The Brilliant Offer Israel Never Made - Confronting A Few Myths

The Guardian ^ | 10 April 2002 | David Clark

[Asmodeus]

The brilliant offer Israel never made

To get peace talks started again means confronting a few myths

David Clark
Wednesday April 10, 2002

The Guardian

Yesterday's carnage in the West Bank provided a bloody illustration of the limits of Ariel Sharon's military strategy. Armed force cannot provide his people with the security they crave because the terrorist infrastructure he has set out to destroy consists of little more than the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to kill themselves while taking as many Israelis with them as possible.

This week, the hatred on which it is built burns deeper than ever. In the absence of a meaningful peace process, further atrocities are inevitable, and when they happen, the consequences may be far worse than anything we have so far seen.

Israeli leaders are trapped in a mindset in which further military escalation appears to be their only option. Yet it is difficult to see how much further they can go without triggering a wider regional conflagration that might threaten the state of Israel itself. The "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from large tracts of the occupied territories? The murder of Arafat?

The consequences are unthinkable. Left to his own devices, Ariel Sharon may yet turn out to be the ultimate suicide bomber.

Into the maelstrom steps Colin Powell on a mission that could represent the best hope of avoiding such a catastrophe. His task is clear: to secure a ceasefire and persuade both parties to return to the negotiating table. To succeed, however, he will need to do more than indulge in hand-wringing. He will need to come armed with some harsh truths and some even harsher consequences.

With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a "generous" Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism.

Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.

The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.

Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.

For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.

Maladroit diplomacy played its part, but the failure at Camp David was the product of a deeper problem for which the Palestinians must also accept their share of blame. With the benefit of hindsight, the 1993 Oslo agreement that embodied the land-for-peace compromise was a mirage. Although both sides signed up to a two-state solution, neither was completely sincere in accepting its implications. The Palestinians clung to maximalist demands on refugee returns in the hope that demographics would allow them to rewrite the past. The Israelis insisted on territorial demands that made a mockery of the idea of a viable Palestinian state.

It is here that the Saudi peace initiative has come to play such a critical role in getting the peace process back on track. In calling for Israel's withdrawal from all of the occupied territories and holding out the prospect of a compromise on the refugees that would meet Israeli concerns, it forces both sides finally to come to terms with each other's existence.

Tony Blair's call for the Saudi plan to be enshrined in a new UN resolution is a tacit acceptance that Camp David was a botched job.

Progress will now depend on Colin Powell's willingness to spell that out to Sharon and Arafat this week.

[NativeNewYorker]

Wow. British LEFTIES are blaming Clinton for the current Middle East mess. Chelsea may have to whack these guys with her purse.

[Psalm 73]

"the terrorist infrastructure he has set out to destroy consists of little more than the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to kill themselves"

Wow, I couldn't even get past the first paragraph before it started getting deep.
We all know they are just (well-financed) pawns in the larger scheme of Moslem world domination.
People who only make a buck 3.80 per year cannot purchase large amounts of weaponry and military-grade explosives.

[zarf]

Arafat should have accepted, established good faith over time and further negotiations would have taken place. Instead, he rejects the offer and encourages hatred and suicide attacks.

It's simple, the Arabs still dream of driving the Jews out of the region. That is the bottom line.

[dennisw]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

MAY 2000 PROPOSAL (before intifada)

 

 

DECEMBER 2000 PROPOSALS (four months into the intifada)

Projections of the Israeli offer in December 2000, and the December 2000 Bridging Proposal of US President Clinton

 

US Bridging Proposal	Israeli Proposal
A map showing the projection of the bridging proposals of U.S. President William J. Clinton, December, 2000. Dark Gray areas are currently Areas A and B of Palestinian control. Light Gray areas would become part of the Palestinian state. Gray-striped areas would become part of the Palestinian state after an interim period.  Maps are adapted from .	A map showing the projection of the Israeli proposals of the government of PM Barak, December, 2000. Dark Gray areas are currently Areas A and B of Palestinian control. Light Gray areas would become part of the Palestinian state. Gray-striped areas would become part of the Palestinian state after an interim period.  Maps are adapted from .

 

 

 

FINAL JANUARY 2001 PROPOSAL

 

 

 

 

[KC Burke]

It is my understanding that the proposal was not rejected out-of-hand, but instead Arafat had indicated to Clinton that some further negotiation, below the summit level, micht bring it to something acceptable. The Palistinian representative to the US has recently recounted on CSPAN how Clinton made the announcement, mischaracterizing the offer and the Palastinian response and Arafat let him slide on it due to Arafat's feeling that Clinton needed to present it that way temporarily, due to his wife's Senate campaign and the Gore election. The Ambassador claimed that Arafat had felt that Clinton would reverse himself while still in office but that, in hindsight, Arafat was niave about the motives and probable actions of Clinton.

When I saw this, it was a real revelation that even the Palistinians, and Arafat in particular, were unable to fathom the depths of the Clinton duplicity and self-serving conduct.

Clinton's attempts at Legacy Building left a time-bomb of misunderstanding on the world stage that helped foster the current resolution by both sides to feel wronged by the failed summit.

[krodriguesdc]

The United States of America is not responsible for any of this...

When President Bush set out to bring to justice the terrorist forces responsible for 911 he first went out to nations and asked for their support...

GW built a coalition of nations who were equally opposed to terrorism...

GW did the right thing...

The USofA cannot be held responsible for what is going on in the middle east...

It is doubtful, at this time, that we can even do anything about it!

[LarryLied]

Lol!...I knew it was bad but not that bad. Those maps put what was done at Versailles and the lines drawn by colonial powers in Africa to shame. Hope the result is no where near as bad.

[larryjohnson]

The Brits mucked up this region during the first half of the 20th century. But Jews managed to settle there(buying up land) and hold on to a homeland. I never hear or read of former Brit involvement,only of their support to us U.S.

[watchin]

... what had been theirs before 1967

Israel should never have "occuppied" what they won in their response to being attacked. They should have annexed it, instead. If the Arab world simply wants the pre '67 borders, then what was the motivation behind the attack back then? The truth is that they want more than the return of a little land - they want Israel eliminated. Whether they can accomplish this end through war, diplomacy, terrorism, deception, incementalism, or holocaust doesn't matter to them as long as it leads to the eventual extermination of the Jews.

[servantoftheservant]

hey thanks for posting those maps, very educational. FR is great.

[Ancesthntr]

The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.

The so-called "Palestinians" are not even a separate people. They have no distinct language, culture (unless suicide bombings count) or history. There never has been a nation called "Palestine," and no nation save Israel or its ancient counterpart ever had Jerusalem as its capital. Like everything else, Arafat & his fellow terrorists have lied to the world about this.

Nonetheless, let's examine the Guardian's assertion that East Jerusalem was "theirs" (i.e. the Palestinians') before the 1967 war. This is utterly false - it was ruled by Jordan, along with the rest of the West Bank. Amazingly, no one complained about "occupied territories" then. The PLO was formed in 1964, when the entirety of the West Bank & Gaza were held by Jordan & Egypt, with the avowed goal of destroying Israel. Getting a 22nd Arab state was never a real goal, only destoying the sole Jewish state.

They can't have it - they never owned it, and they blew the best chance they had to get it. As Golda Meir (I think) said, "the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Too bad, the rightful owners are back.

[dennisw]

Take a good look at the last offer made...January 2001...even while intifada was raging Barak was giving away even MORE of the store. Arafat said no again.

[spqrzilla9]

Amazing collection of misrepresentation. Evidently if you don't give the Palestinians everything they asked for, you aren't compromising.

Silly twaddle.

[dennisw]

You don't know what you are batting about. Calm down and look at the last offer...even the second to last offer of Dec 2000. Israel was giving these Pallie nutters 90%+ of the West Bank.

[dennisw]

Evidently if you don't give the Palestinians everything they asked for, you aren't compromising.

What do Pallies care? They figure they will wreck and bully Israel with the Muslim world and the rest of the world. Demons of the Jihad are depending on outside help.

[katana]

the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office

Sometimes the British (even the leftists) really know how to put things into words.

[Map Kernow]

Incredible---Israel offered everything to Arafat but a knife to cut its throat with. But that's one particular "risk for peace" that I hope the people of Israel are never so foolish as to take.

Seriously, Arafat rejected the proposal not because it was not "brilliant" or because he was afraid he'd be assassinated by even more militant die-hards, but because he was confident he could get the UN, the US, and/or "world opinion" (the European left and its Third World "amen corner") to force even more extensive concessions from Israel. It's time to shove something down the Arabs' throat instead.

[LarryLied]

Israel was giving these Pallie nutters 90%+ of the West Bank.

As pathetic an exercise as Sharon was when he got up before the Knesset the other day, waved around and read from captured documents proving that Arafat is tied to terror (Duh..who would have thunk that?). None of this makes any difference at all that I can see. Palestinians and other Arabs are going to be trying to get rid of Israel and Jews for as long as both exist. Just an opinion of course.