nygreenguy wrote:JoeyKnothead wrote:
With respect to nygreenguy, a great and honorable debater, with some great points of his own, but I gotta go with cnorman18 here.
The Israelis have repeatedly offered land for peace - the lauded "Two State Solution" - only to be rebuffed.
While Im not too sure of the specifics here, what land, and how much was offered? Im worried that the fact everyone consideres this land holy makes certain parts more valuable than others.
A fair question. Look
here. The article gives a brief history of the meeting between Ehud Barak, Yassir Arafat and Bill Clinton at Camp David in 2000, which was the high point of negotiations between the two sides and gave the most hope for a peace settlement, and some history of the “revisionist� version that’s been circulating since. The following is how the story ended.
…the three leaders met at the White House in December and a final settlement proposal was offered. The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank (either 96 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from Israel proper or 94 percent from the West Bank and 3 percent from Israel proper), with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years.[7]
The offer, it is true, was never written down. The reason for this, according to Ross, was the recognition by both the U.S. and Israel of Arafat’s fundamental negotiating tactic of using all concessions as a starting point for future negotiations. Afraid that the leader might once again revert to violence, and expect future settlement offers to be based on the generous concessions offered to him now, President Clinton gave him no written version. Instead, he read it to the Palestinian delegation at dictation speed, “to be sure that it couldn’t be a floor for [future] negotiations... It couldn’t be a ceiling. It was the roof.� The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, and Arafat initially said that he would accept it as well. But, on January 2, “he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.� [8] He could not countenance Israeli control over Jewish holy spots, nor would he agree to the security arrangements; he wouldn’t even allow the Israelis to fly through Palestinian airspace. He rejected the refugee formula as well.
The reason for Arafat’s rejection of the settlement, according to Ross, was the critical clause in the agreement specifying that the agreement meant the end of the conflict. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, simply could not end it. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,� said Ross. [9] Ben-Ami agreed with this characterization: “I certainly believe that Arafat is a problem if what we are trying to achieve is a permanent agreement. I doubt that it will be possible to reach an agreement with him.� [10] Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt concurred: “The failure of Camp David is largely attributed to the fact that Arafat did not even negotiate....It didn't matter what he put on the table; he put nothing on the table.� Kurtzer added that he would never understand why Arafat withdrew from the talks without even offering a maximalist position. [10a]
Instead, Arafat pursued the path of terror in hope of repositioning the Palestinians as victims in the eyes of the world. “There’s no doubt in my mind,� Ross said, “that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.� [11] That judgment proved to be correct.
The undisputed FACT is that, after this historic offer, which was at the very LEAST a point from which to continue negotiations,
Arafat refused to make a counteroffer of any kind and initiated another round of terrorist violence. That, again, is a FACT that cannot be spun.
What compromise can there possibly be with those who won't?
Do they really refuse to compromise or do they think they are getting a bum deal?
After reading that, you tell me. Why was the Camp David offer unacceptable? Arafat never said;
he never made a counteroffer, not even an unreasonable maximalist one. No counteroffer at all.
I ask again; How, exactly, do you negotiate with people whose openly and explicitly declared goal, and the ONLY goal which they deem acceptable, is total victory -- in this case, the total elimination of Israel and the exile or extermination of every Jew in the Middle East?
What do you think the Israelis should do? The answer from the Palestinian side isn’t a two-state solution; it’s
no Israel and no Jews.
One more time; from where I sit, the ball is entirely in the Palestinians’ court.
There are two essential FIRST steps toward peace, and BOTH must and CAN only be taken by the Palestinians: (1) Stop the murder campaign, or AT LEAST make a good-faith effort at stopping it; and (2) EXPLICITLY RENOUNCE, in ARABIC for Arab audiences, the goal of total destruction of Israel and a Judenrein (“Jew-free�) Middle East.
I’ve been waiting for three years for someone to tell me how peace can be achieved, or even pursued, WITHOUT those two steps being taken. I haven’t heard an answer yet.
