Then stop blaming Israel for everything. No...I am not saying Israel is blameless in this mess, quite often they have been too highhanded and thickheaded. But once more in 2000 with Clinton Arafat threw away a chance for an uneasy peace that increased the odds of a more settled peace. No compromise is perfect but a compromise always leave an open door to other possibilities.
OK, do you even know the background for Arafat's rejection of this so-called "peace plan"?
here are the four major obstacles in the "Peace plan"
* Territory
* Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
* Refugees and the 'right of return'
* Israeli security concerns
Territory:
Palestinian side: a Palestinian state inside the pre 1967 borders (22% of historic Palestine), meaning Gaza and the Westbank. Could consider a one-to-one land swap.
"Israeli" side: Barak offered the Palestinians 100% Gaza, and 73% of the West bank (27% less!) in 10-25 years this could grow to 90-91%, albeit the West Bank will be split by an "Israeli" road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, in theory Palestinian would be able to use the road freely, but "Israel" has the right to close the road if they feel it necessary. In practice this would mean that "Israel" is free to shut it down whenever they want, splitting the WB in two, rendering Palestinian movement from north to south and opposite impossible. In turn they would cede 1% land in the Negev
Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians of course rejected the proposal.
Jerusalem and the Temple mount
Palestinian side: The Palestinian position, according to Mahmoud Abbas, at that time Arafat's chief negotiator: "All of East Jerusalem should be returned to Palestinian sovereignty. The Jewish quarter and Western Wall should be placed under Israeli authority, not Israeli sovereignty. An open city and cooperation on municipal services."
The Palestinians rejected a proposal for "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount. They demanded complete sovereignty over East Jerusalem's Islamic holy sites, in particular, the Al-Aqsa Mosque
"Israeli" side: According to Prime Minister Barak, the Israeli team proposed "annexing to Jerusalem cities within the West Bank beyond the '67 border, like Maale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev and Gush Etzion, and in exchange for this to give to the Palestinians the sovereignty over certain villages or small cities that had been annexed to Jerusalem just after '67"
Refugees and the right of return
Palestinian side: Palestinians maintained their traditional position that the right of return be implemented. To address Israel's demographic concerns, they promised that the right of return be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would channel the majority of refugees against the option of returning to Israel. According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to discuss privately a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel.
"Israeli" side: The Israeli negotiators denied that Israel was responsible for the refugee problem. In the Israeli proposal, a limited number of refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification (mostly old survivors from the 1948 war who would die anyway in the near future due to their old age) . All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments
within the limits of its resources.
Israeli security concerns
The Israeli negotiators wanted the following requirements to be part of the agreement: Early warning stations
inside the Palestinian state;
Israeli control of Palestinian airspace; the
right of Israel to deploy troops in the Palestinian state in the event of an "emergency"; the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore the
Palestinian state was to be demilitarized.
Here are some quotes from some of the involved:
Shlomo Ben-Ami "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."
Clinton "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a
just and
lasting peace."
Arafat to Clinton "You are a great man", Clinton's response "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."
Clayton Swisher "the Israelis and the Americans were at least as guilty as the Palestinians for the collapse"
Shlomo Ben-Ami "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well"
here is a map of the proposed Palestinian "state":
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5039/campdavidmap2.jpg
And you honestly wonder why Arafat rejected this "peace" plan?
Find me ONE palestinian who would ever accept such an insane proposal?!
Saudi Arabia's Priince Bandar called Arafat's refusal to compromise a 'crime' to the Palestinians.
coming from the mouth of a dirty corrupt thief
