The Washington Post reports:
For Israel, the documents could prove problematic because they show the earnestness with which the Palestinians pushed for a deal, despite Israeli protestations that they have no partner for peaceJeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street, told the Jerusalem Post that the documents highlight "the ongoing intransigence of the Israeli government."
In a statement, Americans for Peace Now said:
These documents -- if authentic -- highlight a reality that peace process cynics have long sought to deny: Israel has a far more real "partner" than it has ever been willing to admit. The documents underscore the fact that, sadly, Israel has not capitalized on the opportunity for peace this partner represents.The Los Angeles Times' Edmund Sanders similarly writes:
For one thing, the documents show that Palestinian leaders appeared to be far more willing to cut a peace deal than most Israelis — and even many Palestinians — believed.Even the Wall Street Journal has something similar to say: Charles Levinson writes that "Israel, meanwhile, is portrayed in the documents as slowing the Mideast peace process by turning down unprecedented Palestinian concessions."
In contrast to Israelis' portrayal of Palestinian leaders as rejectionists, the Palestinians come across in the papers as the side best-prepared, with maps, charts and compromises, even broaching controversial tradeoffs that went beyond what their own people were likely ready to accept.
The only major American newspaper that didn't report this central theme that has emerged from the "Palestine Papers" is the New York Times, which published Ethan Bronner's "analysis" claiming that the documents "open a door" on peace talks.