p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
the Camp David agreement in 2000 and I posted the following to Todd's thread. As it looks as though it's dropping like a stone and I want this to be read I'm putting it in its own thread...
It probably comes down to Arafat not trusting Isra-el...
as the following extract from a Time article indicates.
"Maryland, at Camp David, in July.
Arafat did not want to be there. He had warned President Clinton that he was not ready for the hard decisions of a final settlement, and the cia had been advising the Administration for some time that ordinary Palestinians were even less so. Arafat, aging and in uncertain health, was tired of the continuous pressure to compromise principles he held sacred, especially after all the concessions he had already made. His people were fed up with a process that had won them only the shards of an independent state and a life in which checkpoints and expanding Jewish settlements rubbed their noses daily in the continuing indignity of occupation. But Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak had urgent reasons to get a deal done: fearful violence could quickly erupt, Clinton had a legacy to secure before leaving office, and Barak needed to fulfill his promise of peace to hold on to his."
source: Time (Europe) 23 October 2000
Can he be blamed for not signing. He was villified by the world at the time but hailed as a hero by Arab states, for not conceding anything else.
As a further quote from the same article says:
"What is clear is that Arafat concluded he couldn't do the deal on the table that day in Maryland. Not when he saw that the "best offer" Barak was making did not give the Palestinians true sovereignty over their whole share of Jerusalem.
Arafat had reason to anticipate something more daring. Israeli negotiator Yossi Beilin says that under the informal paper he drew up with Arafat lieutenant Abu Mazen in 1995, both sides would have their capital in greater Jerusalem, residents of East Jerusalem would be Palestinian citizens, and the Temple Mount would be declared by Israel to be "extraterritorial." As Beilin told Time, "we would withdraw our sovereignty over it. Our sovereignty is only on paper anyway, the gesture would be very significant to Palestinians and wouldn't cost us anything."
When Barak proposed so much less Arafat felt cheated and said no to the whole deal.
It's not just a matter of Arafat's bloody mindedness (though that probably had something to do with it as well) but it's how he saw the long standing partnership of Israel and America trying to force a deal with which Palestine could not agree.
In a way to say no in the face of such overpowering opposition takes courage.
ppman
It probably comes down to Arafat not trusting Isra-el...
as the following extract from a Time article indicates.
"Maryland, at Camp David, in July.
Arafat did not want to be there. He had warned President Clinton that he was not ready for the hard decisions of a final settlement, and the cia had been advising the Administration for some time that ordinary Palestinians were even less so. Arafat, aging and in uncertain health, was tired of the continuous pressure to compromise principles he held sacred, especially after all the concessions he had already made. His people were fed up with a process that had won them only the shards of an independent state and a life in which checkpoints and expanding Jewish settlements rubbed their noses daily in the continuing indignity of occupation. But Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak had urgent reasons to get a deal done: fearful violence could quickly erupt, Clinton had a legacy to secure before leaving office, and Barak needed to fulfill his promise of peace to hold on to his."
source: Time (Europe) 23 October 2000
Can he be blamed for not signing. He was villified by the world at the time but hailed as a hero by Arab states, for not conceding anything else.
As a further quote from the same article says:
"What is clear is that Arafat concluded he couldn't do the deal on the table that day in Maryland. Not when he saw that the "best offer" Barak was making did not give the Palestinians true sovereignty over their whole share of Jerusalem.
Arafat had reason to anticipate something more daring. Israeli negotiator Yossi Beilin says that under the informal paper he drew up with Arafat lieutenant Abu Mazen in 1995, both sides would have their capital in greater Jerusalem, residents of East Jerusalem would be Palestinian citizens, and the Temple Mount would be declared by Israel to be "extraterritorial." As Beilin told Time, "we would withdraw our sovereignty over it. Our sovereignty is only on paper anyway, the gesture would be very significant to Palestinians and wouldn't cost us anything."
When Barak proposed so much less Arafat felt cheated and said no to the whole deal.
It's not just a matter of Arafat's bloody mindedness (though that probably had something to do with it as well) but it's how he saw the long standing partnership of Israel and America trying to force a deal with which Palestine could not agree.
In a way to say no in the face of such overpowering opposition takes courage.
ppman
