Israeli Rejectionism: The full history of Israel’s refusal to negotiate peace in Palestine

Around 9 months ago, we at Pluto were considering the title for a book on the history of the Middle East Peace Process, which drew on material in Hebrew, Arabic and English. Title discussions are often a torrid affair, but in this case the evidence pointed to a clear conclusion: Israel did have a partner for peace, but the Palestinians did not. From there, it was a short journey to reversing ‘Arab Rejection’ – the mainstream media’s narrative of the failing peace process – and using the title to assert that Israeli Rejectionism was the main enemy of the peace process. In this post, the book’s authors, Zalman Amit and Daphna Levit, outline the historical background that led to the PA’s misguided but understandable stance and the inevitable reaction from Israel.

On Sunday, January 23rd, the TV Network Al Jazeera released 1600 documents covering the ‘Peace Negotiations’ between the Israelis and the Palestinians over ten years that were leaked from the Palestinian Authority.  These leaked documents reveal that Palestinian leaders made enormous concessions to the Israelis including their willingness to forego the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and even allowing Israel to annex most of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinian claim as their future capital. Such concessions fundamentally contradict the known official Palestinian position and expose the extent to which they were willing to go for peace.  The Palestinian people themselves had no idea, apparently, of these concessions.  But even more incredibly these concessions were a complete contradiction to the Israeli version of the failure of the peace negotiations.

Our book, Israeli Rejectionism: A Hidden Agenda of the Middle East Peace Process is about to be released by Pluto Press. The main tenet of the book is that the failure of peace negotiations had nothing to do with the Palestinian unwillingness to be a partner for peace but has always been that for Israel peace was never the goal. Throughout its history, the State of Israel and the Zionist Movement before it considered the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as its own rightful land and took every opportunity to conquer more and more of this land. Israel achieved its territorial goal in 1967 when it conquered all of British Mandatory Palestine. It is therefore not surprising that during the period covered by the leaked documents Israel sabotaged all peace proposal presented to it, as we demonstrate in our book.

Regardless of the enormity of concessions made by Palestinian leaders such as Saeb Erekat and Ahmed Kourei, Israel’s standard response was that these offers were inadequate and therefore of no interest. It is no consolation to demonstrate that these leaked documents confirm and validate our contention that there is no peace because Israel never wanted peace. Nevertheless the documents clearly confirm our contention of Israel’s rejectionism and reveal that the Palestinian rigidity alleged by Israel is untrue.

Israeli Rejectionism

A Hidden Agenda in the Middle East Peace Process

Zalman Amit and Daphna Levit

An analysis of the Middle East ‘peace process’ showing that peace has never been in the interest of the state of Israel.

£18.99 Exclusive! Click here to Pre-order now! Only £15 inc. P&P within the UK. Your copy will be despatched in the first week of February so you can read this revealing book weeks before anyone else and impress everyone with your superior knowledge.

3 thoughts on “Israeli Rejectionism: The full history of Israel’s refusal to negotiate peace in Palestine

  1. Amit and Levit write: “Throughout its history, the State of Israel and the Zionist Movement before it considered the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as its own rightful land “. This statement clearly demonstrates the enormous anti-Israel bias of those “historians”. They ignore the irrefutable fact that the Zionist movement accepted the UN partition plan in November 1947 while the Arabs vehemently rejected it. In fact only the Zionist Revisionist party claimed the whole of Mandatory Palestine plus the Kingdom of Jordan. But they were a small minority. In the first elections in Israel they got only 14 members of parliament out of 120.
    It is also an irrefutable fact that the Arabs opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, regardless of its size. They started a war. immediately after the 1947 UN partition vote, aiming to prevent by military means the implementation of the partition.
    And, after the 1967 war Israel did not annex the West Bank and Gaza, except for East Jerusalem. Even Begin and Shamir did not annex
    those territories. Today, the majority of the Israelis support the principle of the territorial compromise (the two states solution) just like they did in 1947.

  2. In our book “Israeli Rejectionism” we deal directly with the conventional view of Israel’s acceptance of the 1947 UN Partition resolution. We do not have an Anti-Israeli bias, as Jacob claims, but rather an insistence on truthful examination.
    We claim that Israel recognized the pragmatic necessity to accept the international community decision on partition and yet seized every opportunity to continually expand these partition borders. When the 1948 war ended Israel was in possession of 78% of Mandatory Palestine rather than the 56% allotted to it by the Partition decision. The leadership never considered the idea of returning the extra 22% of Palestine, as demanded by the UN.
    This strategy of adopting declaratory pro-peace positions and simultaneously sabotaging any possibility of achieving peace has not changed to this very day – as is demonstrated by the recently leaked Palestine Papers.
    Whether the majority of Israelis truly support the Two State Solution is a moot point. During the past 43 years of military occupation the vast majority expressed no great dismay at the fact that 500.000 Israeli settlers settled in those occupied territories, with government support, rendering the Two State Solution all but stillborn.

    Zalman Amit & Daphna levit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s