My thoughts in trying to make sense of the world. My main interests at the moment are politics and economics.
Politically, I lean towards the left, but at this moment, I want to learn about all kinds of views.
No doubt Israel is doing an inexcusable thing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an atrocity, for the simple reason that no one is being killed or maimed. And while the Gaza Palestinians are getting a raw deal, they are really paying the price for the mistakes of their leadership -- specifically Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept the Clinton-brokered peace deal with Ehud Barak in 2000, and the subsequent al-Aqsa intifada. I quote:
"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
"Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
"According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
"The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
"Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
"Arafat was asked to agree to 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."
Arafat chose to reject the deal without even making a counterproposal, and, with Clinton nnd Barak gone by 2001, things turned ugly once again. President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."
May I ask where you're quoting from? Is this from Wikipedia?
(Dennis Ross's book is worthless, for reasons I'll be happy to go into).
I can discuss the Camp David accords of 2000, the Clinton parameters and the Taba negotiations of 2001 if you want.
By the way, you might want to see the earlier image I posted of the current situation of the West Bank, if you have any illusions of what Israel was willing to give up.
As an clarification, I'm not saying Palestinians are blameless. Of course not. But you have to be reasonable and offer them a viable state. The claims which Dennis Ross makes are pretty ridiculous in this regard.
Even Shlomo Ben-Ami, the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time and the main negotiator at Camp David says in his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, that if he was a Palestinian, he wouldn't have accepted Camp David. Again, for easily understandable reasons which he explains (in the article I cite) and I'll be happy to go into if you want.
3 comments:
No doubt Israel is doing an inexcusable thing, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an atrocity, for the simple reason that no one is being killed or maimed. And while the Gaza Palestinians are getting a raw deal, they are really paying the price for the mistakes of their leadership -- specifically Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept the Clinton-brokered peace deal with Ehud Barak in 2000, and the subsequent al-Aqsa intifada. I quote:
"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.
"Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.
"According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
"The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
"Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.
"Arafat was asked to agree to 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."
Arafat chose to reject the deal without even making a counterproposal, and, with Clinton nnd Barak gone by 2001, things turned ugly once again. President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."
May I ask where you're quoting from? Is this from Wikipedia?
(Dennis Ross's book is worthless, for reasons I'll be happy to go into).
I can discuss the Camp David accords of 2000, the Clinton parameters and the Taba negotiations of 2001 if you want.
By the way, you might want to see the earlier image I posted of the current situation of the West Bank, if you have any illusions of what Israel was willing to give up.
As an clarification, I'm not saying Palestinians are blameless. Of course not. But you have to be reasonable and offer them a viable state. The claims which Dennis Ross makes are pretty ridiculous in this regard.
Even Shlomo Ben-Ami, the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time and the main negotiator at Camp David says in his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, that if he was a Palestinian, he wouldn't have accepted Camp David. Again, for easily understandable reasons which he explains (in the article I cite) and I'll be happy to go into if you want.
If you're interested, see this post for the Camp David and Taba agreements, among others.
Post a Comment