How much of the West Bank did Israel offer the Palestinians?

foundation for mid-east peace ^ | 2000

[Brian Allen]

Offer to protect them in their homes in their homeland. The one created by the British last century about the time they were creating the 4000-years-old Hashemite "'kingdom' of Jordan."

Show them the way to go home!

[M. Thatcher]

His failure to do so will prove a huge mistake I think to the Palestinian cause.

Gee, ya think?

Palestinians and their apologists have no clue: the Palestinians have obliterated any sympathy for their "cause" with a majority of Americans, many of whom had no opinion on the Middle East whatsoever until the suicide bombers. Now? For-effing-get it.

[skr]

How much? Too much!

[Light Speed]

After Israel withdraws from the current ops and establishes buffer [Buffet] killing zones the terminal death spiral of Canaan will again continue.
Plass-stinians will find Israeli's not willing to employ them nor do business with them..the polarization will continue.
The Palestinians will find little financial options available to them, turning to Jordan for work..the "Poison" they bring will create more internal instability for Jordan as they too are sucked into the death spiral.
Death and Misery follow this people like a plague..but then this is no mystery..the Lord pronounced a Curse on "Canaan".

[Nonstatist]

The previous Israeli offers were ludicrous. The final one should have generated a serious Arafat counter offer.

Give an inch, take a yard? ..

Arafat thought this situation is the same as South Africa's was. Just wait out all that "homeland" offers, and eventually the interlopers will sue for peace. Then, at first, you allow most of them to hang around and run the economy, as you make life for them unbearable (ie crime escalates, etc). Eventually, most of the remaining Jews leave.

Anyway, it's just a dream.

[185JHP]

"Peace for peace" is a better deal than they have demonstrated that they should get. It hasn't sunk in to them that only the lack of a decision is preventing their annihilation. A "Comanche" resolution of the Pallie problem is possible and becomes more attractive with each suicide attack. (There are about 1100 Comanches alive.)

[Torie]

Yes, disillusionment is the order of the day. There is something terribly dysfunctional going on. The Palestinians seem to be reaching the point of mass psychosis ala the Germans in the Nazi era. And casting the blame for it at this juncture is quite irrelevant.

[goldstategop]

Those proposals are now off the table. If the Palestinians get a state they will wind up with substantially less territory than they could have gotten under Ehud Barak. Israelis are not about to reward Yasser Arafat for starting a war when he could have gotten 95% of he wanted through negotiations. There are such things in life as missed opportunities and the Palestinians leadership has led them to catastrophe.

[dennisw]

The previous Israeli offers were ludicrous. The final one should have generated a serious Arafat counter offer. His failure to do so will prove a huge mistake I think to the Palestinian cause.

_______________________________

The best Israeli offers came even 4 months into the intifada.

[Nonstatist]

The Palestinians seem to be reaching the point of mass psychosis

As I said; give an inch, take a yard. The ISraelis, having lived here in fair numbers since before the War, know their neighbors pretty well. Force is the only thing they understand.

Is there a "moderate" among them that can represent anyone besides himself? Who can they deal with? I dont see it happening, anywhere. Look at the surrounding Arab States. Not a representative government within a thousand miles (Tunisia, maybe?). Quite nearly hopeless.. Oh well.. they certainly tried.

[dennisw]

If the Palestinians get a state they will wind up with substantially less territory than they could have gotten under Ehud Barak.....

What the Pallies really hated about the Barak offers was that they still would not get control over the borders of the West Bank. Even after getting 90% of the land of the West Bank. Israel would never let them control borders until the Pallies demonstrated peaceful intent. Because Pallies would just be bringing in weaponry like there is no tomorrow. 
The way I see it what the Pallies are demanding a Palestinian state that they can arm to the hilt without Israeli interference. Everyone knows why the Pallies would want to be armed to the max and that is to wage further war on Israel. With a Palestinian state being just way a station on the road to destruction of Israel.

 

[Torie]

That is an interesting take that I have not read before. Can you back it up?

[Torie]

I mean the control of the borders thing in particular.

[MissAmericanPie]

Yeah, right, allow the Palies to cut Israel right in half, flood Israel with 3 million more radical terrorists in a "right to return", sure that will work, they have proven themselves to be so trustworthy, responsible and peace loving about those things.

[tictoc]

Thank you very much for posting this valuable information - a map can be worth as much as 10,000 words.

FWIW, I used to be a supporter of the peace process and felt that the "land for peace" strategy was the right thing to do.

To those who say it was doomed to failure from the start, well hindsight is always 20/20 vision. Rabin made the immensely risky but morally courageous decision to try for a peace deal even before the Palestinians were ready finally to accept Israel, and Barak went even further.

I am sorry to say this but now the Palestinians are suffering for their poor decisions, and I believe they should be made to suffer more, until they come to their senses.

P.S. Please add me to your M/E ping list.

[dennisw]

I can't really give you a citation but Israel has always been serious about keeping the Pallies from arming themselves. Just 2 weeks ago Israel was on the border of Gaza and Egypt, in a Pallie refugee camp, trying to find tunnels that weapons are being smuggled through.

I am 98% sure that even under the best offer above Israel would still have controlled the borders hence weapons smuggling. Another reason for border control would be to keep out illegal immigrants as the West bank became more prosperous and a desirable place to live.

If I find more I will let you know.

[montag813]

In the 1993 Oslo Agreement, by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, Palestinians already gave up 78 percent of their land and accepted the formula “land for peace” within the context of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories.

Were the borders of the United States, India, Pakistan, Colonial Africa, Asia and South America determined by International consensus. No, only by decree of the determining entity who held the most power backed by threat of overwhelming force.

I have never understood why the Jews have taken so long (and three wars + 2 intifadas) to realize this fact, and far too late to act on the principle. The use of overwhelming force is the only valid method of dealing with their intractable Arab foe. They could have simply annexed all post-67 land and have been done with it. But they diddled and dawldled and wrung their hands with false guilt, and now, after giving back the Sinai and accepting further land theft through "negotiation", Israel STILL finds itself an International pariah, compared--on Brian Williams' show tonight--to Milosevic and the Taliban, by Abdel Rahman (with 5 sec of response time for Dore Gold generously allowed by Williams).

I do not see any downside of ignoring the U.N./Arab/Powell "consensus" for widthdrawl. The "upside" of further land theft, a hostile, sovereign enemy state next door, and an Arab world which will never give up until Israel is destroyed, is simply not worth it.

[Torie]

Well the other bit is that the borders thing is what caused Arafat to walk. Usually it is cast in terms of Jerusalem and the right of return (the latter of course being a total deal killer).

[Nonstatist]

the borders thing is what caused Arafat to walk.

But if they gave him the border, could he sign a deal that didnt allow for the Law of Return, which was promised by the UN ? I think it would still have been a deal breaker. That Pallestine Charter is such a precious thing.

[Howlin]

, many of whom had no opinion on the Middle East whatsoever until the suicide bombers. Now? For-effing-get it.

You nailed it.