Why did Arafat turn down 97% of the W Bank and all of Gaza in 2000?

[tinydancer]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

 

[Hossfly]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

Supposedly he did it it out of fear. Fear that he would be killed by his buddies. He wanted to die a natural death from AIDS. He was a sly ol' devil.

 

[irosie91]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

It would be blasphemy which is a capital crime in islam.
The INTENDED JIHAD FROM uhm JANNAH ABOVE (ameeen)
is the annhilation of the zionist entity----not souk bargains with---
uhm......the "zionist entity" The JIHAD is a valuable asset
for all UMMAH-ITES It provides opportunity to explode
one's way to JANNAH WHY GIVE IT UP???????

 

[Roudy]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

Arafat was a greedy thief, more than anything else. He was getting billions of dollars wired directly to his personal hidden bank accounts, for perpetuating war and terrorism against Israel. He was told implicitly that if he wants to see another dime, he better stop talking peace and start talking war and terrorism and suicide bombing.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

I heard it was because his Arab and Persian backers told him not to take it, they want all of Israel gone and Arafat accepting this offer would put an end to their dreams.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

Arafat was a greedy thief, more than anything else. He was getting billions of dollars wired directly to his personal hidden bank accounts, for perpetuating war and terrorism against Israel. He was told implicitly that if he wants to see another dime, he better stop talking peace and start talking war and terrorism and suicide bombing.

You just nailed it.

 

[irosie91]

Arafart had the INTERESTS of his fellow beloved
palestinians at heart-----how could he deny them
the BENEFITS of being eternal refugees?

 

[Sunni Man]

The 97% offer to Arafat was a joke; PR smoke and mirrors.

Would you buy 97% of a car from a salesman?

When the other 3% he kept was the engine and transmission.

Sure the car might look good...... but you couldn't drive it anywhere........

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

The Myth of the Generous Offer

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.

Excellent post by Coyote.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6914869-post22.html

 

[irosie91]

The 97% offer to Arafat was a joke; PR smoke and mirrors.

Would you buy 97% of a car from a salesman?

When the other 3% he kept was the engine and transmission.

Sure the car might look good...... but you couldn't drive it anywhere........

IT WAS A HELLUVA LOT BETTER THAN THE ----pact of omar

 

[High_Gravity]

The 97% offer to Arafat was a joke; PR smoke and mirrors.

Would you buy 97% of a car from a salesman?

When the other 3% he kept was the engine and transmission.

Sure the car might look good...... but you couldn't drive it anywhere........

So instead of that we get suicide bombings and intifidahs? come on Sunni.

 

[tinydancer]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

The Myth of the Generous Offer

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.

Excellent post by Coyote.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6914869-post22.html

So President Clinton's a liar? The New York Times is lying?

In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure.

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 26, 2000

At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.''

The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises.

''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.''

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times

 

[tinydancer]

President Clinton who negotiated the deal is a liar? That's what you think? That Clinton negotiated in bad faith and is lying in his autobiography?

On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway.

It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.

I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.

On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.

I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake.

And this ...

Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.

An excerpt from:

Source: Clinton, Bill. “My Life.” Vintage (2005). pp. 936-946.

Bill Clinton Reflects on Camp David Summit (2000)

 

[tinydancer]

President Clinton who negotiated the deal is a liar? That's what you think? That Clinton negotiated in bad faith and is lying in his autobiography?

On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway.

It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.

I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.

On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.

I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake.

And this ...

Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.

An excerpt from:

Source: Clinton, Bill. “My Life.” Vintage (2005). pp. 936-946.

Bill Clinton Reflects on Camp David Summit (2000)

 

[martybegan]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

After years of feeding his own people a steady diet of anti israeli hate any deal would have fallen on deaf ears. He realized governing such a population would be impossible. More than likey he figured The Israelis would never go as far as they did, and he could walk away with no issue.

When Israel gave up as much as they did he was still stuck on saying "no", no matter what they offered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'd really like to know what posters think about this historic and bewildering event that took place. I still don't get it. It was all handed to him on a silver platter and he refused to form a Palestinian State.

The Myth of the Generous Offer

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.

Excellent post by Coyote.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6914869-post22.html

So President Clinton's a liar? The New York Times is lying?

In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure.

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 26, 2000

At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.''

The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises.

''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.''

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times

So President Clinton's a liar? The New York Times is lying?

That would not surprise me at all.

 

[Sunni Man]

The 97% offer to Arafat was a joke; PR smoke and mirrors.

Would you buy 97% of a car from a salesman?

When the other 3% he kept was the engine and transmission.

Sure the car might look good...... but you couldn't drive it anywhere........

So instead of that we get suicide bombings and intifidahs? come on Sunni.

Hypothetical.

Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt.

The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it.

And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted.

Questions:

How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them?

5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?

Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation?

Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back?












Do you think the American

 

[High_Gravity]

The 97% offer to Arafat was a joke; PR smoke and mirrors.

Would you buy 97% of a car from a salesman?

When the other 3% he kept was the engine and transmission.

Sure the car might look good...... but you couldn't drive it anywhere........

So instead of that we get suicide bombings and intifidahs? come on Sunni.

Hypothetical.

Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt.

The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it.

And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted.

Questions:

How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them?

5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?

Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation?

Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back?












Do you think the American

Is that what happened though? the UN gave the land to Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So instead of that we get suicide bombings and intifidahs? come on Sunni.

Hypothetical.

Lets say the UN decided to give America to China due to it's massive debt.

The Chinese army invaded and herded all American citizens to Ohio and built a wall around it.

And would shoot anyone trying to escape and bomb them whenever they wanted.

Questions:

How long would the American citizens resist after having their country stolen from them?

5 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?

Knowing the American spirit; would we ever concede defeat, and just be happy with our situation?

Or would we; dig tunnels, smuggle arms, build home made rockets, sneak out and attack Chinese soldiers, and basically do anything to try to get our country back?












Do you think the American

Is that what happened though? the UN gave the land to Israel?

The UN gave no land to Israel.

 

[irosie91]

sunni----from where do you get your infomation about Gaza and the
West Bank----your local mosque? big wall? no "escape"?
I live in the USA-----I never went to gaza----I have met LOTS OF
GAZANS they did not have to "escape" to get to the USA----
when you talk about "ESCAPING" think Sudanese christians,
in fact think jews from lots of different islamic lands