Arafat rejects Geneva, but lets officials attend launch

Senior Palestinian officials flip-flopped yesterday
before agreeing at the last minute to attend
today's launch of the Geneva Accord, an unofficial
Israeli-Palestinian peace plan.


The Palestinian negotiators,
who had been threatened by
militants, initially said
that they would only attend
if they received a written
letter from PA Chairman
Yasser Arafat stating that he
and the Fatah Central
Committee support the
initiative. But although Arafat refused to grant the letter, they agreed to make do with a verbal statement that they
were attending the ceremony with his
permission, in their capacity as private
citizens.

snip

The crisis began when two Palestinian cabinet
ministers and two legislators who helped
negotiate the plan announced they were
withdrawing from the ceremony. Palestinian
participants had been under intense pressure by
militants, who were angry over the accord's
concession on refugees.

In a leaflet, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
called them "collaborators," a loaded term that
often marks Palestinians for death. Masked
gunmen also reportedly shot at the home of
former cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, the
key Palestinian architect of the agreement.
Yesterday, Fatah and Hamas activists attacked
delegates trying to leave Gaza for the
ceremony, calling them "traitorous" and
blocking their cars for about 45 minutes.

snip

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/366845.html


Makes you wonder if the position of "Palestinian negotiater" comes with a health plan.

:eyes:

http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/598/712.html

Some highlights:

"Arafat: I'm a supporter of the Geneva Accord"

"Jerusalem would prefer to ignore the launching of the Geneva Accord in Switzerland" (my emphasis)

"Mofaz: Roadmap remains the basis for negotiation"

"PM spokesman: the accord returns to the errors of the past"

Funny, looks like one side is plenty pissed off that peace might actually be possible, and it sure ain't Arafat. :eyes:

Today it's Haaretz that's the dishonest post. Last week it was the Jerusalem Post that didn't meet your standards but Haaretz was ok.

And today to make it even funnier you are using maariv as the "honest" press.

Here is what an Israeli journalist wrote me in answer to a question about the Israeli press. BTW it's the same fellow you once said of "he's a good writer"

Here is his response to me:

>Yes sir! Here it is. I'm not sure that Ma'ariv can be
>compared to a US newspaper or at least not to one I'm
>aquainted with. It's the second biggest tabloid (after
>Yediot). It's certainly closer to the New York Post than to
>the New York Times. Massive headlines, big pics and not that
>much text is the order of the day. However, like Yediot, on
>Friday it becomes more serious with a good political and
>security section with some excellent writers. Their diplomatic
>and political reporting is just as good as Yediot's. Basically
>there is not that much disagreement between the three big
>papers. They share the same Israeli sources and repeat the
>spin they are given. The difference comes in the analysis.
>Ma'ariv is considered somewhat to the right of Yediot but
>still there's plenty of space for a range of opinions. By the
>way I know one of the journalists mentioned at the end - Ilil
>Shahar


Note it's closer to the NY Post (Murdoch owned) than the NY Times.

How about on Monday morning you supply us with the approved sources for the week. This way we can all know what will meet your standards.
Once again, thank you for the laugh, I needed it today.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So I'm not exactly sure what you think that has to do with my post. I've quoted frontpages from Ma'ariv and Yediot, mentioning that they are the biggest selling dailies in Israel (as would be obvious regardless to anybody who knows anything about them).

Also, you are quoting me incorrectly (a shocking development): I said "more honest", not "dishonest". All the Israeli papers are reasonably honest, but some can be more honest than others when addressing specific topics.

Moving on to what you (accurately I presume), quote from your friend:

"Their diplomatic and political reporting is just as good as Yediot's"

And I gave a link to a diplo/pol article, bylined in Geneva. If you'd have bothered clicking on it, maybe you'd have known this. Seems you have just re-inforced the credibility of what I quoted, surely not your intention, but that is your problem :shrug:

Moreover, I would consider the NY Post more honest than the NY Times. At least they shill for Bush upfront.

"Basically there is not that much disagreement between the three big papers. They share the same Israeli sources and repeat the spin they are given"

I'd agree, however there is one difference: Ha'aretz publishes in English. That specific form of Ha'aretz is spinning for a sector of their reading audience which does not exist (much) for Ma'ariv and Yediot - i.e. U.S. citizens.

Also, you appear to have no comprehension of the fact that what I quoted would be the equivalent of the NY Post running an article saying that "Bush would prefer to ignore the Roadmap". Since that would never happen, you can draw the conclusion that the somewhat rightist Ma'ariv is being considerably more honest than its counterparts in the press when it runs an article on those terms, referencing the government of Israel.

So you can tell your friend (who is a good writer) that I agree with almost everything he said (the exception being I have compared Ma'ariv in some respects to the Wash Post). :thumbsup:

On the other hand, I completely disagree with your interpretation of his words, given that your statements are internally contradictory, as I've demonstrated. :thumbsdown:

Oh, and the Jerusalem Post never meets any standards, so take that as a given ;-)

Geneva rejects Arafat...

"Makes you wonder if the position of "Palestinian negotiater" comes with a health plan."

FYI, nah, but they have GREAT life insurance policies! :evilgrin: