Someone should let NYP know Soros is Jewish...
Thank you for proving my point for me. I guess you learned something today!Robert Malley, a US negotiator on the US team that oversaw the Camp David negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinans in Camp David in 2000, wrote his impressions of what occurred in the talks in NYT:
Fictions About the Failure At Camp David
Opinion | Fictions About the Failure At Camp David (Published 2001)
Op-Ed article by Robert Malley, former Mideast aide to Pres Clinton, debunks 'myths' he says have arisen in year since Camp David meeting; says Yasir Arafat was at low point of relations with Prime Min Ehud Barak and had not wanted to come, that Israel proposals were indeed far-reaching but not...www.nytimes.com
If anyone encounters a paywall for this article, the full text here:
Fictions About the Failure At Camp David
By Robert Malley
A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.
I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose -- and considerable harm -- in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.
Myth 1: Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions.
Mr. Arafat told us on numerous occasions that he had not wanted to go to Camp David. He thought that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not sufficiently narrowed the gaps separating their positions before the summit, and once there, he made clear in his comments that he felt both isolated from the Arab world and alienated by the close Israeli-American partnership. Moreover, the summit occurred at a low point in Mr. Arafat's relationship with Mr. Barak -- the man with whom he was supposed to strike a historic deal. A number of Israeli commitments, including a long-postponed Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank and the transfer to Palestinian control of villages abutting Jerusalem, remained unfulfilled, and Mr. Arafat believed that Mr. Barak was simply trying to skirt his obligations. It also took a genuine leap of faith -- for Mr. Barak as for the United States -- to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues -- territory, refugees, or the fate of Jerusalem -- having previously been discussed by the leaders.
Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.
Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past -- whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.
To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?
In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees -- for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter -- the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a ''satisfactory solution,'' leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.
Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.
Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises.
If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.
The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.
The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton -- at Camp David and later on -- with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.
Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things -- inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt -- but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.
The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths -- that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.
Fair point on the gist of the article, but what was not shown was the distribution of the settlements that would have made the West Bank impossible to govern with settlements in strategically placed points that would have killed the 2SS in no time by extremists from both sides.Thank you for proving my point for me. I guess you learned something today!
You posted an article in support of your position that actually supported mine. Since you clearly thought it was credible when you posted it, has this made you reconsider your position?Fair point on the gist of the article, but what was not shown was the distribution of the settlements that would have made the West Bank impossible to govern with settlements in strategically placed points that would have killed the 2SS in no time by extremists from both sides.
Yes it clearly supported your position. But did you read the added context in my last post which supports my position?You posted an article in support of your position that actually supported mine. Since you clearly thought it was credible when you posted it, has this made you reconsider your position?
My guess is no, which is what I said a few posts up.
Yes, I saw you trying to convince yourself that the source you chose to post was not credible.Yes it clearly supported your position. But did you read the added context in my last post?
Not really, the post was lacking info that I thought was there. Its was simply not enough info. Meanwhile you choose to ignore vital context that further added clarification on why the deal could not work, not just from a Pal perspective but from any clear headed individual knowing the realities on the ground.Yes, I saw you trying to convince yourself that the source you chose to post was not credible.
This was my initial point that you derided. You are not going to change your mind regardless of the evidence.
So you posted something without reading it.Not really, the post was lacking info that I thought was there. Its was simply not enough info. Meanwhile you choose to ignore vital context that further added clarification on why the deal could not work, not just from a Pal perspective but from any clear headed individual knowing the realities on the ground.
I had read it many years ago and though it contained what I presumed were vital details that I had read elsewhere. My bad. But lets not skirt around the issue that I am now directing you to, or will you continue to hem and haw dwelling on my lack of proof reading?So you posted something without reading it.
You posted something because you thought it was a credible source. When it turned out to support my position you decided it was not credible.I had read it many years ago and though it contained what I presumed were vital details that I had read elsewhere. My bad. But lets not skirt around the issue that I am now directing you to, or will you continue to hem and haw dwelling on my lack of proof reading?
Yes, I now see that.Good luck @amenx, you are talking to a champion of useless arguing. It doesn't matter what evidence you post or what the reality is in Israel.
You: posts evidence that contradicts your position.Yes, I now see that.
Why do you like to argue with blinders? Why do you keep ignoring this post?You: posts evidence that contradicts your position.
Me: your evidence contradicts you.
You: why won’t you accept evidence?!
Barak’s offer included Israel annexing strategically important areas of the West Bank, while retaining “security control” over other parts. This amounted to restricting Palestinians from freely moving within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government.
The annexations, which would have included settlements, would have cut off the most fertile lands in the West Bank. This territory also held rich reserves of water.
The proposed annexations would have forced Palestinians to cross Israeli territory every time they travelled or shipped goods from one canton of the West Bank to another. Israel could close these routes at will.
Further dividing the West Bank, Israel would retain a network of “bypass roads” that would snake throughout the Palestinian state.
Deconstructing Camp David
In the run-up to the Intifada intense diplomatic efforts were undertaken by the then US President Bill Clinton, struggling to secure himself a place in history as the man who brokered a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal.www.aljazeera.com
The Camp David negotiations were designed to be a temporary 'peace settlement' that would have allowed the Israelis to retake back the territory within a year and blaming the Pals for it being non-workable.
Every accusation a confession, haha.Why do you like to argue with blinders? Why do you keep ignoring this post?
Every accusation a confession, haha.
I’m not ignoring it, I’m saying you already proved my point that you are not amenable to evidence and will never change your mind. Your source was credible until it disagreed with you, at which point it wasn’t.
Cant help the feeling that you are a very dishonest debater. I make a mistake with a link with missing info and offer further context in a follow up post which completely undermines your argument. But you refuse to acknowledge it and seem to be only arguing for posture and not interested in any honest discussion on the issue.Every accusation a confession, haha.
I’m not ignoring it, I’m saying you already proved my point that you are not amenable to evidence and will never change your mind. Your source was credible until it disagreed with you, at which point it wasn’t.
People often think that I am honest and informative right up to the point where I disagree with them, at which point I become dishonest.Cant help the feeling that you are a very dishonest debater. I make a mistake with a link with missing info and offer further context in a follow up post which completely undermines your argument. But you refuse to acknowledge it and seem to be only arguing for posture and not interested in any honest discussion on the issue.
I get that a lot.People often think that I am honest and informative right up to the point where I disagree with them, at which point I become dishonest.
This is your inability to process contrary information at work.
Both sides have claimed at various times to support the two state solution in theory. It is when you actually hammer out the details it falls apart. Also, who the US and the rest of the world recognizes is irrelevant.
Netanyahu is horrible and has obviously made the decision to render a two state solution impossible but it doesn’t change the fact that the Palestinians had several offers for a state in the past and rejected them despite clearly being on the losing end of several conflicts.
Both sides must be held accountable, and the problem is that both sides are heavily influenced by religious fanatics who make what should be a pretty simple deal into something impossible.
Look, I think you have the more factual position that owing to unexamined assumptions that ground their two positions, no possible accommodation of either side for the other was possible and that the irrationality of those assumptions is the reason neither side could meet the demands of the other side.You posted something because you thought it was a credible source. When it turned out to support my position you decided it was not credible.
This isn’t logical.
Cant help the feeling that you are a very dishonest debater. I make a mistake with a link with missing info and offer further context in a follow up post which completely undermines your argument. But you refuse to acknowledge it and seem to be only arguing for posture and not interested in any honest discussion on the issue.