20 Years ago - Camp David

Exactly 20 years ago at Camp David, PLO rejected peace plan with 92% West Bank, 100% Gaza, land swap and capital in East Jerusalem. Bill Clinton banged on table and told Arafat "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe.” PLO has continued its downward spiral. pic.twitter.com/OcMQLKH8FY

— Avi Kaner (@AviKaner) July 16, 2020

Avi Kaner / Camp David, Arafat, Clinton, Barak.

Danny Ayalon. Twitter.  I took the following account from Twitter ‘Thread Reader’. It’s interesting to follow the responses, especially the flimsy, ‘clutching at straws’ repostes from the opposition.

20 years ago today, I participated as a member of the Israeli delegation to the Camp David Summit. Holding the foreign policy portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office, I arrived in advance to meet with Sandy Berger and other key officials to prepare for this trilateral gathering.

A few days later, President Clinton arrived with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat. I warned Barak this maybe nothing more than a photo-op. Despite entering into negotiations, Palestinians still took anti-Israel resolutions to the UN and incited violence against Israelis.

Clinton sat in his armchair, wearing eyeglasses, taking notes in a yellow notepad. Barak began making concessions. Another day, another concession. Yet Arafat didn't move. He sat like a sphinx. Clinton got angry: "Mr. Chairman, this isn't how you negotiate. Give a counter-offer."

But Arafat didn't give a counter-offer. He either sat still or rejected what was offered. Meanwhile, back home in Israel, Barak faced enormous political pressure. Barak knew if he returned to Israel without a deal, his political career would be over. He was desperate for a deal.

Late one night, Barak summoned the Israeli delegation to his cabin. He informed us that he would be putting Jerusalem on the table. You could see the tears in his eyes. This was clearly something he didn't want to. Nearly all of us advised him against this. But he insisted on it.

The next morning, Barak went ahead and put Jerusalem on the table. Clinton was shocked - the Israelis, including his chaver Yitzhak Rabin, had always spoken of a united Jerusalem. Barak offered East Jerusalem as well as 3/4 of the Old City,

minus the Kotel and the Jewish Quarter.

"What about Al-Aqsa and Haram al-Sharif?" Arafat asked, referring to the Temple Mount. Thinking to myself, I was certain Barak would surely keep it under Israeli sovereignty. Clinton clearly also expected the same. It's the holiest site in Judaism. But Barak surprised us again.

Barak, a mathematician by training, offered Arafat "split-sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. Israel would be sovereign underground, where there are archaeological remnants of two Jewish Temples. The Palestinians would be sovereign above ground, with Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa.

Clinton was excited. For him, this was an amazing offer. Better than he had ever hoped for. He would surely win a Nobel Prize. But Arafat sat still for nearly a minute. Clinton's excitement ceased. He had a stern look on his face. He turned to Arafat: "Mr. Chairman, your answer?"

Everyone in the room stared at Arafat, who didn't know what to say. He hadn't envisioned or prepared for such a scenario. Finally he spoke: "I am sorry but I cannot accept this offer. There was never a Jewish Temple, so I cannot accept any Israeli presence. Not even underground."

By that moment we knew it was all over. There would be no deal. Barak was silent, contemplating the end of his political career. But Clinton was up in arms. He became angry and raised his voice: "Never a Jewish Temple? Mr. Chairman, do you mean to tell me that my Bible is wrong?"

Clinton was devastated. He continued yelling at Arafat. "Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman: When my Messiah Jesus Christ walked on the Temple Mount, he didn't see any Mosques. He didn't see Al-Aqsa. He didn't see the Dome of the Rock. He saw only the Jewish Temple!"

Arafat stormed out of the meeting and left Camp David a few hours later. Clinton and Barak spoke shortly before we packed our things and headed home. Clinton later wrote in his book: "Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being.....in a just and lasting peace."

Abba Eban said "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

They said no in 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000, 2008, 2014 and 2020.

Israel won't wait forever for the Palestinians. Arab States won't wait either. If needed, we'll move on without them. Shabbat Shalom.

Here I am - “writing about the Jews again”. It’s still hard to brush off such criticism. When I wrote for Biased-BBC one of its regular critics ‘humorously’ called me “Biased-BBC’s correspondent for Tel Aviv.”  Sort of amusing, but with an innuendo-laden sting in the tail.

I understand why this might seem off-topic, but we’re unlikely to find it on the BBC, where it really should be.

Peace and poison

I thought the accent on pacifism sat rather uncomfortably in the remembrance edition of the Andrew Marr show yesterday. Shirley Williams was doing the paper review, and  to end the programme tenor Ian Bostridge performed a Benjamin Britten arrangement of O Waly Waly.   

Shirley’s mother, Vera Brittain, was a  well-known feminist and pacifist who was friendly with Benjamin Britten, (a pacifist) which provided two excuses to mention pacifism towards the end of the show, somewhat reverentially I thought.

I suppose that was in the interest of balance? Pacifism is one of those issues, like unilateral disarmament, that requires an ideal world and/or a genuine prospect of universal co-operation in order to be remotely feasible.  United we stand, divided we die. And who is likely to want to unite with, say, the Taliban? I know, I know, the Religion of Peace whose vision of Peace would necessarily involve universal Talibanisation.

So on the principal of resistance (to the collapse of civilisation) pacifism is on a losing wicket.

“They insult the dead and advertise with pride the fact that they would not do anything to help you if you are under deadly attack. Their anger, which is considerable, is directed not at whatever it is that wants to kill them, but at those who, for reasons I find hard to fathom, would give up their lives to protect them from it.” 

says this article  on the Venerable Beads blog.

“Widespread pacifism is an invitation to the world's dictators and maniacs. It tells them that the country in question is weak, internally divided, unable to hold together. Pacifism only appears in a society when it can be afforded: when it is flabby and decadent and hasn't been tested for a while.”

It’s a good article. I know many people in the Art World who fit this mould, and the thing is, their day-to-day conduct frequently displays high levels of intolerance. 

***

I absentmindedly broke both (today’s and yesterday’s) two-minute silences without intending to.

***

Did anyone spot Andrew Neil’s insightful remarks on Sunday Politics concerning Geneva? 

Blink and you’ll miss it. When the New Statesman’s Helen Lewis said “the only one” who was angry at the prospect of a deal was Israel, Neil corrected her quite sharply. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States are as angry, if not more so, said he. Pakistan is prepared to supply Saudi Arabia with Nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, added Nick Wat. (Guardian)

Someone kindly pass this information to Mishal Husain and the Today producers.

Goodbye

Talking of demonising Israel (when am I not?) what about the poisoning, or assassination of Yassir Arafat? Whenever the topic of the nearly-but-not-quite attempts to kill Hitler pops up no-one harps on about ‘moral high ground’ and Geneva conventions; they only regret that they didn’t go to plan. 

So even if the BBC and the MSM fall for the Al Jazeera backed scientific (Moderate) likelihood that Arafat was poisoned, who cares? 

Oh, I know, the pro Palestinian lobby who can add it to their list of accusations.

( Jews release wild pigs in the West Bank to destroy agricultural fields and rats in the Old City of Jerusalem to drive Arab residents out of their homes.More recently, Palestinian media outlets also reported that the IDF had been seen releasing snakes in certain areas of Bethlehem to intimidate Palestinians and drive them out of their homes. They also reported that Jews have been poisoning Palestinian water wells in Hebron.)

The BBC has plastered its website with speculative fluff..

I watched Al Jazeera interviewing Suha and the daughter, who don’t even need to bother specifically accusing Israel themselves. They don’t need to sully the sanctity of their bereavement by stating the obvious because they know they can rely on others to do it for them. The Palestinian-in-the street provides the soundbites and the BBC is sure to pass them on. “No, we’re not surprised he was poisoned” says a dark-eyed beauty, by the look of it  out and about for a bit of retail therapy (Note how ‘moderate’ has morphed to definite) “and we blame Israel of course.” 

Of course.

Yolande Knell is looking more wan by the day as she goes more and more native. In this clip she manages two “Rumullah”s, the second one being a heartfelt “Ruh’Muh’LLLah.   

Miscellany for another November weekend

Although the BBC’s commemoration of the anniversary of Kristallnacht that Craig mentioned last week in his R4 Sunday review was all fine and good, as Craig noted, its attitude to present day antisemitism is not so sensitive.

I think they tend to do something quite unhelpful when they do ‘dead and/or humiliated Jews’. It’s not just that the Holocaust can easily be trivialised --  especially when so many people get away with equating Israel’s current treatment of the Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of the Jews; nor is it that there is a distinct likelihood of stirring up a backlash of reactive ‘holocaust industry’ type bigotry. 

It’s almost as though by accentuating anti-Jewish violence - the murderous, genocidal actions of the Nazis in other words, they’re separating that from the the low-level bigotry and bias that we encounter day in day out. When they define antisemitism in terms of physical violence, they distance themselves from that, and exonerate themselves from what they are doing. Recounting concentration camp stories reminds us how antisemitism can become horrific in ways civilised people like us would never emulate. 

Yet the BBC’s biased coverage of Israel does qualify as antisemitic under the EUMC definition of antisemitism. Judging by the way they cave in to the slightest whim of the MCB for fear of committing Islamophobia, the BBC’s interpretation of which seems to cover the tiniest thought crime, where’s moral equivalence when you need it? Crocodile tears over the holocaust are no compensation.

Here’s something I spotted on a B-BBC thread.”Greg Dyke on Broadcasting” from a 2005 article in the Indy. 

 "Governments have as much right as anyone to put pressure on the BBC; it's only a problem if the BBC caves in." 

Greg Dyke quoting  John Simpson 2005. Compare that with this. (It's the BBC's Stephen Whittle caving in to Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB of course.)

***

I rather enjoyed watching The Ambassadors. I was sorry that the Telegraph critic didn’t get it. I think he was expecting something akin to Peep Show rather than The thick of it meets Homeland.  Not laugh out loud, apart from Tom Hollander’s “Prince Mark” in the second episode, but well constructed and engaging.  Clive James liked that too.  

"Bearing no resemblance to Prince Andrew except in almost every detail of his behaviour, Prince Mark was played by Tom Hollander and made me laugh exceedingly, especially when, faced with his assigned accommodation at the embassy, he went on insisting that he always stayed at the Four Seasons. The news that there was no Four Seasons in Tazbekistan did nothing to deter him.

I thought Robert Webb seems a rather good actor, unlike David Mitchell, who, as the critic said, is always the same old D.M., but I still quite like him as long as he stays away from QuestionTime.

***

I don’t think many current Art Colleges actually teach drawing and painting, which expired “in nineteen sixty-three (Which was rather sad for me) between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP.” 

I understood what Grayson Perry means by the pleasure of ‘losing yourself‘ in the creative process. However I’m not qualified to opine on the YBAs or the Turner prize. Take or leave my personal observations about the Art Weld. Whatevs.

Nine out of ten cats questioned prefer “the landscape with animals in the foreground”  scoffed Grayson the Reith lecturer, while the ‘shy’ Grayson regretted that the art establishment has demoted old fashioned skill-based fine art to a lesser thing, (mere) craft.

  

When the glorified label ‘art’ was whipped away from the artisan and redistributed by the Art Weld to conceptualists, rebels, and jokers, the artist him/herself became Art.  

Oddly, alongside video installations and lights going on and off, traditional crafts like tapestry have partly replaced paintings and drawings, and can now be “ART”. Mind you, to qualify,  the tapestries, embroideries and pots have to have been made by Artists like Grayson or Tracey, not just members of the W.I.

 The Chagalls, Picassos, Matisses of, e.g. Lost Nazi Art, are patently two-dimensional, traditional, old fashioned paintings on canvas,  but they’re still considered Art. 

Modernist works were experimental, provocative and, at the time, shocking, but despite the obvious fact that these artists had different objectives from representational painters of previous generations, traditional skills were a right of passage for them, unlike YBAs such as Tracey and Damian who avoided the tedium and leapt straight to fame and fortune.

The unselfconsciousness of the child was envied by Picasso and the artists thereafter. Once lost, the unselfconsciousness of the child can never be regained, but the self consciousness you learn at art college will last a lifetime.

They fuck you up, the art school crew, 

They may not mean to, but they do

You look within for something new

Until you find that Art is U.

Hmm. Larkin eat yer art out.

***

Everyone is excited about the alleged poisoning of Yassir Arafat. 

It’s odd that Yolande Knell, who is as excited as anyone, if not more, was only the other day admonishing a Jew on a plane for using the Israeli pronunciation of Jerusalem. 

“His smile instantly turned to a scowl. "It's not Jerusalem," he said. "It's Yerushalayim".
"That's in Hebrew, but in English we say Jerusalem," I protested” 

She said “Jerusalem” cos she was English, and she was talking in English. Well, you know how George Galloway sometimes uses a bizarre Arabic accent? Has anyone else noticed the way Yolande Knell now pronounces “Ramallah”?  It’s now “Ruh’muh’lluh” - full-on, throaty and guttural, just like a native. 

“I was about to add - somewhat mischievously - that my Palestinian friends refer to it as "al-Quds" - the Arabic name for the city.” 

 she said then.  Watch out for what she calls it next time she reports from Yerushalayim. 

***

What about Mishal Husain this morning?.

“The news from Geneva is being followed with disquiet and anger in Israel where Prime Minister Netanyahu says an agreement would be the deal of the century for Iran. On the line now is the Israeli finance minister Yair Lapid and Patrick Cockburn of the Independent.”

Patrick Cockburn was in the studio; Yair lapid was in a tunnel 2000 leagues below the sea. 

“Good morning!” 

“Whoomoonnng” 

Patrick Cockburn thinks it’s all positive, but Yair Lapid thinks: 

“Whoosh  it is an enormous breakthrough; but only for the Iranians. We need to talk about the centrifuges, I mean why do they need them if they don’t want to create w.m.ds?”

Although I’ll admit Mr. Lapid was somewhat verbose, Mishal frequently talked over him, pleading the case for Iran rather more intrusively than necessary. 

“Limiting the percentage of enrichment is something you put on the table and you can take it back, because you can go from three percent to ninety nine percent within weeks” Mr. Lapid started to say, but while he was talking Mishal interrupted:

“If you monitor it like that any change should be immediately apparent.”

 The adversarial tenor of this item was unhelpful and uninformative. They should have let Mr. Lapid have his say. It was important, and included aspects we rarely get to hear.  

“I talk to finance ministers all over the world and there are international companies all waiting in line to go back into Iran,....” was one such. 

“You really think this whole deal is all about....?”  twisted Mishal as soon as he mentioned it.

I know new Today presenters take a while to get the hang of ending a time-constrained interview, but Mishal Husain was positively rude. She may be new to Today, but she’s no novice. Maybe she was instructed on the headphones by the powers that be to shut him up. But the interview ended sharply and abruptly while he was saying something important, and all for a trivial, chummy newspaper review.