Israel Matzav

Haaretz's strange notion of pre-conditions

In an editorial in Friday's edition, Haaretz manages to take Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence on direct negotiations with Syria without preconditions and turn it on its head, accusing Netanyahu of imposing conditions.

Netanyahu in theory accepted the proposal but in practice turned it down by insisting that the negotiations be direct and without preconditions (translation: without an Israeli commitment to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines and without reverting to the point when talks stopped under prime minister Ehud Olmert). So Netanyahu set preconditions under the guise of opposing the setting of preconditions.

Let me get this straight: One side (Israel) wants direct negotiations without preconditions and the other (Syria) won't even agree to indirect negotiations until Israel guarantees the final outcome. Who is setting preconditions?

One side (Israel) wants to negotiate with a clean slate and the other (Syria) won't come to the table unless it is guaranteed that the concessions made to it by a caretaker government with no legal (once elections are set, a government cannot enter into agreements of this sort) or moral right to negotiate. Who is setting preconditions?

It's downhill from there. In the next paragraph, Haaretz insists that UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires "full and secure peace in return for complete withdrawal," an interpretation that has been rejected by the American and British negotiators who wrote Resolution 242 (it requires the return of "territories" - and not of "the territories" - to show that Israel is not required to return all of the territory that it liberated in 1967.

Is there any enemy of Israel that does not merit enthusiastic support from Haaretz's editorial staff? If so, I have not found it yet.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:10 PM