The Myth of the Generous Offer

Distorting the Camp David negotiations
By Seth Ackerman

The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon.com 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn‘t clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
---------------------
Note: There has been some discussion on the matter, so this educational piece seems advised reading.

Although those whose faith traditions include beliefs, based on interpretations of sacred texts, that parts of several countries in the Middle East, including, if I am not mistaken, part of Iraq, were "given by God," there are many people who have lived in the region for a long time whose faith does not include that doctrine.

An argument might be made for the original UN resolution, but the UN is not realitically a credible organization on the question, since Israel is currently in violation of no less than 69 UN resolutions.

This is where Arafat messed up, in my opinion. He deceived Israel, and deceived the west, into thinking that the Palestinians would blithely agree to meekly submit to waiving their rights under international law and willingly deliver their homeland into the hands of those chosen by US oil companies.

Whether one agrees with the position or not, the reality is that outside of certain circles in Israel and the US, the land is not Israel's to give. The right of return is not negotiable, and as Israel and US's own choice, Abu Mazen has pointed out, there is no one who has the authority to waive it.

Israel has been trying to put things on the table that are simply not there to put. What is negotiable is whether the long-term residents of the area will accept the premise of a state of Israel, or in other words, how much land will the Palestinians agree to give the Israelis, not the other way around.

Obviously, if Israel had spent the last 50 years building friendly and productive relations with its neighbors, and establishing itself as a responsible, respectable law abiding state and standing on its own two feet as opposed to contenting itself with being an overfed and ill-trained guard dog for US oil interests, the whole issue would have been simpler.

But we must return to the reasons for the establishment of Israel.

The US and the UK did not engineer an Israeli state out of dewy eyed sympathy for Holocaust survivors. They wanted a guard dog to protect the natural resources of other countries in the region, to facilitate their exploitation, and they did not want large numbers of Jewish refugees in the US and the UK. Remember this was a 1948, a time when a Jewish person in the US would have a hard time joining a country club in a middle class suburb. Anti-Jewishness was not a Hitler exclusive, he just had a particularly horrendous way of expressing it.

couldn't agree with your post more. Arafat proved himself a greedy autocrat concerned more so with his power over the cause of his people (according to Palestinian critics of the peace process). He proved himself a poor negotiator and made concessions he should not have made considernig Accords themselves were flawed in that they called for Bantanstans rather than full soveriegnty. Arafat was bought out. He jailed anyone in Palestinian who criticized the peace process as well as his role in them (or should I say lack of role in them).

There is great weakness in leadership on the Palestiniann side after all these years they are so proficiently sized up by their adversy yet they seem clueless as to how to combat them with efficiency. Arafat was given a shot to outsmart the imbalanced process itself - clinton paid him off and Arafat should himself not one who understands democratic process but one who wiped his feet all over the cause of his own people. There is almost no excuse for this but for a compassion undertanding of human nature. He did not do Nelson Mandella proud.

As a freedom fighter and a field commander, he was superb. His courage, sometimes bordering on the insane, his charisma and his ability to motivate people - and keep them motivated - is hard to beat. See Uri Avnery's "Prisoner of Ramallah," anyone who hasn't.

But once he fought his way to the front of the line, once he had the ear of those in the west who questioned whether the price of Alpo for the guard dog might not be getting just a teensy bit steep, Arafat became bedazzled by his new status as cause celebre, anti-establishment symbol and trophy beige dinner guest at the tables of the rich and famous, and maybe without entirely realizing what he was doing, his major focus became remaining a star of the jet set as opposed to fighting to win at the table as he had in the field.

As a result, Palestinians and Israelis alike have spent the past yikes, how many years now? sucked into this fiction that the only thing standing between war and peace in the Middle East is an agreement based on a non-starter.

This is not to minimize Arafat's status as a national symbol. He is and will always be the Father of the Modern Palestinian State. Nor do I mean to trivialize the cruel and hideous deception to which the United States has subjected the Israeli people, both indigenous and immigrant. As is always the case, they have had their stooges, their dollahos, who were, and still are, willing to screw their own citizens to the wall for personal gain of one sort or another, but Arafat had the chance to call them on it, in fact, he has had several chances, and I will go out on a limb and say he could still do it today. But today he is old and sick, maybe he couldn't, even if he had a moment of sufficient lucidity to recognize that he should.

Not the other way around. The Palestinians have no state. Israel controls the territory they wish to use for a state. Ergo, they need Israel. We like to refer to that as facts on the ground.

The land IS Israel's to give or not and where Arafat and the hopeful Palestinians screw up is failing to acknowledge that. And failing to acknowledge that right of return to ISRAEL will not happen. That doesn't preclude compensation or return to the West Bank, however.

I love your statement, "how much land will the Palestinians agree to give the Israelis, not the other way around." The Palestinians have no ability to give anything and the longer they postpone any agreement, the less likely they will have to even negotiate that. The wall will become the border, everyone knows that. It is being built, IMHO, as deliberately provocative to encourage the Palestinians to settle, make peace and NOT have the wall become the border. The Palestinians seem to miss this concept.

So you blame Israel entirely for the last 50 years of conflict. It is not up to Israel to get the Arabs to like it. If the Arabs hate Israel, THEY have something to do with that.

What they have is a glorified military base, which is considered a state by the base's Sugar Daddy.

The facts on the ground are that on the streets in the region, and on many many streets outside the region, what Sugar Daddy calls a state everybody else calls a "Zionist Entity," or a US-backed squad of gangland thugs who have built some really great shopping malls within easy distance of their secure undisclosed locations.

The facts on the ground are that Israel is needed only by the US, and only until they have established a comparable base somewhere else, which they have been working on pretty steadily, establishing several in fact, in order to secure the petroleum resources of the region for the benefit of US financial interests.

Either the US will achieve its goals in the region, and dump guard dog Israel at the pound, or the US will, like Rome did, fall, and Israel will be left at the mercy of all its other Sugar Daddies, which at the moment, are still holding steady at zero.

The Palestinian faction refuses to acknowledge that Israel even exists. The UN, which hates Israel, even admits that much.

The facts on the ground indicate that Israel isn't going anywhere. Either the Palestinians admit that and deal with it or not. They choose. Reality or fantasy.

According to you, Israel is only needed by the U.S. What about the Jewish people around the world AND in Israel? You make it sound like any nation is ever really "needed." A Palestinian nation is only needed by the Palestinians, but doesn't make it any less necessary.

As for the last, you better hope the U.S. doesn't stop supporting Israel. If it does, the conflict will escalate and if Israel feels like it will lose everything, so will the Arab nations.

I have already said in previous posts that in my opinion, the people who went to Israel to live were royally screwed by the US and the UK.

Most of those people went there for religious and emotional reasons, they did not go there asking how they could sacrifice themselves and their children to help make a handful of people richer.

When Israel is either discarded by the US, or when the thin thread of the US breaks, whichever comes first, assuming that the US leaves all the weapons right where they are, in the case of scenario A, or in the case of scenario B where a fallen Israel finds itself surrounded by people it has spent half a century obediently trying to destroy, like a good guard dog, what choice will it have?

Geography is not favorable for a WMD attack of any size against its neighbors, especially Palestine. For example, nuking East Jerusalem or Hebron could have some less positive impact on Israelis.

Even a long-range tactical nuke against - Egypt, even Iran - would put more Israeli lives in jeopardy than even Sharon would feel comfortable with - just in case both he and the parents of the children with radiation burns both survived.

If the immigrants who came to Israel in good faith and their descendants want to stay there, their only hope is to become the nation that their children deserve, an independent, peaceful, law-abiding community that earns the respect and friendship of its neighbors.

And that will not be easy. In my first post, I acknowledged that there are those whose interpretation of sacred religious text is that much of the region belongs to Jews by divine decree.

Because the people who live there do not share that interpretation of that text, however, any serious negotiation regarding how much land the immigrants can have cannot realistically be based on that, nor on the beliefs of some Palestinians that Jews are evil beings.

Israel has some tough decisions to make. Is the current location really the best place for a Jewish homeland? I am speaking of Israelis who sincerely want a Jewish homeland, not those who sincerely want to prove a point, demonstrate military capability or increase arms sales.

The historical land of Israel is located in the Middle East, yet many of those who have come to live there are Europeans. Will it be easy for them to become a peaceful Middle Eastern nation?

Would having a peaceful Jewish homeland based on peace and tolerance, a democracy where all citizens of all faiths live in freedom to dwell, worship, marry, whom and where and when they choose be worth the sacrifice?

Or is the current level of sacrifice preferable?

To even envision such a result is appalling.

They are a nation of only six million people. If the Arabs refuse to accept them, then too bad. Because they aren't going away.

Will that mean ongoing strife forever? Perhaps. That is not the choice of the Israelis who are living there, it is the choice of their neighbors.

Actually, if anyone got screwed by anyone in all of this, I would say both the Israelis and the now-Palestinians got screwed by the UN, which constructed a mandate and then didn't enforce it.

What do you mean by, "when the thin thread of the US breaks?"

Geography is fine if Israel gets desperate and has to defend itself against its neighbors. Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya are all far enough away to avoid most of the devastation. Besides, if Israel has to use nukes, it will already be so desperate that the result would not matter to the few Israelis that would remain.

Let me ask you, how do you go about getting respect and friendship from those who wish your nation destroyed?

"Is the current location really the best place for a Jewish homeland?" Yes, because it IS the Jewish homeland. That's just a fact that you and others are going to have to live with.

The "current level of sacrifice" is indeed "preferable" to Israel ceasing to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.

Let them expel those who prefer war to peace, those who prefer to make their money from arms sales as opposed to agriculture or other peaceful pursuits.

If Israel disarmed, it would be overrun almost instantly by its loving neighbors.

Your statement about the neighbors proves my point.

In fact, it proves several of my points.

Why doesn't Israel have good relations with its neighbors?

Go back and read my comments about how the US has played the Israeli people for chumps.

Israel has just one Sugar Daddy, but Sugar Daddy has a lot of hos.

And guess what? A whole mess of them are right there in Israel's hood.

Democracy in Saudi Occupied Arabia, in Egypt, Iran, etc would not serve US interests.

What works best is to install a puppet, pay him well to keep the population barefooted and ignorant and prevent any kind of grass roots democracy from sprining up by any means necessary.

Round up a bunch of European Jews, holocaust survivors, and deploy them in the region, pick out the playas in your bunch and send them out to kill some natives, cram the colony of Euros full of weapons and spend a half century making pretty speeches about peace while you pass around dollars to the ones you can count on to keep any from happening.

All the while, keep your eyes on the oil.

In the long term, which would the Israelis rather have? A Jewish homeland or a gangsta paradise?

would veer on this warpath, which so far to me seems to be following an Israeli strategy for fighting terrorism. As it Bush's rhetoric is in line with the propaganda, but I always felt the bush camp the neonazish germanic saxon's) iwould veer. I have of late been calling it potentially a war within a war.

Perhaps that moment draws nearer (The Guardian has some interesting analysis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7251. It will be interesting to see what the US does now).

It seems now the world admonishes the US for the UN bombing for lax security (not that the EU was thrilled that the US went off on its on like this - and of course we understand they all have their fingers in the pie as well as you have more than once articulated). And as you probably know there was an article in LBN where in Israel seems to be pointing the finger at syria as the culprit for the UN bombing.

So that fork in the road looks to be upon us. I find Israel quite formidable and I do not believe the US will have an easy time of just dumping Israel as you have put it. The relationship goes back a while.

I was going to ask you what you meant by American deception that was played on Israel, but I suppose what you mean is this deception of the state of Israel as you have outlined it with your reference to sugar daddies.

Is the current level of sacrifice preferable ? good question. I guess that would depend on the aplomb of our PNACers and the key strategist, as well as the CFR and who meglomanically psychopatic all really are. There is no loss for arrogance among them all. And there are many factors to consider with those issues that go back to the Afghan war as well as our fight agains communism.

Russia is on this game board as well and we have some bad blood with russia. I would say. so many potential wars with wars.

Most people, Israeli and otherwise, are more interested in taking care of their families and watching their kids grow than in invading, occupying, committing atrocities or selling guns.

Whether Israel has a homeland and becomes a respectable country should be the decision of those folks.

One of the fundamental misunderstandings is that people tend to paint the entire conflict as something mysterious and somehow connected to religion.

It is not. It is first and foremost a situation where Europeans invaded a country, and occupied it and embarked on a campaign of aggression, hostility and ethnic cleansing directed against the people who lived there.

That was done a lot in times past, and a look around the world today will show you that it is not a practice that leaves a positive legacy or a good result for anybody.

Israel is not fighting terrorism, it is fighting resistance to an invasion and an occupation.

Palestine is not fighting infidels or Zionism, it is fighting an invader and an occupier. Whatever the respective religious beliefs of the combatants, the basic facts do not change.

If there is a complicating factor, it is Sugar Daddy.

It is very possible, even probable, that if, in the aftermath of WWII, that the issue of Jewish refugees who wished to move to the Middle East could have been effected in a peaceful negotiated manner, establishing a new state that had a chance to BE a state.

If the US had been, or were today, truly interested in helping Israel become a sustainable state, it would be encouraged to be independent, responsible, a good neighbor, etc. instead of forming its policy for the entire region around the Kissinger quote "Why should the Arabs have the oil?"

Bottom line, peace and stability are not as profitable as war and chaos.

Yes, business as usual. I do agree in the case of ip it would be best if Israel decides rather than be forced to go against the Mofaz' plan now almost completely exacted, but for this pending pre-emptive strike, which it seems US is on the ground in a more outward manner to fight.

Once again I am in agreement with your thoughts including:

"Israel is not fighting terrorism, it is fighting resistance to an invasion and an occupation."

Generally, I put terrorism within quotes to indicate that I believe that to be a pretence. At this point it seem a given that it is, so I have become lazy with bracketing it in quotes. Your above description DOES describe the dynamic more accurately.

So, in your mind, at what point in time do people stop fighting history and accept it? I mean, should Native Americans still be leading an armed resistance against the United States? Should Aborigines be doing the same in Australia? How about Inca and Aztec descendents? Should they fighting Spanish descendents in Mexico?

At some point, reality becomes reality. Israel is long past that point.

I agree that most Israelis aren't interested in "invading, occupying, committing atrocities or selling guns." However, for them to be left to live in peace, Palestinians need to come to terms with the fact that Israel is there. Something, thus far, they seem unwilling to do.

"Whether Israel has a homeland and becomes a respectable country should be the decision of those folks."

That decision has been made. Israel IS a homeland. It's done.

You are wrong saying this is not about religion. Jews were there already. More came, many to areas where no one lived or cared to. It was their success at this and the prospect of having a non-Muslim state in the area that pushed Arab nations to war.

Actually, Palestinians are entirely fighting Zionism, which by definition, is the continued existence of Israel as a homeland to the Jewish people.

It might be that if the Europeans had invaded the area now called "Zionist entity" by most of its neighbors in 1048, or 1648, even 1848, that they could by now have arrived at the same place the white South Africans enjoy today instead of in the future, or they could have a few more generations before their grandchildren are Arabic speaking Muslims, as is happening in the US as the demographic shifts more to the descendants of indigenous Americans of the southern tribes. (VIVA MEJICO!)

A half century ago, in the United States, you could find more African-Americans who agreed that apartheid was a good idea, that white people were inherently better suited for leadership, etc. than you could today.

The same can be said of India a few years after the end of the Raj. Today it would be difficult to find many Indians who sincerely believe that the British are superior.

As you point out, the flow of history goes on, and one of the things that the latter half of the twentieth century saw was a drop-off in the level of acceptance that Western European hegemony was a divine right.

There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which have to do with the gentle but inexorable twin zephyrs of Mendel and Math.

Ethnic Europeans comprise a mid two digit and falling percentage of the global population. As I mentioned, a parent of European ethnicity living in the United States today is much more likely to have grandchildren who are not ethnic Europeans than was the case a generation ago.

As has been mentioned, Israel is located in the Middle East. The likelihood of maintaining a European colony on a long-term basis is right around zero or a little below.

The question is, how long must the Israelis who are alive now pay the price for increasing the bank accounts of arms merchants.

And how will those Arabic speaking grandchildren feel about their European heritage?

Will they view it as a shameful taint of bloodlust, greed, cowardice and hatred?

Or will they walk tall, proud that their ancestors had the moral courage and character and faith to refuse to be pawns and victims of US petro-adventurism, and forged a respectable community based on peace and tolerance and working with their neighbors for the benefit of all?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the Taba variation, when Clinton asked for verbal approval and Barak nodded OK - should have had Arafat nodding his head so fast it would have undone his hair!

They were very close - down to the detail of discussing garbage pick up routes in Jerusalem - with the PA offering Green line adjustments of 3 to 4% of the West Bank to Israel, while Israel wanted 5 to 6 % - and Israel offerring a right of return to Israel of less than 100,000, the others to recieve compensation, and an unlimited right of return to the west bank.

Arafat was into destroy Jewish State by getting majority Arab population in Israel via right of return - and turned the above down.

With no counter-offer.

Camp David sucked but was a stepping stone to Taba - where Arafat showed he would never agree to a two state solution that allowed Israel to remain a majority Jewish state.

it just didn't matter because everyone knew Barak was out anyway.

Taba still wasn't the great deal it's made out to be, Israel would have controlled the borders.

Clinton comment Arafat shook his head no was to say

"You bastard"

and walk out.

Yes Arafat killed Taba - Why - ? - seems he has not accepted a solution that includes a "Jewish State".

:-(

He went into the deal giving specific guarantees that if concensus couldn't be reached he wouldn't blame anyone, so Clinton is pretty much a liar from the get go on the whole thing.

Arafat didn't reject or accept Taba according to all accounts he just kept saying things like "where there's a will there is a way" and screwing around until Ariel Sharon was elected and it was too late.

Clinton was Israeli's best negotiator. That peace process was clearly flawed It and he did nothing to point out its flaws, but instead placated the Palestinian cause showing no really understanding of the issues from the Palestinian side. Arafat, from what I have read WAS illy equipped to negotiate and then did not even balk after the signing at Israels meddling even into the Palestinian election process.

Arafat does not get kudo's, he was easily duped. Your point is well taken though. What it sounds like you are saying is that he did understand the deal was not sufficient, but at some point clinton handed Arafat a big check on the contingency that he play ball. Arafat was basically silence. Prior to this monetary offering, it was Arafat that stormed out of more than one meeting in resistance to this supposedly generous offering which was hardly a concession from the Israeli's.

If I have my chronologies straight (which I will double check) it was at this point that Arafat was handed a check for quite a large sum of money from the US ( I will check the figures on the buy out money as well). As the story goes Arafat's constant tantrums within the negotiations were hurting Clinton. So at one point Clinton paid him off. I have to double check at what point in the process of negotiations this check was given to Arafat. He was bought off. As I said in another post, the check was given Arafat with contigency that he play ball. With so much of the heart of the grievance on final status, I suppose it could be argued he took the check figuring that once the security aspects were in place it would be worked out during final status.

and lost the West Bank. The Palestinians have lost and cannot militarily get the land they want so desperately. So they kill, and murder, and bomb. But they still cannot win. Israel's national survival is at stake; they will not tire, they will not leave, they will not lose.

If there is to be peace, the Palestinians will have to be the ones to make it. Flame me if you wish. I am not claiming the situation is right, only that this is what the situation is. The "suffering" and "bravery" of the Palestinians will buy them a latte, if they also have $5.

Israel would be bankrupt right now if it didn't have US backing and even with massive cash infusions unemployment and recession are rampant.

the acquisition of territory during war is not admissable? Have you heard of transfer (i.e., ethnic cleansing)?

Geneva conventions?

UN Resolutions?

The fact that the Palestinians didn't lose the war?

Israels survival is not at stake?

Have you heard of any of this?

STF what? It doesn't change anything. The Palestinians wii never be able to kick the Israelis out of Israel. So they have the choice: Fight and die, or live.

Israel isn't the West Bank you know. :crazy:

Eretz Yisrael is, but then people who say that are lunatics.

but why do I even bother.

I don't get it. How do you read an article like the one placed and come back with the spoils of war argument?

certain words and phrases triggered the talking points (assuming that the article was actually read)

LOL (I have lost patience with it - so I can not even respond to that arguement anymore it requires one go back and forth with so much back ground information that on most forums has been debated ad nauseum).

This is my considered opinion. Everybit as valuable, and valid, as yours. PROBABLY moreso, as it comports with reality.

CAN ANY OF YOU PEOPLE READ?? Did I say it was fair? No! Did I say it was just? No! What I did say is that that's the way it IS!!! And that IS the way it is. Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me how the Arags are going to kick ISrael into the sea! I'm willing to be convinced.

....is that that's the way it IS!!! And that IS the way it is. Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me how the Arags are going to kick ISrael into the sea! I'm willing to be convinced.

Neither are the "Arabs."


The way through the conflict is not by taking one side.

the side that is not targeting innocent women and children. The side that does NOT claim to love death. The side that must win or die. the Palestinian refugee problem could have been solved years ago if the "brother" Arabs had been willing to take them in. But they wanted to keep them before the world as "victims".

That's not their home.

There home is in historic Palestine where they were ethnically cleansed in Israel proper and where the sit in refugee prisons in the occupied territories. Learn some.

that those 'brother Arabs' amount to anything more than a bunch of hoodlums calling themselves regime. None of these countries have so much as made an effort to truly help the Palestinians. They have gone from one futile, dishonest and hypocritical resolution to another.

This does not distract from the plight of the people that get caught up in all of this. All it does is reflect poorly on those pretentious neighbors of Israel.

But I know it well enough to know that they probably left out the part that there was another offer made. It was one where Palestine would not have been in pieces with Israel controlling the whole area. I believe that they also offered East Jerusalem at the time. Arafat turned it down.

I'm not going to say that's a "generous offer" because that's not near what the Palestinians used to have. I just want to clear this bit up.

http://www.stanford.edu/~ilanah/The%20Oslo.htm

Israel's Final Status Proposal
(or see map - Final status map Dec_00)

December 2000. This is a projected map of an improved Israeli proposal made in the course of negotiations that continued after the failure of the July 2000 summit and after the start of the Intifada in September 2000. It provides greater territorial contiguity than previous Israeli proposals, but envisions annexing 10% of the West Bank and retaining a "temporary" security strip separating the West Bank from Jordan. Note that when his officials made this proposal, Barak knew that his government's life was short, compromising the Israeli government's commitment to this proposal.



Clinton Proposal Projection
(or see map - Final Status Map (Clinton))

December 2000. This is a projected map of the proposals made by President Clinton after the failure of the Camp David Summit. It is somewhat more "generous" than the Israeli offer made in December 2000. The President seems to have begun to understand the need for a contiguous Palestinian state. He still envisioned Israeli annexation of 6% of the West Bank. The very provocative settlement bloc of Kiryat Arba-Hebron is eliminated, but two other settlement blocs around Ariel and Ma'ale Edomim almost trisect the West Bank. Clinton's proposals retain - temporarily but indefinitely - an Israeli barrier between the West Bank and Jordan, with 86.5% of the West Bank for the Palestinians. Note that Clinton made this proposal shortly before the end of his second term, knowing that he won't be able to supervise its implementation.



Negotiations were terminated when Ariel Sharon was elected Israel's Prime Minister in February 2001.

NOTE: Percentages of the West Bank as calculated by Israel and the United States exclude greater Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, and the 1949-67 no-man's land between Jordan and Israel (near Latrun) and include the territorial waters of the Dead Sea.

Have to go.

point being it was expected that Arafat would agree on the 6% or make a counter-proposal that was closer than 3.5% that had been made, and that he would demand the security area along the Jordon be gone in 24 months, and that he agree in principal to the Clinton Right of Return proposal and they would fight over compensation.

Arafat agrees to nothing - in principle or otherwise - and while he does not "walk out" - with no counter-proposal and time running out before the Israeli elections - Taba was ended.

God, the Ariel incursion was on the table, the borders time bound for Israel to get out, only accepting partial right of return instead of total stood between peace and war.

very sad.

"God, the Ariel incursion was on the table, the borders time bound for Israel to get out, only accepting partial right of return instead of total stood between peace and war."

Yes, and maybe Arafat should have said "Yes" to the deal for that reason. However, here's another way of looking at it. One could argue that it was Israel's reluctance to allow a full right to return that stood between peace.

I have read your posts and while I disagree with a lot of them, I have to say that I'm with you on how the situation is. I think (and I hope I'm not wrong) that you think passionately about this and the people on both sides.

With regards to Arafat, he, imo, is a horrible leader, and a great one at the same time. He is one, to us, that has been the epitomy of this dilemma. However, he also serves the aspirations of a population that diserves better than "Camp David = Generous Offer" or Taba.

You probably know by now that I'm a proponent of the one state solution. This doesn't look good to many people. I don't think it should to both Palestinians and Israelis, but I think it should warrant appropriate consideration.

Having said that even, please propose something that will provide justice to the Palestinians and peace to the Israelis.