The peace deal Arafat turned down in 2000, WHY?

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Shared control of Jerusalem

Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem would be part of the Palestinian State. Palestine’s capitol would be in Jerusalem.

97% of the West Bank to the Palestinians

This would be one contiguous land mass, not four separate parcels as the Palestinians have been saying.

Right of Return of Palestinian refugees to the new Palestinian homeland.

Palestinian refugees, wherever they might be, would be allowed to leave refugee camps and return to the new Palestinian homeland. You’ve heard Palestinian apologists say that the agreement contained no “right of return.” Not true. It was there. They could return to the new Palestinian homeland. They could NOT leave refugee camps and move into Israel.

An international presence in the Jordan Valley.

These folks have been at war for generations. There is nothing unreasonable about an international peacekeeping force in place until the situation stabilizes.

 

[p_p_man]

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

 

[christo]

Arafat didn't make the deal because, if he had, he'd be dead.

The folks who bring you daily suicide bombings in Israel do not want peace. They don't want a brokered peace plan. They don't want a total Israeli capitulation on every point of contention. If peace came, real peace, a peace the Israeli and Palestinian people could both live with and feel gave them sufficient security and dignity, the folks in Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be doomed. They'd be hunted by both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. The PA, if it was a legitimate, viable government, would not want a bunch of mass murderers running around loose.

If Arafat had made the deal with Barak he would have been assassinated. Just as Yitzak Rabin was assassinated by nuts who thought he was selling out Israel.

I don't see a solution to this problem. I see lots of very serious talking heads and politicians and other people about how we need a cease-fire and a dialog and negotiations...and I don't know what the hell they're talking about. These folks hate each others guts. The people in power have tried to kill each other for 30 years. The people on the fringes are quite willing to kill innocent civilians. What dialogue can there possibly be? These folks have gone from Oslo to Mitchell to Tenet to Zinni to Powell.

That's why Sharon hasn't caved in to the pressure brought by the US and the European Union. What pressure? We aren't going to go anything to Israel other than talk. We can't very well say the Israelis can't use force when we're bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and we're about 6 months away from invading Iraq. The EU can't use economic sanctions because Germany will not, under any circumstances, do anything to hurt Israel. The Israeli people might not like the military invading the West Bank and their soldiers coming home in body bags, but what good is a military if another state can sneak in people to slaughter civilians?

The Palestinian people are just another group of poor bastards stuck with a loathsome government, plentiful nuts with guns, and no rule of law. Arafat has to go for there to be any movement, ever, in this mess. But I find it hard to believe that the next leader will be any better.

 

[p_p_man]

Oops sorry!

This thread looked as though it was dying so I re-posted my own piece onto it's own thread.