Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator, is interviewed here by Laura L. Caro, the Jerusalem correspondent of ABC, the Spanish conservative daily newspaper. The gist of his remarks is that the supposed Israeli offer to cede 93% of the West Bank to the Palestinians, much talked about in the press in recent days, does not reflect what is actually being discussed in the negotiations and was really just an Israeli media ploy to pin the blame on the Palestinian side for a breakdown in negotiations.
He also says that there will be no deal without a deal on Jerusalem, that the new Palestinian state will need strong security forces, that the refugee issue will have to be solved by agreement between the parties and in accordance with international law and that nothing can be taken as agreed until everything is agreed. All completely unremarkable stuff.
Right in the middle of the interview and apropos of nothing, he says,
I don’t have money to pay for campaigns in the West; I just want to negotiate a fair agreement based on international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
The first clause in this sentence may refer to the presidential election in the United States. This would be a bit odd because there is no mention of it anywhere in the interview, or to elections anywhere else either. It is also possible that he is referring to media campaigns related to spin doctoring the peace negotiations. What the money might be spent on isn’t the main point though; it’s that it’s there, that someone has it, to spend as they wish, to obtain what they want.
Nobody imagines that Saeb Erekat, or even the entire Palestinian people, on whose behalf he appears to be speaking, has the money to finance election or media campaigns abroad. The denial, therefore, isn’t really a denial at all, it’s a way of saying something without saying it, of communicating an idea that he either feels in his gut or believes that there is some gain to be had from insinuating, but doesn’t want to state clearly either because he finds it shameful to feel such things or because he feels that enunciating it might produce a negative reaction in some readers of ABC. Of course, he could have chosen not to say it all but say it he did; I don’t buy any “slip of the tongue” thesis, Erekat is a highly-experienced politician with a background in academia and the press. He says things because he wants to say them.
He must have said it because he believes that there’s an audience for the message, that there are some readers of ABC who, though not exactly pleased with themselves for so doing, believe this kind of thing.
So, no spelling it out, more like slipping it in. And Saeb Erekat is not a member of Hamas.
Actually, it’s pretty clear, even from a patchy Google translation, that, contrary to your assertion that his remark is ‘apropos of nothing’, it is apropos of the preceding remarks in the paragraph from which you quote.
So, what Erekat is saying is that whereas Israel has the means to have a decisive influence on how the matter of negotiations is represented in Western media, the Palestinians do not. As you yourself appear to admit, this is not a controversial proposition. But no-one’s accusing you of anti-Semitism.
I said that that that was one of the possibilities.
“It is also possible that he is referring to media campaigns related to spin doctoring the peace negotiations.”
@ ‘Spell It Out Yourself’
I wouldn’t hold your breath. Eamonn often enjoys divining what others mean (sometimes with the help of a creative addition of his own), or even what they might mean in the future.
http://blog.z-word.com/2008/07/responsibilities/
“Spell It Out,” you have proved nothing, other than the fact that whereas Eamonn’s Spanish is fluent, you have to rely on dodgy internet translation tools. The fact is Erekat’s line is a pretty standard one: we negotiate in good faith, they don’t, but they are able to portray us as the obstacle because of all the influence they enjoy over the media.
Given the historic record of Arab oil money in promoting anti-Israel propaganda in the west, and the prevalence of antisemitism in the Arab media (have you watched Hamas’s channel Al Quds TV lately?) it is entirely reasonable for Eamonn to speculate about what Erekat might have meant.
Ben, you are clearly still smarting from Eamonn’s comments on your CiF piece. But this thread is about remarks made by Erekat in a Spanish newspaper, not about what you wrote in an English one.
Sadly, I missed the no doubt devastating riposte I’m ‘clearly still smarting from’, as I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Nicely done though. You provide a complete distraction, and blame me for the distraction. Bit insulting to your readers to think they wouldn’t spot that.
Ben W., perhaps you need saving from yourself.
“Sadly, I missed the no doubt devastating riposte I’m ‘clearly still smarting from’, as I’ve no idea what you’re talking about,” you say.
Do check the previous comment you posted. You, er, linked to the exact riposte which you now claim to have missed.
In fact, Ben, my Spanish is pretty good, and I could translate the paragraph in question without any difficulty.
I chose the Google language tools translation so as to avoid accusations of bias that might distract from the point I was trying to make: that the implication of anti-Semitism is unfounded, based on the evidence. But if the implication of anti-Semitism based purely on speculation is deemed reasonable in these parts, then I shall leave you to it.
A misunderstanding it seems. When you wrote, “you are clearly still smarting from Eamonn’s comments on your CiF piece” I presumed you meant comments left by Eamonn on CiF itself.
As it turns out, you were referring to a post on this blog where I showed that Eamonn based his entire argument on (i) his own invented insertion, (ii) invisible evidence only he could see, and (iii) a prophesied future opinion of mine.
Given that his only ultimate response to all that was a deafening silence, I hope you forgive me for not associating that thread with any ‘analysis’ I might be ’smarting’ from.
But, what a distraction! You seem to be derailing a thread on your own blog!