Arafat made historic error at Camp David - Clinton

[drdon326]

To promote the release of his massive autobiography – which hits stores on Tuesday – former president Bill Clinton gave a sneak preview to CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday, which included another indictment of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, as well as details of a playful ruse to help the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin avoid having to kiss Arafat at the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

"I'm sure that all the rest of us made our mistakes along the way. But this was an error of historic proportions," Clinton said referring to Arafat's refusal of the peace deal offered at Camp David in 2000.

"And the evidence of it is, that about a year after I left office, Mr. Arafat said he wanted to deal. He said, 'I'm ready to accept the parameters for final negotiation that president Clinton laid out,' " the ex-president told the news program.

"So I don't think I need to say anything else, to show that it was a mistake. And by the time he said he wanted it, he had an Israeli government that wouldn't give it to him, and an Israeli public that no longer trusted him. It's tragic," Clinton added.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1087787670382&p=1078113566627

[Trajan]

1. Wow .....

He made an error ....

You should kill him ...

Hey ! ... I've an idea ! ....

Have Sharon kill him ....

[James T. Kirk]

2. I agree with Clinton.

The time since the Camp David meeting has been really bad for the Palestinians and Israelis. If anything, Arafat has put himself in an even worse negotiating position than he was in in 2000.

[lanparty]

3. Arafat's error ...

...
he's a colossal asshole. He didn't realize that his negotiation strength was based on palestinians getting beat up with an organized effort to NOT fight back. This was the SAME strength as Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

When the second enti-fahda started over ... virtually NOTHING ... Arafat's strength was all through with.

[drdon326]

4. Arafat is the oldest non-jailed serial terrorist.

The sad thing is had he kept negotiating there would
probably be peace right now.

no wonder he's called THE WEASEL.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Not the oldest...

Sharon, the TWIN WEASEL, is the oldest by one year...

Violet...

[bigbillhaywood]

55. Damn...

She just schooled you, ya ain't gonna take that, are ya?

[Aidoneus]

5. will Bill please just pick up that rifle already?

[drdon326]

6. Why you mad at The Big Dog??

.

[Aidoneus]

7. How much time do you have?

On the side, did you get the reference?

[drdon326]

8. Uhhhh...obviously I missed it.

:shrug:

[Aidoneus]

10. well..

I guess it was a few months ago, Clinton told some magazine that he'd pick up a rifle and fight & die for Israel. Decontextualized idle posturing, sure, but it was good enough for me to make reference to here in a pinch.

As for walking away, it was probably the one decent thing he did in the last decade. It's a shame all the money he sunk into tourism afterwards went to waste.

[drdon326]

14. I dont know about tourism money.....

but the "historic error" of walking away i'm sure helped
the Weasel try to add to his $ 3,000,000,000.

Clinton understood .

[bigbillhaywood]

54. I'll help you out

NAFTA

GATT

PNTR for China

Deregulation of telecommunications industry, among others.

Continuing Iraq sanctions which killed thousands of innocent Iraqis

Bombing Iraq

Bombing a pharmacuetical company in Sudan, believed to be manufacturing chemical weapons (CIA admitted shortly thereafter they screwed up and they weren't manufacturing WMDs after all)

Blocking UN investigation into the many deaths that resulted from bombing of said plant in the impoverished Sudan.

Trying to strongarm the Bosnian Muslims and NATO into a partition plan that would have led to the deaths of many more Bosnians under the Serb militias

Refusing to veto bill that eliminated AFDC (welfare)

But he did get a BJ in the Oval Office-- I gotta respect that.

Any others you'd like to add, Aidoneus?

[number6]

9. yep he did....

...

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Clinton also believes that Israel should negotiate with Arafat

.

I think he is protecting Barak with this statement personally, but jpost is definately ripping it out of context.

[drdon326]

12. Yeah.......riiiiiiiiiight.......

I saw the 60 minutes interview....it was word for word.

Reality bites.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I saw it too, I also read the guardian, who quoted him word for word.

Here is another reality you can bite.


In a departure from current US and UK policy, the former president warns that it is a mistake to sideline Yasser Arafat from the Middle East peace process.

Speaking of Mr Bush and the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, he says: "Unless they just want to wait for him to become incapacitated or pass away or unless they seriously believe they can find a better negotiating partner in Hamas if they destroy the PLO, which I don't think they do believe, then they need to keep working to make a deal."

The remarks have extra force given Mr Clinton's clear personal disdain for Mr Arafat. His book lays chief blame for the collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace initiative on the Palestinian leader, and even suggests that Mr Arafat occasionally seemed no longer in full control of his mental capacities.

The ex-president tells the Guardian that Mr Arafat was "emotionally incapable" of making the leap "from revolutionary to statesman".

He reveals that just before he left office, Mr Arafat thanked him for all his efforts and told the president he was a great man. "'Mr Chairman,' I replied, 'I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one'."

In a further departure from the official Bush-Blair position, Mr Clinton insists that support for Mr Sharon's proposed withdrawal from Gaza should come with strings attached.

First, "I don't think it should be done in a way that humiliates the Palestinians". Israel needs to stage a "dignified" exit, he says, with the US providing financial aid for the relocation of Jewish settlers if necessary.

Second, Mr Clinton, says, "it cannot appear that 'This is the scrap we are throwing you from our table'. Israel needs to signal that, if the Palestinians crack down on terror, more will follow."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1243707,00.html

As it happens I think Clinton shouldn't have waited so damn long to launch the Camp David talks, and he is partially to blame for his own failure because of it. Secondly I think he is backing up his follow third way friend Barak, who was clearly dishonest when he claimed it was all Arafats fault and there was no partner, at least if you believe the mossad agents who worked on the report. I do agree that Arafat is probably becoming week minded, but knowing that, should have changed the strategy a bit.

[drdon326]

19. I'll bite....interesting article.

thanks for posting.

"The ex-president tells the Guardian that Mr Arafat was "emotionally incapable" of making the leap "from revolutionary to statesman".

He reveals that just before he left office, Mr Arafat thanked him for all his efforts and told the president he was a great man. "'Mr Chairman,' I replied, 'I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one'."

Historic error to walk away.

[Gimel]

38. another surprise

Saeb Arekat told reporters he wants elections in 6 months. What if they actually REPLACE Arafat? It's always an option in a "democracy", no?

[Djinn]

52. when Clinton

is interviewed outside of the US he doesn't seem to have a problem acknowledging that Israel has to negotiate with Arafat - if for no other reason than there is no-one else.

If this statement bothers you p'raps you need to decide if deifying Clinton is really what you want

[Rhiannon12866]

13. The reasons that Clinton's valiant efforts at Camp David failed

were not his fault. He memorized the characteristics of Jerusalem neighborhoods, for God's sake, to try to move the process forward. He is a brilliant man with the best of intentions in waging peace. He hoped it would be one of the hallmarks of his administration, unlike Bush*, who has largely ignored this huge world issue. I previously posted an editorial article, from Buzzflash, which explained that Clinton's efforts were undermined by "the Prince of Darkness," Richard Perle, who whispered into Barak's ear to wait for a Bush* presidency. So they pulled back and ended Clinton's peace effort. I searched for this article again on Buzzflash, from which I got it, and DU I, and I was able to come up with this much. This was not Clinton's fault, he was brilliant and had the best intentions. It can be blamed on the nascent and already corrupt Bush* administration. Sorry that I have yet to come up with the entire article, which I posted at the time. This is what I was able to retrieve from Buzzflash and, more productively, from DU I:

Israel, the Palestinians, Sharon, Arafat and George W. Bush
June 2, 2003
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

After ignoring the unending bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians for the first two years of his administration, Bush is being sent out by Karl Rove to burnish up his appearance as a "statesman." Rove decided, what with all the serial lying about Iraq emerging and all, it was time for George to appear to care about the thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed and injured during the course of his administration. Karl is the master of the "divert attention and change the subject" strategy, after all.

When Bush took office, Clinton had come dazzlingly close to forcing the two implacable foes to accept a giant step toward peace. However, Richard Perle, among other Bush backers, worked hard to insure that the agreement didn't go through. Perle even allegedly contacted the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, urging him to hold out for a Bush administration coming into office. Not that Arafat was too eager to pen his name to the agreement either. He also had extremists on his side whispering into his ear not to go along with the Clinton brokered agreement. And Arafat has never been particularly keen on peace either. He's a common thug who rose to power. (We are reserving judgment on his new negotiator.)

So what was to be the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration collapsed under the weight of obstructionists from both sides of the conflict, including Bush supporters undercutting America's commander in chief.

Richard Perle wasn't just urging then Prime Minister Barak to hold off for Bush. Perle must have known that an Ariel Sharon tenure in the Israeli PM's office wasn't far off. Sharon's Likud party is the spiritual, fundamentalist and politically bankrupt equivalent of the Bush Cartel Republican Party. They even agree on the same style of crony capitalism offered under the bait and switch euphemism of opening up a "free market economy" (i.e., reward my campaign contributors with contracts and screw everyone else). The Likud and the Bush Cartel are two birds of the same feather. Actually, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was educated in the U.S. and used to be a regular television pundit on American news shows, is the favored Israeli politician of the American extremist right (AKA, the Republican Party), but Sharon will do.

http://www.buzzflash.com/buzzscripts/buzz.dll/quote

[fujiyama]

16. Very true

I think Clinton truly wanted to bring peace between the two sides. He did the absolute best he could.

Instead he was undermined by Arafat and the neocons at home. Arafat was so stupid and showed his true colors by launching the intifada, which has achieved absolutely nothing.

Of course, Sharon has behaved no better, lashing out in what can only be described as cruel and barbaric.

Then there's this administration, which gave Sharon that green light.

[Rhiannon12866]

20. Actually it was Sharon who launched the intifada,

which I could prove if only I could access the entirety of this article. Apparently, he took a walk on the Temple Mount while these delicate negotiations were taking place, sending the other side into meltdown. This did not help poor Clinton, either. I agree that he was entirely sincere and hoped to solve this crucial world problem, but was met with resistance at every turn. He really tried, as did Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his success in negotiating peace in this region, while Bush* has made no effort at all. I guess we have to wait for a Democrat to wage peace in this beleaguered region.:shrug:

[drdon326]

17. And the person who knows the best...

states arafat's walking away was an "historic error".

[Classical_Liberal]

21. Clinton is more self serving in this then Rhiannan would portray him

Clinton, is probably trying to protect Barak. I have come to not have much faith in the people who SHOULD know best. Particularly in the past 2 yrs. Bill is still a politician. His wife is still active in politics and he also wants to protect her.

Clinton is not a god with all dems. He was way more conservative than my tastes on several issues. Same goes for Hillary.

[Rhiannon12866]

22. Maybe you are right and I am politically naive

Clinton had three main agendas. The war on terror, which Bush* has only managed to exacerbate. Disarming North Korea, which hates us more than ever and Bush* has largely ignored. And waging peace in Israel-Palestine, which Bush* has also ignored, while the worst aggravations in 40 years have taken place in this region and people continue to die here. Bush* is consumed by his preemptive war in Iraq. Clinton made a sincere effort here, though you may be right in that this may have been only to establish a legacy. But I would choose a man, any day, for whatever reason, who chooses to wage peace rather than preemptive war.

[Gimel]

24. Clinton played a role

He thought he had the charm to win over the conflict, thought he had the smartz, but Arafat resented being pushed. Arafat has a big ego, and not much complexity otherwise. That's why he has to be out of the picture in negotiations.

[Rhiannon12866]

42. Whether Arafat plays a role or not, the question is moot

Who has tried to broker peace in this region since Clinton? I can't see anyone else on the horizon stepping up to the plate, can you?

[The Magistrate]

28. A Pleasure To See You, Mem'Sahib!

Do not sell yourself short: your understanding of the circumstances prior to the resumption of open hostilities is a good one. The more skillful a politician, the greater the overlap between self-interest and sincere effort there will be in his or her actions. That is an essential element of the art, and in that sphere, the two things are not exclusive. "Good for me! Good for you!" is the operative motto here....

The proposals at Camp David in 2000 certainly fell short of perfection, but it does not seem to me possible to make a sensible argument that refusing them has in any way improved the conditions, or the prospects, of the people of Arab Palestine. The daily lives of that people would certainly be far better absent the violence of the last years: thousands would be alive and uninjured, and scores of thousands prosperously employed who today are without work and dependent on charities. Whatever the imperfections of those proposals, what Sharon intends to impose unilaterally, and may well prove able to impose, will be much worse.

Perle's efforts with Mr. Barak may have had some influence, but as the ties between reactionary factions in the U.S. and the Likud are much closer, it seems proper to me to suppose that there was some collaboration between these elements and Sharon when he took his unfortunate stroll upon that Jerusalem hill. The result of that was predictable as the outcome of a race between a thoroughbred and a plow-horse, and not only secured Sharon's election, but had a profound influence on the election in our own country. Just as it would have been far wiser, and more beneficial to the Arab Palestinian people, for Arafat to have accepted the Camp David proposals, it would have been far preferable to have ignored Sharon's provocation that day, but if wisdom had marked the decisions of the Arab Nationalist leadership during this conflict, it would have been settled long ago.

[Rhiannon12866]

41. Very well said, as usual, and I thank you for the welcome, Magistrate

I see the failure of Clinton's efforts to be a real tragedy. He had the knowledge of the region, of the personalities involved and, as you say, a real strong wish to accomplish this, regardless of his underlying motivations. He made more effort to wage peace in this region than anyone since Jimmy Carter.

But Clinton's efforts fell short, for the reasons we have brought up. And the reason that I call it a real tragedy is that this was this region's last chance at achieving any kind of negotiated agreement promising a cessation of hostilities. The current administration has largely ignored this bloody conflict and thousands, most of them innocent, lives have been needlessly lost since Clinton's valiant effort failed. There has been no effort since, that I can see. The "Road Map" was a failed joke and the situation in this region is worse than ever.

Sharon's stroll certainly ignited violence which continues to this day. I will never understand why the Israeli people don't call him on his continued incitement of violence. Surely they must be as weary of the continued bloodshed and of living in fear as the Palestinians who are living in Gaza.

[Lithos]

43. I think your answer is in your own question

Surely they must be as weary of the continued bloodshed and of living in fear as the Palestinians who are living in Gaza.

People who live in constant fear do not think rationally. F/911 explains this quite well, though I think it was Orwell who is the person who this concept is attributed.

[The Magistrate]

44. Indeed, Sir

The longer a fight goes on, the less rational involved parties become, and the more likely they will come to see no possible end to it but destruction of the other, the thing that makes them afraid, imagining that only this can bring relief....

[Lithos]

45. FDR does come to mind

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself"

L-

[The Magistrate]

46. Indeed, Sir

My chief fear in this question is that the thing by now has gone on too long for any rational solution to be possible to the participants.

[Lithos]

47. A valid concern indeed

Though I think not insurmountable. But I do think it will be the work of new generations to overcome the ignorance of their parents.

L-

[Rhiannon12866]

49. I agree with you that this is their only hope. But for this to happen,

and something that I have said before here, we have to break the cycle of hatred and violence. It has lasted for many generations. There is a parallel with Northern Ireland. Each generation is taught to hate a specific group, no matter how slight their differences and no matter how little they understand the reasons. Children are still being taught to hate. This is unconscionable, but it is still happening all over the world, especially here.

[Lithos]

51. I think we are talking about the same thing

Just looking at different parts of the elephant if you are familiar with the old adage.

The parallel with Northern Ireland is a good example. Self-awareness of the problem, out-reach, education, and communication are the tools being used in Northern Ireland and which must also be used in Israel.

Even so, the groundwork being laid by the adults will grow with their children and possibly bear fruit with their children's children. The seeds must be cultivated and nurtured today, but it will take several generations for the ignorance of their forebears to firmly be placed into the history books.

Each generation allowed to continue along the old path is yet another generation lost to hate. To my way of thinking, since the death of Rabin, most of another generation has been already lost.

L-

[Rhiannon12866]

53. What you are suggesting makes all the sense in the world,

but my question is, when are they ever going to even make a start at this? It appears to me that as long as Sharon remains in power, the situation is only further exacerbated. His ordered missile strikes and retributions only serve to incite more violence, let alone set the stage for a lasting peace. The only hope that I see on the horizon is the recent plan to involve Shimon Peres in the process. I have listened to him speak and he seems to be the most reasonable of anyone else I have heard.

It is truly a tragedy that Rabin was lost. If he had lived, it is possible that the situation would never have reached this terrible crisis point.

[Rhiannon12866]

48. Thank you. I have wondered about this for a long time

Someone who has much more knowledge of this conflict than I do and whose opinion I respect (and whom you also know) once told me that the reason that the Israeli people would always continue to want Sharon in office was because he made them feel safe. This made no sense to me. It has always seemed to me that he incited violence, which would terrify any rational person.

There are parallels to this situation with George Bush*. He has unleashed the wrath of the Islamic world on us, with his preemptive war. Rather than making us safer, we are more vulnerable than ever and terrorism is more widespread and uncontained than ever. But people continue to believe him and that what he is doing is right. I just sincerely hope that this is a small minority of Americans.

I have not seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet, but Moore also made this point in "Bowling for Columbine." It was not so much about gun control as it was about the culture of fear that makes gun control in this country such a divisive issue.

[Liberal Classic]

23. Related article: Netanyahu vs. Clinton: "I Never Agreed to Give Away...

Netanyahu vs. Clinton: "I Never Agreed to Give Away the Entire Golan"

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64499

Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denies that he ever agreed to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

The issue has risen once again with the release of ex-US President Bill Clinton's autobiography, in which he claimed that four Israeli Prime Ministers with whom he worked agreed to leave the Golan. The three were Yitzchak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak.

...

Clinton wrote that he convinced Rabin to shake Arafat's hand, and that in the end, "Rabin and Arafat would develop a remarkable working relationship, a tribute to Arafat's regard for Rabin and the Israeli leader's uncanny ability to understand how Arafat's mind worked."

[Gimel]

39. Response in Israel

The former head of intelligence under Netenyahu differs on that. Of course the security arrangements were unacceptable to Assad, so the process never went forward.

But on that note, I've seen videos of Yitzhak Rabin campaigning that he would never return the Golan. Another nice turn about.

[legin]

25. Bill Clinton is full of shit

1. Splitting the West Bank in to two or three pieces was never a good deal for the Palestinians. I'm surprised that Arafat even bothered turning up to the negotiations, I wouldn't have done.

2. The goal wasn't to get peace in the middle east anyway, it was to have an 'October Surprise' for the up and coming u.s. Presidential election. It would have been that little bit that would have got Gore home. If you are serious about negoiating a peace treaty you don't do it in the run up to a u.s. election because the other side just does what Perle did and sabotaged them. Just like Nixon did over the proposed Vietnam peace negoiations (just before the election). You know in advance this is going to happen. I do and I'm an idiot.

3. The reason why the Democratic Party and Clinton go out of their way to slag off Arafat is because in thier myopic, the whole world revolves around the u.s. elections, view of things, Arafat didn't play ball and cost them the election, therefore he is beyond the pale.

[drdon326]

26. Niiiiiice.....

bad mouth MY PRESIDENT and the DEMOCRATIC party in one
post.

[drdon326]

27. One more thing....

if I wanted bullshit about Big Dog and the Democratic Party
I'm sure I can read the same shit at Freeperville.

[Forkboy]

59. Or at LGF

[Forkboy]

58. Deal with it

You insult DU and DUers daily with your endless posts from right wing sites,yet you once again play the outrage card like Lynne Cheney when someone posts something YOU dont like.

[The Magistrate]

29. That Is An Odd View, Mr. Legin

It seems rather self-evident the result of a Presidential election in the United States is of great signifigance to the entire world. It would be hard to attach too much value to the outcome of such a contest.

What might be your grounds for saying President Clinton was not interested in a peace between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine is beyond me. The fact that his proposals toward that end fell short of maximalist desires within the Arab Palestinian leadership will hardly suffice to demonstrate it. That a peace would have brought great benefit politically to both President Clinton and Vice-President Gore is indisputeable, but why this potential benefit should be viewed as proving insincerity is unclear. "Virtue is its own reward" is a useful proverb, as in this wicked world a virtuous course will often bring no other reward to one who hews to it, but it is hard to argue that doing good ought not bring benefit to one who does it; indeed, were that the case, it might be expected a great deal more good would get done.

It seems quite clear that Arafat's leadership has been a disaster for the people of Arab Palestine, and that, to the degree that it recently contributed to the installation of the criminals of the '00 Coup in control of the U.S. government, that it has brought great harm to the Arab people, and to the whole world.

[legin]

32. Hi The Magistrate

:hi:

Just a thought to throw out there.

Given the difficulty of solving the I/P question and assuming that you can deal with the issue at any time throughout a four year Presidency, why would you choose to deal with the issue in the run-up to an election when you know in advance that on top of all your other intractable I/P problems, you get the republican working against you too.

I'd want the clearest field and the best circumstances possible for dealing with the near impossible I/P issue.

[The Magistrate]

33. In A Vacuum, Sir

That is a good question. Amid the actual contingencies of President Clinton's administration, his hand was less free. For much of his Presidency, the greatest energies had to be devoted to fighting off reactionary attempts at coup under cover of law. Certainly in this period, there was little political capital to spare for such an effort, and many parties to the dispute might well have been inclined to wait and see if he continued in office before making any commitment. After the impeachment was fought off, the Balkan question rose to prominence. For all the attention we are accustomed here to pay the Levantine imbroglio, there is little question the Balkan matter was more immediately pressing, and a greater running sore, in terms of the murderousness of the conflict, the number of persons directly involved, and the scale of the criminal behavior contemplated in the immediate future by the worst of the actors present. Thus, the final year of President Clinton's administration was the first clear space in which the thing could be attended to in full engagement. That he hoped to gain political benefit from success is certainly true, though as stated above, this does not seem a bad thing to me. Doubtless, President Clinton over-rated somewhat his powers of charm and persuasion to press a solution through, against all the manifold oppositions to success, including Republican mischief.

[legin]

30. And if Clinton does care about peace he should just shut-up too

There is a deal out there that has a chance of securing peace, and that is still a long shot.

One thing for sure that deal ain't the pile of slop that Clinton offered Arafat at Camp David.

But every time Clinton utters the 'Arafat was offered a good deal at Camp David' words he draws an ever more distinct line in the sand, which is going to be more and more difficult to cross to get to the real deal. Thrown also into the already foul mix, is the credibility of u.s. foreign policy and the Presidency, the u.s. says this is the case and the next thing you know it isn't.

[drdon326]

31. Lovely....

Keep bad-mouthing MY President....who came closer
to bringing peace than anyone.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Very interesting analysis

This explains so much about the weird way the dems have acted ever since, and why they are drifting right.

[bemildred]

35. Many strange things start to make sense ...

once one allows such thoughts to enter one's mind.

I do not ascribe to all of Mr. Legin's ideas, but his
general thrust with regard to the true agenda of the US
political class is more consistent with what we know of
politics in history and current events than any notion
that Mr. Clinton cared much about Israel or the Palestinians
as such, or that his motives were noble and altruistic.

Did the Roman ruling class care much about peace with the
celts and how things were doing up there near Hadrian's wall?

And it must be said that the US government bows to no one
in holding a grudge.

[Fight_n_back]

40. I am willing to go out on a limb and say

that Bill Clinton knows far more about the situation than you do. He is undoubtedly smarter than you and with a higher character as well.

He was in the room. He said it was a mistake at the time, this is not hind sight. Elsewhere I have seen him say that Arafat agreed to the deal but then reneged DURING THE PRESS CONFERENCE announcing the deal.


Arafat wants all of Israel as his. There are nuts in Israel that want all of the West Bank. If they don't get it is it a bad deal for them? Is Israel stupid if they stop short of securing the entire West Bank? What do you think of the people that think that way?



Some people cast no reflection in a mirror.

[Rhiannon12866]

50. I disagree

Clinton was the last real chance that these disparate factions had at peace. He knew the characteristics of Jerusalem neighborhoods, for God's sake, knew the personalities involved and was just brilliant with people. He may have had ulterior motives in achieving this, but I think it was more about his "legacy" than any upcoming elections. His time in office was over.

With Bush*, on the other hand, it is about the election. He would never take on a cause that he was sure to lose, like this one, especially in an election year. Besides, he has divided his own country and turned our oldest allies against us. He certainly can't be expected to accomplish what a brilliant uniter like Clinton couldn't, bringing together people who have hated and fought each other for generations.

Yes, Richard Perle's sabotage ended Barak's efforts. He should be brought up on charges for this. However, Sharon's timely stroll on the Temple Mount did much more damage. Why the Israeli people continue to support a man who continues to incite violence is a question that only they can answer.

[Andromeda]

36. Clinton came the closest to brokering peace ...

It was an historic effort and one that Bill Clinton should be proud of. I really miss him and the contrast between Clinton and Bush is striking.

Arafat is irrelevant now and his existance doesn't seem to serve any purpose anymore. He had his chance to take part in the peace effort and raise his credibility in the eyes of the world but he blew it.

[Deja Q]

37. ex-president?

Sheesh, the media kept referring to the Smoked Gipper as simply "the President". If a dead handmaiden of Satan can still be President (well, he was intellectually and mentally dead before he took office anyway), why can't President Clinton?

[Rhiannon12866]

56. Yes, on the event of Arafat's death, I admit that he probably should

have taken this deal. But he might very well have been assassinated for this, which he knew, and his rejection of this deal put him back on top, for the Palestinian people. But, unfortunately, it also gave an already decided Sharon and Bush* an excuse to reject him, forever, as "a partner in peace." Will they be willing to embrace the peace process now, after so many more have died, or come up with more excuses?:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Rhiannon, you might be interested in reading this...

It's long, but well worth reading, and I'd be interested to know after you've read it whether you think Arafat should have taken the 'deal'...

Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?

Violet...

[Rhiannon12866]

60. Thanks, Violet

I haven't read it yet, but I will. It's my understanding that Arafat was holding out for Right of Return, which they never would have given him. However, that's what he had promised the Palestinian people and they expected this from him. If he had given in, and accepted Barak's offer, he might very well have ended up like Rabin. Do you think that this is an accurate understanding? It's just such an a horrible thing that the people of this region have endured such bloodshed, ever since.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I think there was a fair bit more than that...

Arafat wasn't holding out for an unconditional right of return. On that issue the Palestinian negotiators were holding out for a compromise on the right of return, something that Barak refused to discuss. Other problems were that the Palestinians weren't being offered a viable state, but only minimal control over only parts of the Occupied Territories, and Jerusalem. As there was no formal, written offer on the table, it's quite likely that if it'd been accepted (and no-one in their right mind should have accepted that 'offer'), Barak would have then turned around and pushed to see how much more he could squeeze out of the Palestinians. I don't think the tragedy is that Camp David failed, but that the promising direction of the Taba talks were rejected by Sharon, who chose to halt any negotiations and resort to violence...

Violet...

[Rhiannon12866]

65. Thanks, again, Violet

I watched a fascinating "Larry King Live," tonight, on CNN, from 6/9/95. It was a simultaneous interview with Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein, of Jordan. There was such optimism then, and such willing concessions. Based on this, I don't think that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, but the fact that we now lack visionaries, like Israel's PM Rabin and President Clinton. All of these partners are now gone, and those who are now in place, of which I certainly count Sharon and Bush*, give me little hope.;(

[MuzioGambit]

61. Although I wasn't asked...

I actually liked that article although I disagree with certain points about it. However, what part of the offer do you have problems with? Im mainly talking about the Taba Conference and not the Camp David talks. All of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank offered, including a Palestinian controlled passage. A significant amount of refugees and a 30 billion dollar compensation fund.

To me, this sounds like the best deal Israel can logically offer. I don't think there will be an increase in the right of return and given the change in political climate, I don't think there will be an increase in the 97% either.

Also, has anyone read Clayton Swisher's "The truth about Camp David"? Does it pretty much elaborate on what this article says?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I'm glad you answered...

Taba was miles ahead of Camp David in terms of being fair. It's a pity that the negotiations weren't continued, but if they're picked up in future, picking up where Taba left off is the logical place to start. But there's going to be nothing at all in the way of progress while Sharon's in power, or any conservative govt in Israel...

Violet...

[Rhiannon12866]

66. And don't forget the US...

On "Larry King," all three men thought that the intervention of the U.S. had been paramount in the agreement achieved in the Oslo Accords. Bush* lacks the vision and uniting ability of President Clinton, or President Carter. He has repeatedly aligned himself with Sharon, so will lack credibility even with Arab allies, despite the prodding by PM Tony Blair. And Sharon lacks the vision of Rabin or Peres, who I had hoped would become involved.:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

64. Wow! Welcome to DU, MuzioGambit!

It's not often that you catch someone on their very first post, but I was welcomed on mine, so I am very pleased to welcome you. You can read what Violet has said, and I agree. The Palestinians deserved better, and Arafat recognized this. But I agree with your assessment. I have not read this book, but I thank you for the recommendation.

Rhiannon :-)