Reply #116: not exactly, Sherlock

[shira]

Here's Dennis Ross when he was interviewed on Fox News:

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.

And here's Shlomo ben Ami just a few sentences after what you quoted but decided not to include:


We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, “Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don’t believe in negotiations.” It’s very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton’s presidency.

Here's ben Ami in another interview:

The proposal was difficult for us to accept. No one came out dancing and singing, and Ehud especially was perturbed. At the same time, three days later, the cabinet decided on a positive response to Clinton. All the ministers supported it, with the exception of Matan Vilnai and Ra'anan Cohen. I informed the Americans that Israel's answer was yes....

We sent the Americans a document of several pages containing our reservations. But as far as I recall, they were pretty minor and dealt mainly with security arrangements and deployment areas and control over the passages. There was also clarification concerning our sovereignty over the Temple Mount. There was no doubt that our reply was positive. In order to remove any doubts, I called Arafat on December 29, at Ehud's instructions, and told him that Israel accepted the parameters and that any further discussion should be only within the framework of the parameters and on how to implement them.

Arafat rejected the Clinton parameters. The whole point for Taba was to implement those parameters. Thus, Taba was a failure before it ever started. Arafat wasn't budging on the 1948 - June 4 1967 armistice lines as borders or the right of return:

The essence of the right of return is choice: Palestinians should be given the option to choose where they wish to settle, including return to the homes from which they were driven. There is no historical precedent for a people abandoning their fundamental right to return to their homes whether they were forced to leave or fled in fear. We will not be the first people to do so. Recognition of the right of return and the provision of choice to refugees is a pre-requisite for the closure of the conflict.

The right of return by itself is a game ender. Factor in the strict 1967 borders which would take out the biggest settlements of Jerusalem, no Israeli use of airspace over the W.Bank even for commercial flights, no recognition of any Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, etc... and it's easy to see Arafat was never going to agree to anything in Taba - but only try to use Taba to gain more concessions from Israel in future negotiations (thus, Taba and CD were not wastes of time for the PA at all as they were able to bring Israel to their limits).

There is no evidence that Barak staying 2 more days at Taba would have bridged the enormous gap Arafat and his gang had with the Israeli negotiating team.

There is also no evidence that Arafat was ever serious at Taba and wanted to do what was right for Palestinians. But here you are putting the blame on Israel and defending Arafat and his maximalist demands that did nothing but EXTEND the conflict and bring on MORE suffering and misery for Palestinians. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE claiming to be pro-Palestinian would defend Arafat's performance at CD/Taba.

All evidence from the CD/Taba summits points to the Israeli team working their asses off to try to come to a reasonable agreement and the PA side not budging from its unrealistic maximalist demands.

Seriously, what evidence do you see from the CD/TABA negotiations that Arafat and company tried negotiating in good faith to come to a peaceful, win-win, 2-state situation for both sides in the conflict?