Most were drafts of “position papers,” or maps to be used as background information. They describe meetings between Palestinian officials and US and Israeli negotiating teams and provide a unique window into the mood behind the dialogue.

The papers created a furor in the Middle East, as they provided an inside look from the Palestinian perspective of more than a decade of talks, and show that Palestinian leaders were willing to make broad concessions in negotiations with Israel.

Although the documents provided detailed accounts of Palestinian willingness to compromise on the core issues of Jerusalem and refugees — this runs counter to the notion put forward by several pro-Jewish groups that the Palestinians remain responsible for gumming up the peace process during the past two decades.

Since the Camp David peace talks broke down in 2000, “most of the mainstream pro-Israel groups have adopted the narrative offered by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, one that defines the Palestinians as being the Dr. No of Middle East peacemaking,” noted the New York Jewish daily, Forward, which ran a lead article this week entitled:  “Jewish Lobbyists Still Skeptical of Palestinian Offers of Concessions”.

The takeaway, it said, was the “prevailing notion” from the Olmert-Abbas peace talks in 2008 was that it was Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that made “the Palestinians the most generous offer they’ve ever received, but Abbas recoiled.”

The “Palestinian Papers” reveal the Palestinian readiness for concessions, but pro-Israel groups see things differently:  “If anything, it shows that there is a deal to be done if the Palestinians agree to negotiate,” Josh Block, a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, told reporters last week when commenting on the papers.

Speaking at AIPAC’s March 2010 annual conference, AIPAC’s President Lee Rosenberg, told the audience: “Let us be clear, the reluctant partner in this peace process is not Israel’s elected leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The recalcitrant partners are the Palestinians and their leader, President Mahmoud Abbas.”

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the pro-Jewish Anti-Defamation League, wrote an op-ed last June in the New York Review of Books, where he argued that during the peace talks it was the Israelis who “went back to a full and better offer for a Palestinian state and got nothing again.”

“In general, the news of Palestinians willing to compromise was met with skepticism. Daily Alert, a news digest provided by the Conference of President of Major American Jewish Organizations, chose in its Jan. 25 edition to quote opinion pieces arguing that there were no Palestinian concessions noticeable in the leaked documents,” noted Forward this week.

The diplomatic documents leaked to Al Jazeera television and Britain’s Guardian newspaper provide an unprecedented glimpse into how peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians were conducted. But they also reinforce the fact that after 20 years of negotiations the core issues of any peace deal remain refugees, borders, settlements and Jerusalem.

Noting that there are two key lessons the pro-Israel community should take from the documents, Ori Nir, spokesman of Americans for Peace Now, an organization dedicated to a two-state solution, told reporters: “One is that there is a worthy and capable Palestinian partner for peace, and the other is that when an Israeli government seriously engages with such a partner, it can significantly advance negotiations toward a peace settlement.” The “Palestine Papers,” also show how the American negotiation team steadily lost its influence over the peace negotiations as shifting political administrations in the US and Israel appeared increasingly at odds.