Did Barak's offer at Camp David affect you view of the Mideast conflict?

[lord of the mark]

Ehud Barak has been widely reviled by the Israeli right for his offer to Arafat at Camp David. He offered not only to accept a Palestinian state on virtually all the territories, but also to give up most of East Jerusalem. The right points out that this was not accepted and so did not gain Israel anything, but by giving up long held positions for no return, harmed israels bargaining position, and may have triggered the current violence by making the Palestinians think that more pressure (ie violence) would get more. The only defense of Barak I know of is that the offer showed Israel's willingness to compromise, and so ahs won Israel sypmathy around the world.

Yet my impression from here and elsewhere is that this is not hte case. I hear a few pro-Israel voices besides the Israelis and American Jews here. But mainly I hear voices unsympathetic to Israel, who either seem to think the Barak offer was irrelevant or "idiotic" or who seem unaware of it. Perhaps Americans are more conscious of it, because of Pres. Clinton's involvement?

So how was your view impacted by Camp David 2?

LOTM

[Chris 62]

Your asking the people here to actually change their minds?

Good luck.

It showed me what I always knew, that the Jews will deal it teated fairly, and that Arafat is a piece of trash who can't be trusted.

[Alexander's Horse]

Did Barak offer to remove Jewish settlements?

[Chris 62]

Yes, total withdrawl.

[Alexander's Horse]

Are you sure about that?

[WhiteElephants]

And what of free passage to the sites Palesteinians deem holy?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
And what of free passage to the sites Palesteinians deem holy?

They're all in the territories, except the Dome of the Rock, which Jews aren't allowed near (the temple mount is a Jewish holy site). This pattern is repeated often.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Are you sure about that?

He offered to give back 95% plus of the West Bank, including most of the settlements, (though Israel would have kept a few large ones adjacent to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) I dont believe he got as far as specifying that the settlements would be destroyed by the Israeli army - but clearly they would have fallen under PA control, and clearly most settlers would not want to live under PA control. I beleive the goal was to provide settlers with financial inducements to leave, but I dont think the negotiations got that far. 95% of the West Bank wasnt enough, and the PA insisted on complete control of the HAram al sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem -thats why they call this the "al aqsa intifada".

In any case you have answered my question - you dont seem to have even been aware of Baraks offer before it was discussed here.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
And what of free passage to the sites Palesteinians deem holy?

The offer provided for joint control of the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif. This would insure both Muslim access to the al aqsa mosque and dome of the rock, and Jewish access to Western wall, and protection for archaelogical remains of the Ancient temple presumed to be buried under the Haram. This was considered unacceptable by Chairman Arafat. (It was also considered unacceptable by many on the Israeli right)

LOTM

[Chris 62]

See Horsey?

The Jews were dealing, your poor opressed victims wern't.

[Sirotnikov]

Good. you scared him away with facts.

[WhiteElephants]

Well, I guess you changed my mind. I say Israel can go ahead and kill them all then.

[Urban Ranger]

Here's what Assaf Oron has to say on this:

I believe that the Palestinians are human beings like us. What a concept, What a concept, eh? And before everything else, before EVERYTHING else, we must treat them like human beings without demanding anything in return. And no (to all die-hard Barak fans), throwing them a couple of crumbs in which they can set up pitiful, completely controlled Bantustans in between our settlements and bypass roads, and believing it to be a great act of 'generosity', does NOT come close to answering this basic requirement.

It seems that Mr Oron doesn't like the Barak deal as an Israeli conscientious objector.

A detailed analysis (but the pro-Israeli faction won't buy it)

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In any case you have answered my question - you dont seem to have even been aware of Baraks offer before it was discussed here.

No I was aware of it - I just couldn't recall what the stumbling blocks were. I thought it was the status of Jerusalem and settlements in the occuppied territories - which seems to be right.

I think its a terrible shame the deal didn't go through. Sad, tragic in the light of recent events.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Here's what Assaf Oron has to say on this:



It seems that Mr Oron doesn't like the Barak deal as an Israeli conscientious objector.

A detailed analysis (but the pro-Israeli faction won't buy it)

But he doesn't say anything

what is the problem with Barak's offer and why is it not treating the palestines like human beings

Jon Miller