A message from Canada to the Palestinians

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

Yes, there are a couple of points missing here. Weird.
I'm guessing that had Abbas accepted the offer, then Hamas would have not been to happy ! Maybe he rejected it out of fear?

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

You are correct!

The Palestinians were also offered by Ehud Barak a very generous peace settlement at Camp David in 2000, but of course this was rejected by Arafat because the Palestinians won't settle for just a two state solution, what they really want is one state solution!!! that is all of Gaza, the West bank and Israel!

PALESTINIANS = ETERNAL TROUBLEMAKERS

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

....was it so generous?

The Myth of the Generous Offer

If the positions were reversed - would you have expected Israel to agree to such terms?

No sane person would.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources,

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

Maybe no Arab leader is allowed to make peace with Israel if he knows what is good for him. I thought this opinion piece was interesting.

Things you can't see from DC - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are expected to visit the region together in late March to try and promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

You're not offering any sources much less reliable ones. What you say does not address the specific points given in my source (which linked to other sources) - are you claiming they are all false?

Move along folks. There is nothing to see here.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.