Guardian

Guardian op-ed by Avi Shlaim on Oslo’s failure erases Palestinians entirely from the story


Guardian contributor Avi Shlaim is an Oxford University anti-Zionist “historian” who’s been roundly criticized for his shoddy research and clear political biases and has characterised Zionism as the greatest single threat to Jews, blaming Israel – and not anti-Semites – for the upsurge of antisemitism throughout the world. 

Shlaim’s latest Guardian op-ed on the 25th anniversary of Oslo (“Palestinians still live under apartheid in Israel, 25 years after the Oslo accord”, Sept. 13), consistent with the denial of Palestinian agency seen in so much British media coverage of the region, manages to erase the actions of Palestinians, and the decisions of their leaders, almost entirely from the equation.

Shlaim places the blame for Oslo’s failure almost entirely on Benjamin Netanyahu, who he accuses of having ‘froze, distorted, subverted, and undermined’ the accords during his first stint as prime minister, and blocking peace talks with unrealistic demands during his second stint.  What Shlaim omits can consume volumes, but, for starters, he fails to note that Netanyahu’s government advanced Oslo by agreeing to major territorial withdrawals from the West Bank under the terms of the Hebron Agreement in 1997 and the Wye River Accords in 1998. 

However, even if Shlaim’s criticism of Netanyahu’s role in Oslo’s failure is on target, that doesn’t explain why he omits all facts which run counter to his desired narrative.  For instance, he completely ignores the role of constant Palestinian terror and incitement – and endemic antisemitism – in the two and a half decades since the iconic handshake between Rabin and Arafat on the White House lawn. Remarkably, the word terrorism is only mentioned once, and this is in the context of Shlaim’s claim that Netanyahu denounced the 1995 Oslo 2 Accords as a “surrender to terrorists”. 

Shlaim doesn’t write a single word about the 2nd Intifada, the five-year PA orchestrated campaign of violence that killed over 1,100 Israelis and arguably was the single biggest factor why much of the Israeli public soured on Oslo’s promise.  Nor does the Oxford historian so much as allude to multiple Israeli offers of peace – which would have created, for the first time in history, a sovereign Palestinian state – rejected by Palestinian leaders.

Olmert’s Peace Proposal in 2008

In over 1200 words of text in Shlaim’s column, there isn’t even once sentence so much as suggesting even the possibility that some Palestinian actions since 1993 may have been injurious to the peace process, providing yet another example of the one-sided, distorted and agenda-driven commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that Guardian editors consistently promote. 

 

Related Articles

 

 

 

7 replies »

  1. It seems that every week the Grauniad publishes another anti-Israel “op-ed”. Why is it that there are never any pro-Israel op-eds?

    It seems to me that there can only be two reasons: First, that there are no writers capable of putting Israel’s story into an op-ed in a clear fashion that even Guardian readers can understand, but second, maybe the “newspaper” refuses to publish anything like that that argues with its biases. I think it’s more than about time for op-eds to be written from a different perspective – let’s not call it even “pro-Israel”, let’s just say “including all the facts” – , and then demanding that they are printed.

      • Where’s the diversity? I though these types prided themselves on such things? They are suppressing points of view and marginalizing an entire community.
        Are you telling me that the Guardian isn’t so much a newspaper as a propaganda sheet? Oh no! Say it ain’t so!

      • Well, yes; it’s a question that bears asking of something that calls itself a newspaper. Or maybe the other possibility is true – maybe there just aren’t the people with the skill set to write our own op-eds. I’d like to think that was not true, and certainly people like Adam Levick have the knowledge and the skill to create such material. But has it ever been created? Or submitted? And if so, what was the result?

  2. “Guardian contributor” – no more needs to be said.
    Oslo was breached by the PA within one week, and has been dead since then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.