Jonathan Freedland’s column defending The Guardian’s decision to publish the Palestine papers is a sign that The Guardian’s pro-Israel (and now pro-Palestinian) critics are talking past the editorial staff and barking up the wrong tree.
Do the PaliLeaks reveal anything new?
Oh yeah. I have to disagree with Noah Pollak on this point. The leaks tell me that there’s a huge gap between what Palestinian leaders tell their people and what they’ve been telling Israeli negotiators.
Are the documents partial?
Only the people with access to the unleaked documents know that. Leakers always have an agenda, so of course, it’s wise to skeptically remind ourselves there’s a lot we still don’t know.
Who benefits?
Irrelevant question. This is the Mideast. Everyone has an angle. You’ll certainly never identify the leaker by asking cui bono?
I’m willing to entertain the possibility that the Palestine Papers are a hoax, that the newspaper was taken for a ride. I haven’t seen a smoking gun yet indicating that.
Israel activists who want to attack The Guardian would be smarter to take a closer look at how the paper’s spinning the leaks. Here’s a staff-ed which expects Israel and the US to be “more Palestinian” than the Palestinian negotiators!
America must drop its veto on Palestinian unity talks and take up Hamas’s offer of a one-year ceasefire; a negotiating team that represents all major Palestinian factions must be formed; and Israel has to accept that a state created on 1967 borders, not around them, is the minimum price of an end to the conflict.
The Guardian was right to publish the Palestine papers.
