Customer Reviews

Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As someone who has done alot of research on the middle east, having read countless books on the matter and journals, I can honestly say that no present account is better than Enderlin's account of the failed peace process. The main reason are his sources. Most of his sources are all the people involved, from Shimon Peres, to the european delegation, Palestinian ministers, transcripts between Clinton and the leaders, even transcripts of Syria's Assad! The book is very fair in the sense that it does not place an emotional blame, just describes what happened and who did what. If you want to understand where we are now and how the tragic mistakes of the past can be avoided, read this book. You will not regret it.

Charles Enderlin (a French journalist in Jerusalem) has done a great service not only to Israelis and Palestinians but also to American observers of the conflict. With his inside access to the negotiators, Enderlin gives the reader a vast amount of primary material.

What were the two sides discussing? How did the negotiations work? Why did the summit at Camp David fail? Did either side really want peace? Enderlin has his answers, but he also gives the reader the opportunity to make his/her own judgments.

As Beilin, Sher, Ben-Ami, Ross, and others publish accounts as participants in the process, it is very helpful to have Enderlin's book as a resource. For anyone interested in understanding the failed attempt to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Enderlin's book will be essential reading.

Although Enderlin's book was published in 2003 it is important and timely. Its importance resides in the fact that the author, as Bureau Chief of France 2 (the French equivalent of PBS), had direct access to most of the principal actors in the peace-process and his location in Jerusalem as well as his dual French-Israeli citizenship provide for unbiased reporting.
The timeliness of the book results from two aspects. One: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to fester with no end in sight and influences U.S. political decisions in regard to the rest of the Middle East especially: Syria, Iraq and Iran. Two: Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, both former prime Ministers, are again candidates by their respective parties for the Prime Ministership in Israel's next election. Knowing a person's past behavior allows, to a certain extent, a reasonable prediction for the future. Enderlin shows us the character flaws of both individuals and how these have led to the collapse of the peace process.
In contrast to the propaganda Americans are still exposed to in regard to the failure of the Camp David II negotiations, which places the blame exclusively on Yasir Arafat, Enderlin shows that the process was doomed from the start. The confidence building measures namely adherence to the Wye River agreement, which had been negotiated previously by Netanyahu, were not observed by Barak who instead insisted that everything would be solved by this final status agreement. Arafat thought that it would be impossible to do so in a hastily arranged two week meeting for a conflict on which the partners show wide disagreements. The most egregious ones were: the borders of the Palestinian state, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the fate of the settlements and Jerusalem which both sides regard as their capital. The Jerusalem problem is compounded by the question of sovereignty over the Temple Mount which, as Haram al Sharif, is the third holiest site of the Muslim world. The American failure to understand that Arafat could not single handedly make decisions on this vital topic, without agreement by the other Arab nations, was an important aspect for the failure of the talks.
For these reasons Arafat did not want a meeting which was supposed to be the "end all and be all." He agreed to come only after he had received President Clinton's assurance that he would not be blamed if the talks were to collapse. As we know Clinton did not keep this promise.
There were numerous reasons why the actual talks failed: Barak never negotiated with Arafat personally and even refused to engage in private conversations with him during dinner; there was no fixed agenda and no protocols were kept, everything was negotiated orally; the "American" proposals had to be vetted by the Israelis before they could be presented to the Palestinians; sessions went on throughout all hours of the night rather than on a fixed timetable. As everybody knows, when people are sleep deprived tempers tend to flare and agreements become difficult to achieve. The fact that the American negotiators were for the most part Jewish was also a hindrance. Although Enderlin doesn't mention it Swisher's book The Truth about Camp David, which should also be consulted, pointed out that Hillary Clinton was during that time locked in a race for the vacant New York Senate seat. This was an additional factor which prevented Bill Clinton from "leaning" on the Israelis even if he had wanted to do so.
Under these circumstances it is remarkable that a considerable rapprochement of views was actually accomplished upon which further negotiations could and did in fact proceed. They were however thwarted by the political process. In the U.S. Clinton's term of office was over and the Bush administration was not interested. In Israel Barak ruled with a minority government and had to call for elections against Sharon who was violently opposed to any concessions towards the Palestinians. Within Palestine the people had not seen any improvement in their lives during the prolonged peace process and to the contrary had to watch more of their land being expropriated for settlement building. They had become increasingly furious and the second Intifada erupted which provided the pretext for ending all negotiations.
Since the accuracy of Enderlin's presentation is vouched for by Israeli as well as Palestinian negotiators the book can be highly recommended to anyone who is interested in this vital topic. The book should also be required reading for all presidential office seekers as well as members of Congress.

This book is most interesting as it shows you how each side ( US, Palestinian, Israel) approached the peace negotiations process and how misunderstandings, political pressures, fundamental policy differences, promises made by one & retracted by another, the lack of preparation and trust lead all contributed to the failure of the Clinton Peace talks.

It is truely a behind the scenes view of the entire process.

It also covers how each side, especially the Israelis, managed the peace process. The management of press reports(pages 215 to 217)is just one aspect that I found most enlightning.

I would make this book required reading for anyone engaged in the study/practice of international negotiations.

I didn't know what to expect from this book coming into it. I had never heard of it before seeing it referenced in the fantastic book Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace by Daniel C. Kurtzer. So when I saw this book in the suggested reading section I decided to give it a try, and I am certainly glad I did. This author has had enormous access to the key players in the peace process, and has put together an amazing book relying on interviews, along with other sources, with those players. This gives readers an extraordinary insight into the inner workings of these meetings, and the thought processes behind the quest for peace.

The most striking aspect of this book is the focus on the human element. For readers this allows us to see just how complicated this negotiation process really is. Not only are these experts dealing with seemingly intractable issues, but they are dealing with political considerations, public opinion and the personalities of those involved in the negotiations. One gets the sense of just how tenuous this type of diplomacy really is by seeing the dynamics of the different personalities and how they mesh and sometimes clash. The reader gets to see how to people looking at the same problem from two different angles can see a completely different problem along with having a huge gulf between their possible solutions.

One thing this book lays out is the failure of the Clinton administration to carry through this difficult task. Readers get to see first hand how the Clinton team pursued peace at Camp David with no real plan of action coming in to the negotiations. This really hamstrung the talks from the very beginning. This meant they were unprepared for the tough talks that were coming, and so they were forced to scramble to find solutions to problems as they arose instead of having a clear agenda from the outset. Their lack of preparation meant they relied too heavily on the Israelis to dictate the course of the discussions, and this fact reduced the confidence the Palestinians had in the process and in the Americans. In the end these talks were doomed to failure before they even began.

This book also illustrates very well the extreme difficulty of trying to compromise when it comes to religious and symbolic objects of a people. It shows how once a piece of land takes on a symbolic importance for a people it becomes nearly impossible to deal with. The only way to come to an agreement, it seems, is for there to be an enormous amount of trust and faith between the two partners, and unfortunately those are two things that have been woefully lacking between these peoples for a hundred years.

What this work shows readers is that this conflict boils down to trust. The Palestinians have to trust that the Israelis will abide by commitments and remove the occupation and allow the Palestinians to live freely, and the Israelis have to trust that once they do so the Palestinians will begin the process of reconciliation among themselves and with the Israelis and thereby reduce the security threat for Israel. The problem is that for either party to have that trust they must first start out with faith in the goodwill of the other party. Unfortunately we have seen continued settlement expansion that has never really stopped at any point in the peace process, and we have seen continued violence and instability on the Palestinian side.

A historic opportunity was wasted by both sides and sabotaged by the neglect of the US team. The situation is not intractable, but the future looks bleaker than it has in decades. The lack of trust and faith has grown this decade making possible accords seem even further away. What both sides need now is strong leaders with strength to lead their people in the tough choices that have to be made, and a US administration ready and prepared to push the parties in the right direction; at this time though both sides seem politically fractured and weak. Seeing just how close both sides came to reaching an agreement gives me hope for the future, but I remain pessimistic for the present.

I read this book over a three day long-weekend. I could not put it down. I think one of the reasons I found it riveting was that some months ago I had read Dennis Ross's book, "The Missing Peace" and the characters and events were all very familiar. In fact, when reading a book like Ross's or Enderlin's, it is quite likely one would forget some facts or events so, by reading a book with very similar detailed subject matter, the understanding is made easier. Ross's book was more polished and personal and Enderlin's book is more in a style of a documentary. In fact, a documentary was indeed made for Frontline and Enderlin's use of the present tense gives the impression that parts of his book would have been used as the verbatim documentary voice-over. E. Rodin's review is excellent (I concur with 90% of it) and suggest it is really worth reading so I won't repeat what he has written. I would simply like to add that I think blame can be apportioned to Arafat for the failure as they did get very close... and Araft could not accept what was a great offer, better than could be secured today. The book makes one realise why, today, having a peace conference as proposed by Bush could well be counter-productive. if agreement is not managed ahead of a summit, at the working level, another intifada could break out when the talks fail. The book has become quite topical as, this very week, Enderlin and FRANCE 2 have come under the spotlight as an Israeli Government offical has claimed again that Enderlin and his colleagues staged a hoax (being the imgage of a Palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soliders); Just Google news "Enderlin Al Dura" for a complete range of views from press etc. (only two articles below which I think are worth taking the time to read);

In essence, if the shooting was a hoax set up by Enderlin and his colleagues, and the boy was killed by Palestinian gunmen, then Odin's claim that Enderlin's views are unbiased do not hold up.

October 03, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500
Top Israeli lawyer:
"Greatest journalistic hoax of the last century"


New York -- Seven years after the alleged killing by Israeli fire of a Palestinian boy, Muhammad Al-Durah, at the Netzarim Junction on September 30, 2000 during the first days of the Palestinian terror wave launched at Israel, the Israeli Government Press Office has officially rejected the France-2 Television report as a staged hoax. The Director of the Israel Government Press Office, Daniel Seaman, has issued a statement saying, "The events of that day were in fact staged by the network's cameraman in Gaza, Mr. Talal Abu Rahma" (Associated Press , October 1). Seaman stated that France-2 fabricated the events surrounding the death of al-Durah and cited in his letter an Israeli investigation that heard testimony from medical and legal experts and which determined that the events as described by France-2 were fabricated and defied the laws of physics ( Jerusalem Post, October 2). Seaman also wrote, "The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Durah has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead" ( Yediot Ahronot, October 2).


Investigations have shown that the angles of the IDF fire could not have hit Al-Durah and that the cameraman can be heard saying the boy is dead while the boy is still seen moving. During the past seven years, Israel has preferred not to confront the most popular television station in France, but following repeated requests by Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center, Seaman issued his statement denying Israeli responsibility. The denial comes following a ruling in Paris by an Appellate Court Presiding Judge, Laurence Trebucq, in a defamation appeal of French journalist Philippe Karsenty, whom France-2 sued for defamation for questioning the veracity of its report on the events presented by its Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Charles Enderlin. Karsenty maintains that France-2 and Enderlin staged the incident with the active participation of their Gaza cameraman, Abu-Rahma.


Enderlin, who was not actually present on the scene at the time, produced a report which was distributed free to the international media and which alleged that Israeli fire has killed the boy. However, Enderlin's report utilized 55 seconds of selected footage, shot by a Palestinian Arab cameraman, Talal Abu Rahmeh, none of which shows al-Durah actually being killed, let alone by Israeli fire. The full footage has been viewed by three journalists -- Jeambar, Leconte, and Rosenzweig -- who have testified that it consists of 24 minutes of staged scenes, with no images of the al-Durah boy and his father and no trace of the boy's "death throes" that Enderlin claimed to have been filmed but later edited out because it was "unbearable." As former Israeli cabinet minister and Soviet Jewish dissident, Natan Sharansky, observes, " All three [journalists] concluded that it comprised blatantly staged scenes of Palestinians being shot by Israeli forces, and that France 2's Jerusalem Bureau Chief Charles Enderlin had lied to conceal that fact " (Wall Street Journal , October 2). Judge Trebucq has ruled that France-2 must provide the whole, unedited 27 minutes of footage. ( Pajamas Media, September 20).


The impact of this alleged killing has been extensive. It was cited by the murderers of the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl. Postage stamps bearing al-Durah's crouched image have been issued in Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia; a street in Baghdad and a square in Morocco bear his name, while many schools across the Arab world are named after him. His image has even been reproduced on a designer dress in Saudi Arabia. Throughout Europe, and particularly in France, Muslims have used al-Durah as a rallying cry in their attacks against Jews, which broke out shortly after the Durah film was broadcast.


As Sharansky notes, "if, as Mr. Karsenty and others have claimed persuasively, the al-Dura incident is part of the insidious trend in which Western media outlets allow themselves to be manipulated by dishonest and politically motivated sources (recall the Jenin "massacre" that never was, or the doctored Reuters photos from Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006), then France 2 must be held accountable. It is important to note that the al-Dura news report profoundly influenced Western public opinion. When I served in the Israeli government as minister of Diaspora Affairs from 2003 to 2005, I traveled frequently to North American college campuses. I heard first hand how Mohammed al-Dura had shaped the perceptions of young people just beginning to follow events in the Middle East. For many Jewish students, the incident was a stain of dishonor that called into question their support for Israel. For anti-Israel students, the story reaffirmed their sense of Zionism's innately "racist" nature and became a tool for recruiting campus peers to the cause. "


Shurat HaDin Chairwoman Nitzana Darshan-Leitner said that, "This was perhaps the greatest journalistic hoax perpetrated in the last hundred years " (Israel National News, October 3). She also stated that, "Among other things, we plan to petition the High Court of Justice and demand the journalist certificates and other GPO certificates are revoked from all France-2 crew members in Israel -- reporters, cameramen, produces, etc -- as long as the network does not publicly announce that the al-Dura report was staged and was biased. In addition, Shurat HaDin is considering filing a damages claim for the accumulated damage the report has caused, and specifically for the line of attacks and riots it has led to. This modern-day blood libel has led to the death of hundreds of Arabs and Jews and has ignited hatred" (Israel National News, October 2).


ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We welcome the Israeli Government Office making an official statement on the case. We are also pleased that the Israel Defense Forces have called for the release of the full footage of the incident. The absence in the past of official statements harmed the cause of seeking the truth. Indeed, the original judgment of defamation against Philippe Karsenty was in great part due to the absence of official Israeli denial and complaint about the France-2 report, something which was specifically cited in the original judgment. The ZOA has been calling for some time for France-2 to release the full footage surrounding the alleged killing of Muhammad al-Durah, and this statement will help gather momentum for uncovering the whole truth about this episode which has inspired so much hatred and terrorism against Israel and Jews around the world. We call upon France-2 to revoke Enderlin's credentials. This event makes it clear that no-one can ever trust any future allegations of alleged Israeli atrocities stemming from PA officials and Palestinian media, all of which are under the direction and control of the PA or other Palestinian terror organizations."





Israeli Official Joins Fight Over Palestinian Image (New York Times, Oct 3, 2007)
There have always been doubts about the authenticity of a video clip showing the shooting death of a Palestinian boy, two days after the second Palestinian uprising began in 2000.
In the Arab world, the original report by a French TV network -- which said that Israeli troops had deliberately shot the boy -- still carries tremendous iconic power. An image taken from the footage, above, has been printed on postage stamps, and the name of the boy, Muhammad al-Dura, has been invoked by suicide bombers and Osama bin Laden.
But the video is dismissed as a hoax in other quarters. In France, a lawsuit continues over the authenticity of the tape, and similar doubts are raised elsewhere. Skeptics argue that artful editing and overreaching reporting obscured the fact that the boy was probably shot by Palestinian gunmen during a street clash with Israeli soldiers.
In Israel, the right-wing Israel Law Center petitioned the Government Press Office to pursue criminal charges against France 2 and revoke the network's press credentials. The petition was rejected recently, but the deliverer of the rejection also happened to be a bold civil servant intent on breaking with the longtime preference of the Israeli government to stay out of the debate.
The official, Daniel Seaman, made clear in his letter denying the petition that he agreed with those who say France 2 "essentially staged" the shooting video to shift blame for the boy's death to Israeli soldiers. Here's one of the emphatic statements, as reported by Ynet, an Israeli news site:
The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead.
Another excerpt was published in another account:
This report became the blood libel of modern times that shows that Jewish soldiers kill children in cold blood. This fomented the Arab world and caused many casualties in Israel and the world.
Charles Enderlin, the correspondent who filed the original 2000 video report to France 2, said today that he stood behind it, as does his network. "This is not the first time Daniel Seaman voices these false accusations," Mr. Enderlin told Agence France-Presse. He was not in Gaza that fateful day himself; his report used video images shot by a Palestinian member of his team.
Mr. Seaman's letter prompted Pajamas Media, a right-leaning Web site in the United States that has been closely following the case, to run the headline, "Israel Officially Declares Al Dura Footage Staged." And others were similarly direct.
But Israel has not officially declared anything. The prime minister's office pointedly refused today to endorse Mr. Seaman's letter, according to a statement to AFP:
We were never shown Seaman's letter, we are not familiar with its contents, and have not approved it.
Haaretz added yet another shade of gray to the affair: Mr. Seaman apparently received approval for his letter from the prime minister's legal adviser.
In a phone interview, Mr. Seaman said he's followed this case closely from the beginning, and is completely confident in his conclusion. He said the letter, which was written in Hebrew, supported his argument with information from reports in The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic Monthly, from independent sleuths like Second Draft and from official investigations.
Alas, a final answer of sorts remains elusive, although an official statement from the Israeli government becomes more likely as the Israel Law Center appeals the matter up the Israeli court ladder.
Another holy grail of the controversy is the full, unedited video footage from that day, which a French court has now demanded. In 2005, France 2 showed the original tape to an International Herald Tribune reporter, but did not answer crucial questions:
The footage of the father and son under attack lasts several minutes, but does not clearly show the boy's death. There is a cut in the scene that France 2 executives attribute to the cameraman's efforts to preserve a low battery.
In the 2003 Atlantic Monthly piece cited by Mr. Seaman, James Fallows both rejected the video and acknowledged that the true circumstances hardly mattered.
"Even if evidence that could revise the understanding of this particular death were widely accepted," he wrote, "it would probably have no effect on the underlying hatred and ongoing violence in the region."