If Israel wanted peace, they wouldn't assassinate the people who could make it happen

[proudveteran06]

Two other words that I love are " peace talks" If it's honestly expected that Israel just concede to everything ( which they won't and never will ) maybe those words should be eliminated also.

Again, this simply has no basis in reality. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but it is not a great source.

The basis of any settlement have always seen Palestinians give up huge tracts of land, acknolwedge Israel's right to peace, abandon violent resistance, and probably give up any control over their borders, ports and airspace.[/QU Another Pro Palestiniann lie . Read very slowly about what Condi Rice said was offered. Want proof of what Olmert offered? Produce your "documentation" about Arafats negotiating skills and I will post . You won't because you can't

You won't because you can't

 

[Saigon]

Veteran -

I tend to avoid a lot of the discussions about Israel here because I find very few posters here have even been to Israel, let alone studied the conflict. In which case the petty taunts aren't of particular interest, unfortunately. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but I'd prefer you could be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know.

I know Arafat was a master negotiator because I know people who met the man and talked about some his tricks and tactics. I can also think of a half dozen books which discuss this, and I'm happy to give you a list of those if you are genuinely interested in reading them.

I'm sure most of us are aware of the so-called 'napkin papers', but I'm sure most of us can tell from the name that they were not formal negotiations. It is probably true that Abbas did make a proposal TO Olmert, and that Olmert made a counter offer. Both were maps sketched on napkins. That is as far as it ever got. There was no formal offer, nor even formal negotiations.

Produce your "documentation" about Arafats negotiating skills

What ARE you talking about? This is just silly, childish posting, dude.

 

[Lipush]

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who makes up his own.

Exactly what am I lying about? That the Israelis never offered anything? That Abbas really has been a " Partner in Peace?" lol You are the liars

What does Israel have to offer besides some occupied land?

There is no such thing as "occupied" land. there is RELEASED land.

Only thing Israel can offer the Arabs that they'll be happy with, is like what was done in Metzada. That will make them truely happy.

Not gonna happen, though.

 

[proudveteran06]

Veteran -

I tend to avoid a lot of the discussions about Israel here because I find very few posters here have even been to Israel, let alone studied the conflict. In which case the petty taunts aren't of particular interest, unfortunately. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but I'd prefer you could be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know.

I know Arafat was a master negotiator because I know people who met the man and talked about some his tricks and tactics. I can also think of a half dozen books which discuss this, and I'm happy to give you a list of those if you are genuinely interested in reading them.

I'm sure most of us are aware of the so-called 'napkin papers', but I'm sure most of us can tell from the name that they were not formaul negotiations. It is probably true that Abbas did make a proposal TO Olmert, and that Olmert made a counter offer. Both were maps sketched on napkins. That is as far as it ever got. There was no formal offer, nor even formal negotiations.

Produce your "documentation" about Arafats negotiating skills

What ARE you talking about? This is just silly, childish posting, dude.

You"re the one who claims Arafat was a good " negotiator". Document please .How did he seriously "negotiate" with Israel ? It"s a fair question . You are just to childish to conceded you don't have an ounce of proof to back up your cla

 

[proudveteran06]

Veteran -

I tend to avoid a lot of the discussions about Israel here because I find very few posters here have even been to Israel, let alone studied the conflict. In which case the petty taunts aren't of particular interest, unfortunately. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but I'd prefer you could be honest with yourself about what you know and don't know.

I know Arafat was a master negotiator because I know people who met the man and talked about some his tricks and tactics. I can also think of a half dozen books which discuss this, and I'm happy to give you a list of those if you are genuinely interested in reading them.

I'm sure most of us are aware of the so-called 'napkin papers', but I'm sure most of us can tell from the name that they were not formaul negotiations. It is probably true that Abbas did make a proposal TO Olmert, and that Olmert made a counter offer. Both were maps sketched on napkins. That is as far as it ever got. There was no formal offer, nor even formal negotiations.

Produce your "documentation" about Arafats negotiating skills

What ARE you talking about? This is just silly, childish posting, dude.

You"re the one who claims Arafat was a good " negotiator". Document please .How did he seriously "negotiate" with Israel ? It"s a fair question . You are just to childish to conceded you don't have an ounce of proof to back up your claim

 

[proudveteran06]

Abbas does not have the authority to give up someone else's rights.

Lets see.....To " negotiate" Israel must accept the 67 Borders that the Arabs themselves have never accepted or respected, NJA in E. Jerusalem, " Right of Return" which would eventually make the Palestinians a majority within Israel which would eventually annex them to the Palestinian State! That is the Plan. So Israel has to make ALL the Concessions? Exactly what does Israel get out of it?
Maybe they should stop using that word " negotiate" then.
To " negotiate" it's understood that both sides have to make Concessions and it's understood that no one in life gets their way 100 %. To expect Israel to do that is not going to happen. Let Abbas keep insisting on it. Hope he does.


Of course we all know that you and your ilk see nothing wrong with this . Which is why " Right of Return" , 67 Borders is NOT going to happen


Abbas Makes It Official: All of Israel is Palestine

The Fatah party, headed by Abbas, has made official what it has been saying more quietly and adopts a new logo: All of Israel as Palestine.


AAFont Size
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 12/30/2012, 9:09 AM




Abbas with map of 'Palestine'Palestine' in background

Israel news photo: Flash 90



The Fatah party, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, has made official what it has been saying quietly and has adopted a new logo showing all of Israel as Palestine.

The logo marks the 48th anniversary of the founding of Fatah by Yasser Arafat and includes a map with the PA flag and a map of Israel that appears to be a depiction of the black and white checkered kefiyah, a symbol of the violent intifada, and the slogan “the state and victory."

Palestine Media Watch (PMW) revealed that the official PA daily published the new official logo.

For the past year, official PA documents have increasingly shown Palestine as covering all of Israel, but this is the first time the Fatah party has placed the map on its logo.

PMW noted, “Other symbols central to Fatah ideology also appear in the logo, including a rifle and a key symbolizing the Palestinian claim of ownership to houses within Israel.”

The Arab media watchdog translated and published the article announcing the new logo:

"Senior Fatah official in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Rabah, stressed that the movement this year will hold a big, central rally in the Gaza Strip on the day of the 48th anniversary of the beginning of the Palestinian revolution.

“Rabah explained to Ma'an that the event will be held considering the atmosphere of reconciliation and unity that has prevailed in the Palestinian arena in the last few….

“The organizing committee for the 48th anniversary of the Fatah movement approved this year's main anniversary logo... [The rally] will take place in Gaza to mark the 48th anniversary of the modern Palestinian revolution under the slogan 'the state and the victory.'"

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) reacted to the new logo by urging “President Barack Obama, the European Union and the United Nations to condemn this outrage which reiterates the clear fact that Abbas and the Fatah/PA have no interest in peace with Israel, only its destruction.”


ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "This new Fatah logo graphically depicts the ugly truth about this unreconstructed terrorist organization whose Constitution to this day calls for the destruction of Israel (Article 13) and the use of terrorism as an essential element in the struggle to achieve this aim (Article 19). …It belies the fiction that Mahmoud Abbas is a 'moderate' who seeks peace with Israel, and who wishes to end Palestinian terrorism against Israeli Jews. It also makes clear that the principles of Yasser Arafat are respected and promoted.


"The new Fatah logo is not an aberration. The Palestinian Authority continues to promote the incitement of hatred in Palestinian mosques, schools and media.


"The ZOA renews its call upon the Obama Administration to stop wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on the unreformed terrorist entity that is Fatah, to stop making excuses for Abbas, and to stop pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions on the altar of appeasement.”

For the past year, official PA documents have increasingly shown Palestine as covering all of Israel, but this is the first time the Fatah party has placed the map on its logo.

That map is geographically correct.

Still haven't told us exactly what the word " negotiate" means in this particular case . Wait...... you finally admit their goal is Israel's destruction which is why " Right of Return" and the Borders which were never honored or respected will NEVER happen. Thanks !!!!

 

[proudveteran06]

Arafat was the" greatest negotiator" of his time? Is that why his "skills" failed so badly because he was insisting on " Right of Return?" Want posts? I already posted what Connie Rice said and what was offered if you know how to read. Now it's your turn.Post exactly what Arafat offered and I will post Olmerts offer. Bet you won't because you can't . All you Pro Palestinians are such great liars. Wouldn't know the truth if you fell on it .

I tend to avoid these discussions because I don't see much value in debating the topi with people who aren't particularly interested in it, but yes - Arafat is considered by very many people to have been a master negotiator.

That doesn't mean he always made good choices.

The only real offer on the table has been Clinton's at Camp David. Should Arafat have accepted it?

At the time I thought possibly not, but history tells us perhaps he should have. I understand why he decliend it, but in retrospect, that was probably a mistake.

Right of Return was not the key issue at Camp David.

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue? Another Pro- Palestinian lie.


http://Click here: Camp David, 2000
















2


What took place at Camp David in 2000?

The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

Barak requested that Clinton call the meeting, feeling that it was important to show that Israel was committed to the Peace Process and that Israel was ready to make the necessary concessions. Barak also felt that the summit was the best place for this, rather than a public exchange of ideas that might be politically hard to constrain. The objective of the summit was to make enough progress on the final status issues so that an agreement could be put together by the September target date.

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli “red lines”, especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak “courageous” for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
•Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
•The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
•The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
•Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
•Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
•“Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty 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. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader’s style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:
•Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.

Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton?s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit’s failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000).

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. “You are a great man,” Arafat said. “The hell I am,” Clinton said he responded. “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arafat was the" greatest negotiator" of his time? Is that why his "skills" failed so badly because he was insisting on " Right of Return?" Want posts? I already posted what Connie Rice said and what was offered if you know how to read. Now it's your turn.Post exactly what Arafat offered and I will post Olmerts offer. Bet you won't because you can't . All you Pro Palestinians are such great liars. Wouldn't know the truth if you fell on it .

I tend to avoid these discussions because I don't see much value in debating the topi with people who aren't particularly interested in it, but yes - Arafat is considered by very many people to have been a master negotiator.

That doesn't mean he always made good choices.

The only real offer on the table has been Clinton's at Camp David. Should Arafat have accepted it?

At the time I thought possibly not, but history tells us perhaps he should have. I understand why he decliend it, but in retrospect, that was probably a mistake.

Right of Return was not the key issue at Camp David.

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue? Another Pro- Palestinian lie.


http://Click here: Camp David, 2000
















2


What took place at Camp David in 2000?

The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

Barak requested that Clinton call the meeting, feeling that it was important to show that Israel was committed to the Peace Process and that Israel was ready to make the necessary concessions. Barak also felt that the summit was the best place for this, rather than a public exchange of ideas that might be politically hard to constrain. The objective of the summit was to make enough progress on the final status issues so that an agreement could be put together by the September target date.

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli “red lines”, especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak “courageous” for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
•Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
•The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
•The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
•Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
•Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
•“Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty 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. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader’s style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:
•Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.

Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton?s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit’s failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000).

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. “You are a great man,” Arafat said. “The hell I am,” Clinton said he responded. “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
•Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
•The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
•The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
•Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
•Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
•“Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

They didn't mention the clunkers.

 

[Saigon]

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue?

No, I said it was not THE issue.

There were other, great issues as to why Arafat declined the offer.

Please try and respond to what I said - and do forget all of this childish nonsense about lying.

Do keep in mind that your knowledge of this conflict is scant at best. It is apparent from your posting that you don't have a great depth of knowledge, in which case pretending you are being lied to isn't a good way of you improving your knolwedge.

 

[proudveteran06]

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue?

No, I said it was not THE issue.

There were other, great issues as to why Arafat declined the offer.

Please try and respond to what I said - and do forget all of this childish nonsense about lying.

Do keep in mind that your knowledge of this conflict is scant at best. It is apparent from your posting that you don't have a great depth of knowledge, in which case pretending you are being lied to isn't a good way of you improving your knolwedge.

Tell us why Arafat declined the offer and what " offers" he put on the table that the Israelis declined. It's a fair request. You're the one who claims Arafat was a " Great Negotiator".

Please respond to the request. Your " claim" that it is " childish" is your ignorant way of avoiding the fact that you are lying. My question is a legitimate one.

Do keep in mind that either you honestly don't know what was offered, why he declined and HIS " offers" that Israel declined or you are lying.

Do keep in mind that you have no idea of Israel's offers, their " Counter Offers" and your knowledge is scant because you have no intention of gathering any knowledge about the subject.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue?

No, I said it was not THE issue.

There were other, great issues as to why Arafat declined the offer.

Please try and respond to what I said - and do forget all of this childish nonsense about lying.

Do keep in mind that your knowledge of this conflict is scant at best. It is apparent from your posting that you don't have a great depth of knowledge, in which case pretending you are being lied to isn't a good way of you improving your knolwedge.

Tell us why Arafat declined the offer and what " offers" he put on the table that the Israelis declined. It's a fair request. You're the one who claims Arafat was a " Great Negotiator".

Please respond to the request. Your " claim" that it is " childish" is your ignorant way of avoiding the fact that you are lying. My question is a legitimate one.

Do keep in mind that either you honestly don't know what was offered, why he declined and HIS " offers" that Israel declined or you are lying.

Do keep in mind that you have no idea of Israel's offers, their " Counter Offers" and your knowledge is scant because you have no intention of gathering any knowledge about the subject.

The part that the propagandists do not mention is that Israel would stay in control. Israel would control the water. Israel would control travel and tourism. Israel could say who could enter and who could leave. Israel would control imports and exports.

Arafat would have been crazy to accept such an offer.

 

[irosie91]

tinnie lied----THE issue was "return" Arafart was actually
afraid he would be assassinated if he accepted anything short of
"return"

 

[P F Tinmore]

tinnie lied----THE issue was "return" Arafart was actually
afraid he would be assassinated if he accepted anything short of
"return"

Return is something that cannot be negotiated. Nobody can negotiate away somebody else's rights.

 

[GHook93]

If Israel wanted peace with the Palestinian's, they wouldn't assassinate the man with the power to make it happen. The last round of violence between the IDF and Gazan's, was prompted by...

"Israeli's assassination-by-drone of Hamas military commander Ahmed al-Jabari; the IDF said Jabari was a terrorist with "blood on his hands".

...which is no surprise, because they say that about everyone they kill.

However, aside from moonlighting as an "alleged" terrorist, al-Jabari's day job was "maintaining Israel's security in Gaza" by "enforc[ing] the multiplicity of armed organizations in the Gaza Strip. " Ergo, he was the man hired to stop the rocket fire into Israel.

He was also... " Israel's partner in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit; it was he who ensured the captive soldier's welfare and safety, and it was he who saw to Shalit's return home last fall."

So what does Israel do with the very man who can acheive a true and lasting peace? They hit him with a drone strike and re-classify him as a terrorist. Which shows Israel doesn't want peace, they want their way. And because they're not getting it, they're taking it out on the Palestinian's.

Wrong if Israel wanted security and viable two state solution then they would assassinate more Palestinians. In fact they should be taking out 100s of them!

 

[proudveteran06]

No, I said it was not THE issue.

There were other, great issues as to why Arafat declined the offer.

Please try and respond to what I said - and do forget all of this childish nonsense about lying.

Do keep in mind that your knowledge of this conflict is scant at best. It is apparent from your posting that you don't have a great depth of knowledge, in which case pretending you are being lied to isn't a good way of you improving your knolwedge.

Tell us why Arafat declined the offer and what " offers" he put on the table that the Israelis declined. It's a fair request. You're the one who claims Arafat was a " Great Negotiator".

Please respond to the request. Your " claim" that it is " childish" is your ignorant way of avoiding the fact that you are lying. My question is a legitimate one.

Do keep in mind that either you honestly don't know what was offered, why he declined and HIS " offers" that Israel declined or you are lying.

Do keep in mind that you have no idea of Israel's offers, their " Counter Offers" and your knowledge is scant because you have no intention of gathering any knowledge about the subject.

The part that the propagandists do not mention is that Israel would stay in control. Israel would control the water. Israel would control travel and tourism. Israel could say who could enter and who could leave. Israel would control imports and exports.

Arafat would have been crazy to accept such an offer.

The above is a lie that the Pro- Palestinians tell each other. Down below are the details of Camp David

Myth and Fact: Arafat and Camp David

Mitchell G. Bard

Jewish Virtual Library - Homepage

















Myth

"Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's proposals at Camp David and the White House in 2000 because they did not offer the Palestinians a viable state. Palestine would have been denied water, control of its holy places, and would have been divided into cantons surrounded by Israelis. Israel would have also retained control of Jerusalem and denied refugees the right to return."

Fact

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations - that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 - prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.



However, let's say the Pro- Palestinian lies were the facts? My question is; What proposals did Arafat put forth that the ISRAELIS REJECTED?? After all, the claim is he was a GREAT NEGOTIATOR.

That is what Pro- Palestinians do with their lies and propoganda. Make statements and can't offer documentation to back them up

 

[irosie91]

Veteran----things being what they are today-----I doubt that
the palis will ever see that offer on the table again, or
anything remotely close to it.

 

[proudveteran06]

Veteran----things being what they are today-----I doubt that
the palis will ever see that offer on the table again, or
anything remotely close to it.

I agree with you. What I find especially amusing are these Pro- Palestinian posters who claim that the Palestinians are NEGOTIATING and that Arafat was a GREAT NEGOTIATOR yet when asked for documentation there is nobody home. Below is the definition of NEGOTIATION . They should read it VERY SLOWLY. Even then they will not understand it Attention Deficit Didorder

Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

 

[proudveteran06]

I tend to avoid these discussions because I don't see much value in debating the topi with people who aren't particularly interested in it, but yes - Arafat is considered by very many people to have been a master negotiator.

That doesn't mean he always made good choices.

The only real offer on the table has been Clinton's at Camp David. Should Arafat have accepted it?

At the time I thought possibly not, but history tells us perhaps he should have. I understand why he decliend it, but in retrospect, that was probably a mistake.

Right of Return was not the key issue at Camp David.

You claim " Right of Return" was not an issue? Another Pro- Palestinian lie.


http://Click here: Camp David, 2000
















2


What took place at Camp David in 2000?

The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

Barak requested that Clinton call the meeting, feeling that it was important to show that Israel was committed to the Peace Process and that Israel was ready to make the necessary concessions. Barak also felt that the summit was the best place for this, rather than a public exchange of ideas that might be politically hard to constrain. The objective of the summit was to make enough progress on the final status issues so that an agreement could be put together by the September target date.

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli “red lines”, especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak “courageous” for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
•Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
•The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
•The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
•Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
•Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
•“Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty 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. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader’s style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:
•Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.

Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton?s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit’s failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000).

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. “You are a great man,” Arafat said. “The hell I am,” Clinton said he responded. “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak’s offer included:
•Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
•The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
•The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
•Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
•Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
•“Religious Sovereignty” over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

They didn't mention the clunkers.

What " clunkers?" So where was Arafat's " Counter- Offer" to these " cluunkers?" After all, that is what " negotiation" is supposed to be about. To this post there will be no response. There never is




Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb
: to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter
transitive verb
1
a: to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling) : manage
b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Read the above definition slowly. It's understood that no one gets it their way 100%. Those " Counter Offers" Arafat the great " Negotiator" made? I forgot.... There weren't any. So much for " Partners in Peace" lol

 

[Saigon]

Tell us why Arafat declined the offer and what " offers" he put on the table that the Israelis declined. It's a fair request. You're the one who claims Arafat was a " Great Negotiator".

Please respond to the request. Your " claim" that it is " childish" is your ignorant way of avoiding the fact that you are lying. My question is a legitimate one.

Do keep in mind that either you honestly don't know what was offered, why he declined and HIS " offers" that Israel declined or you are lying.

Do keep in mind that you have no idea of Israel's offers, their " Counter Offers" and your knowledge is scant because you have no intention of gathering any knowledge about the subject.

Veteran -

You realise this is what I do for a job, right?

So which one of us would you say was most likely to have "no idea"?

I'm happy to explain this to you, and recommend a couple of books you might enjoy, but frankly, the idea that you are an expert and everyone else is lying doesn't cut a lot of ice around here.

 

[Saigon]

Veteran----things being what they are today-----I doubt that
the palis will ever see that offer on the table again, or
anything remotely close to it.

You may be right - but this in itself does not mean that the Palestinians should have accepted the deal.

THE issue was contiguity. Without that - I'm not sure it was a deal worth accepting.