My understanding is that Barak made an unprecedented offer to Arafat in 2000 at Camp David in order to resolve the decades-old conflict, but Arafat refused. Barak's concessions were the most far-reaching ever offered and angered many Israelis. To my knowledge, these concessions included: 1) Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip. 2) The creation of a Palestinian state in that area. 3) The removal of isolated settlements that would be transferred to Palestinian control. 4) Slices of Israeli land to be included in the Palestinian state to compensate for the percentage of the West Bank to become Israeli. 5) Palestinian control over parts of Jerusalem including most of the Old City. 6) "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount (rather than Israeli sovereignty, which had been in effect since 1967). In return, Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. From various reports from those present, Arafat was not willing to modify the Palestinian demands, and instead clung to old all-or-nothing positions, refusing to compromise on Jerusalem or the issue of Palestinian refugees. Arafat failed to offer counter-proposals, or to specify what particular problems he felt needed to be addressed. I ask the following: Was Barak's offer unreasonable? If you believe it was unreasonable, why? What would you term "reasonable" or "fair" in this context? Why did Arafat refuse? My sense is that this was the best opportunity for Arafat, if he truly wanted peace and a homeland for his people, to do so. WHAT DOES ARAFAT WANT? Is it really as simple as the complete destruction of the state of Israel? I hope to learn something from this discussion. Perhaps I am too sympathetic to the Israelis, or maybe I'm not. Perhaps there were other offers on the table which I am unaware of and did not list above that were grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Whichever way your sympathies lie, please state factual reasons why other than sheer emotion.
That's the point....The Palestinians are not willing to compromise. And Arafat would rather have failed attempts at getting everything than succeeding at doing something that would actually benefit the Palestinians that he claims to care so much about. No one wants the Palestinians......no one, not the Jordanians, not the Lebanese.....no one. They have as a society contributed NOTHING. Who do you think employs most of the Palestinians by the way? Israel. One day the world will have to realize that the Palestinians do not want peace...never have, and never will.
Yes. As you put it - all or nothing, that's what he wants. Most palestinians do not agree with him, but are powerless to dethrone him. It is claimed all along that if palestinians had a more reasonable leadership, rather than a fundamental terrorist leader, then peace would be much closer at hand. You have all the answers my friend.. you're just unwilling to believe it to be true.. Cheers 50
Actually, 50, I'm quite willing to believe it's true, but I also believe that there are two sides to every story. I am interested in hearing the other side's point of view - if it contains more than shrill cries for the destruction of Israel and/or is willing to comromise. I'm trying to learn something new here; perhaps there's nothing to be learned. H
The Palestinians do a pretty good job in making their voice heard around the world. If you haven't heard their side by now about this specific issue.. then it means that the palestinians don't want it to be heard. Anyway I appreciate of course your quest for objectivity. 50
i've asked this elsewhere: somebody, anybody, produce a map showing the israeli borders arafat WOULD accept if offered. i can't find anything, all he evers says is what he won't accept, never what he will. sharon is an antagonistic baboon, no doubt about it, but arafat is even worse. palestinians will not get anywhere until he goes. removing the gaza settlements and locking down the border is a acceptable first step under the current circumstances. it removes arafat from the equation without actually killing him.
50, yes, I hear the Palestinian "voice." I'm just wondering if there's more to it than wanting to kill all the Jews and/or throwing them out of the nation they created. It's interesting that there haven't been any pro-Palestinian posts yet as there were a number on various threads in the past. H
I don't believe Palestinians have a declared purpose to "kill all jews". They just want them out of the middle east, dead or alive, and they will use any means. ANY means. You will definitely hear some pro-palestinian voices here on ET, but none of them can provide cold hard evidence and facts as to why the palestinians did not accept Barak's peace offer. I personally believe that the Palestinian leadership is the real trouble. If they had a more decent leader things would look much better. I sincerely believe that the millions of palestinians do not hold extreme opinions such as arafat or hamas. It's just the loud minority, that uses violence to hold itself in power (very similar to sadam hussein). if arafat will die a natural, or un-natural death, i assure you that the entire world, including americans, europeans, arabs, palestinians, and israelis, will welcome his absence. the only one who won't is probably osama bin laden.
Who knows hap? Let's not forget that Arafat was for the longest time a fully fledged terrorist who almost certainly held and helped spread the view that nothing but 'ultimate victory' would be acceptable to the arabs; so could even be something as simple as 'pride', in not wanting to go down in history as 'the one' who sold out to the Israelis. Or maybe he just foresaw his jeolous grip on power threatened by a peace settlement. Like I said, who knows; these are Arabs you're talking about -- normal rules or rational thinking don't necessarily apply.
Your question is great, but are we sure we know exactly what Barak's offer was? Assuming you are correct, a common view is that the process is more important to Arafat than the end result. An agreement ends the process, thus no agreement is possible. I think this may a feature of the Arab mentality, an engagement in conflict that is an end in itself, which terminates by sheer exhaustion, defeat, or capitulation by the opponent. But new generations emerge every 15 years ready to continue the "struggle".