This is Barak's "generous offer"; What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: - no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, - no control of its external borders, l- imited control of its own water resources, and - no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have : Included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/C...nedBaraksgenerousoffer/tabid/214/Default.aspx
Actually here is what Barak/Clinton offered: -100% of the Gaza Strip, -95% of the West Bank -land swap to compensate for the remaining 5% of the West Bank -a highway between Gaza and the West Bank -East Jerusalem -Al-Aqsa mosque. Indeed there may have been some minor restrictions which were going to be relaxed and eventually lifted within a very reasonable period of time (like 10 years). What the hell else can you people possibly want? Seriously, you have to learn to compromise just a tad too. And if that was not enough, where was the counter-offer?
The generous offer was well publicized, its details are well known and they are exactly the way I described th in my post. I provided a link to an official Chinese newspaper quoting a Spokesman of the French Foreign Ministry and confirming the details of the peace proposal. Anyone can certainly click on the links you posted but not everyone is dumb enough to think that if it's posted on arabmediawatch, aljazeera or electronicintifada.com it must be true. I mean, if founders of the Electronic Intifada claim that the offer was not generous, why would anyone listen to a high-ranking French government official.
Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuure dddooo?! Are you really really sure?? Really?? Cause that is what your Barak wrote in the New York Times' "a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." [Source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001]. In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent. Now I am not going to present a map to show how your hundreds of your illegal Sentiments dot the whole West Bank and how the connecting "Jewish only" roads connect all of these settlements rendering all of the Palestinian land in between in sealed cantons. All the prison guards need is 5% of the prison space to control the whole prison. Except in your case, you were not satisfied with 5%...You wanted at least 15% Lying Zionist. Also, this is what Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs and who participated in the Camp David negotiations wrote in an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." Now I do not know how to take your claims seriously when everything...everything you say is a pure and utter lies! You want to be a clown...suite yourself but not on the expense of our inelegance buddy.
Read above dddooo! I guess your Barak is also a liar! Or could it be you and your state and everything you guys stood for is based on a lie! I do not know what to belive and what not to belive in regard to anything you American Zionists say! Here we have your Barak admitting that there was no offer and we still having you coming around trying to falsify facts to fit your Zionist agenda.
Nice try Wael, except this was not the final offer. This offer was made to Arafat in Camp David in July 2000. And even it anticipated the expansion of the West Bank area to 90-91% within 10-25 years which you conveniently "forgot" to mention. Anyway, the final proposal was written by Clinton half a year later in November-December 2000 and submitted to both Barak and Arafat. That was the offer of 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, capital in East Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa mosque etc. That was the offer that the French and the rest of the world supported. That was the offer that was extremely generous. That was the offer that Barak accepted and Arafat turned down. Keep trying Wael.
Khahahahaha! Here we go again! Only when you were cornered with the damming evidence of what your Prime minister wrote about the Camp David meeting did you decide to weasel yourself out of it by claiming that you were not talking about Camp David! Khahahahahaha Little that you knew that after that proposal was sent to Barak, he tried and succeeded in weaseling himself out (I guess it is a Zionist trait) so that he will not face the Zionist voters who objected to Clinton's offer. And we all know how that went dddooo, don't we? Send your attack dog (Sharon) to Al aqsa Mousqe and then follow it up with a massacre that took the lives of 32 Palestinians knowing that will be enough to enrage us to stand up and resist so that he could pour more hell on us by shelling the hell out of our towns and cities in an attempt to make sure that we will never entertain the idea of peace with someone who is killing us en mass. It was a premeditated criminal plan that took scores of our lives just for the sake of satisfying the blood lust of the Zionist population of Palestine and for killing any chance of us agreeing to make peace with someone who takes pleasure in killing our women and children.
All along I was talking about generous Clinton/Barak proposal, I never mentioned Camp David. Clinton did make that proposal in the end of 2000, it did include everything Arafat wanted, the French and the rest of the world did support it, Barak and his cabinet did accept it, Arafat turned it down. And for FWIW the Camp David proposal was not bad either. I can see why the Palestinians may have wanted more, too bad Arafat instead of negotiating in good faith chose to walk out without a counter-offer.