Mr. Rosenberg leads off with a weird, ambiguous statement that I think is alluded to the Bulgaria bus bombing. See for yourself:
"I wonder if the Israeli government now regrets that it didn't consider the Arab League peace offer that was first issued in 2002 and then again in 2007. Every Arab state signed it and it was strongly backed by the Saudis who, in fact, drafted it."And then he immediately launches into the specifics and history of the Arab League offer. What do you guys think this paragraph means? "Now" the Israeli government regrets, because of the bus bombing? What else has changed? It's interesting how Mr. Rosenberg can't even bring himself to discuss the bus bombing in particular, to say nothing of showing sorrow or sympathy for those killed and hurt, before immediately using it to push his politics. On the other hand, if it wasn't referring to the bus bombing, then what was it referring to?And why didn't he just say so?
Rosenberg then talks about the facts of the API, which I didn't see a problem with. But then he puts up a whopper of a lie:
"Of course, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government have never indicated any interest in a deal that requires giving up the occupied territories, which, of course, rules out any deal at all."Except, of course, for Netanyahu's speech to the UN where he laid out his support for the two-state solution. But Rosenberg has built his career on bashing the right wingers, so why expect him to stop now?
As Rosenberg's piece move on, he begins to contradict himself:
"Just look at the changes since 2007....In 2007, when the Arab League Initiative was last issued, Israel's most important ally President Hosni Mubarak was firmly in power...Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood government has not indicated that it will back away from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty but, no doubt about it, its future is up in the air. The moderate Palestinian Authority is weaker than ever before...Hezbollah, formerly a Shiite terrorist group formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, now is the majority party in the Lebanese government and essentially controls it." [MJ then goes on to list all the enemies Israel has]It's true. There has been great upheavals in power in the ME since 2007, as Rosenberg correctly points out. Knowing what we know now, then, why should Israel have signed the API in 2007?
If Israel signed the API and then gave up all the concessions, and then the Arab Spring happened, Rosenberg himself admits the future of that hypothetical peace between Israel and the Arab nations would be "up in the air". So if I was an Israeli leader, left or right, I'd be congratulating myself for not going for the API, because such an exercise has been proven to be a waste of time! Not to mention the little fact that it would have put my entire country at risk.
But Rosenberg doesn't seem to realize this, because doing so would violate his one guiding principle left: the lack of peace is Israel's fault. That's what he lays out:
"The bottom line is that the status quo no longer works to Israel's advantage. Every day its position grows weaker as the region it is located in becomes more and more unstable, and forces militantly opposed to Israel replace those who seemed more than willing to live with it."And then concludes with his usual demands that Israel make peace now or suffer the consequences, even while history and he himself demonstrated in the body of his essay why making peace with the Arabs is an exercise in futility. It would appear that even though he is aware of current events, they have made little to no impact on his opinions.
With such basic levels of dishonesty, it's no wonder Rosenberg is out of a job and on the fringe of the discourse.