights and, in so doing, try to leverage them to secure a better outcome for displaced and dispossessed Palestinians on the basis of reciprocity. Pre-1948 Jews could bring pressure to bear upon Israel to secure restitution or, in its absence, full compensation. In this way, Israel would have a stake in ensuring appropriate remedies and an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue. However, if the number of affected Jews is small, then the pressure brought to bear upon Israel may be insufficient to have any actual impact on Israel’s negotiating position.’

  5. MTC

    Read the article again.

    Its main points:

    All the work around this important issue will be for nothing though if a central figure within Israel is not removed. Around two years ago, when the talk of Delegitimisation had just started to be spoken about seriously, Israel appointed a new Foreign Minster, Mr. Lieberman

    The author obviously must be matematically and/or historically challenged: The deligitimisation started well before that – oficially at the Durban conference in 2001 and described as such by Sharansky in 2003.


    Lieberman’s charge sheet is not news to anyone but at the same time it cannot be ignored as one of the main reasons for why the West is turning away from Israel.

    I’m not sure that this generalised assertion “the West is turning away from Israel” is true, but if it is then it has nothing to do with Lieberman and a lot has to do with many other factors like the relatively high number of Muslim voters in Western-Europe, the West’s hunger for safe supply of oil, the fall of the Sovietunion and the far-left search for new ideals and alliances etc.etc.

    The author’s ignorance is astonishing –

    He wrote:

    The Turkish FM might be an islamist but its also one of the fastest growing econ’s in the world, a massive population and their FM keeps to the rules of diplomatic protocol in both the UN and to their European neighbors regardless of his personal opinions of them.

    Seems to me he never ever heard of the famous hysterical (and utterly un-diplomatic) outburst of Erdogan against Shimon Peres in Davos.

    If somebody wants to try his/her ability to write an article on Israel, maybe the person should have looked up in a lexicon how to spell the name of Theodor Herzl