"Palestinian Authority would never give up any of our rights. If we did indeed offer Israel the Jewish and Armenian quarters of Jerusalem, and the biggest Yerushalayim as they claim, then why did Israel not sign a final status agreement?... Is it not strange that we would offer all these concessions which Israel demands, yet there is still no peace deal?"
In Hamas' view, this shows the "ugly face of the [Palestinian] authority, and the level of its co-operation with the occupation... and involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".
Unsurprisingly, but sickening all the same, is that this is the Guardian's take on it as well. Robin Shepherd observes that it shows that the political establishments, NGOs and media, particularly the Guardian, "have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on 'settlements'... more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself."
"egged on the Palestinians to reject even the slightest territorial compromise, encouraged them to accept nothing less than new maximalist demands, and, most dangerously, legitimized and empowered the most radical movement in their society: Hamas".
"Not content to merely cheer lead for the Palestinian side, and demonize Israel, they now seem to view their role as inciting the Palestinians to reject moderation and accommodation... in framing the compromises which may have been considered by the Palestinian leadership, as a cowardly surrender to the cause, Guardian editors have now emboldened Hamas, and have abandoned even the pretense of advocating for peace."
"At last, Palestinian leaders appear to acknowledge that peace requires giving up things that they would otherwise wish to keep. They have provoked denunciation from theocratic absolutists [like the Guardian!] for whom compromise is betrayal. And that is reason enough to be hopeful."