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

[Arrian]

To answer the original question...

The Camp David talks definitely impacted my view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The first memories I have of the situation over there were from my childhood - pictures on TV of the 1st intifada. Palestinians throwing stones and being shot with rubber bullets.

I have always been against the Israeli settlements. The settlers are the most radical element of Israeli society, so far as I know (wasn't Rabin shot by a settler?). Consistent Israeli refusal to halt the construction of new settlements indicates (to me) an aggressive mindset and bad faith in negotiations. Then again, I can understand (not relate to, but understand) the siege mentality of Israelis. Suffice it to say they have ample reason to suspect they are surrounded by enemies.

I have never understood those who justify (or actually GLORIFY) the slaughter of civilians. That always made me wary of the Palestinians, despite the fact that I also sympathize with their outrage regarding the 1948 creation of Israel by the UN (I've always wondered why we didn't give them New Jersey - oh, yeah, I forgot, GOD gave them Israel*). One of the most effective resistence/independence movements of all time was non-violent. So successful, in fact, that damn near every educated person in the world knows the name of the leader of that movement: Ghandi, the "great souled man." I see no Palestinian equivalent, and that's sad.

But I digress... ah, yes, Camp David. Sure, the Israeli/American offer may not have been perfect, but Arafat's response was flat refusal. That is not the reaction of a leader who desires peace. The man who wishes to end the bloodshed comes back with a counterproposal.

To sum up, my tendancy to lean toward the Palestinians largely evaporated after Arafat's rejection of the Barak offer. The cheering in the streets on Sept. 11th didn't help. Yes, I know that was isolated, and I try to forget about it, but it did have an effect.

Israel's actions under Sharon, however, have had a similar effect w/regard to Israel. My overall attitude now is "a pox on both their houses." I sincerely wish my country wasn't involved in this mess, but unfortunately we are.

-Arrian

*sarcasm - yeah, I have little respect for the insanity that is religion, particularly when mixed with nationalism. So sue me. As for the question of whether or not Israel has a right to exist, I believe the creation of a haven for Jews after WWII was correct, I merely question why the nations that made the decision didn't offer any of their land. In any case, it is now irrelevant. Israel EXISTS. It will not go away. What needs to be worked out is a practical solution to present day realities, not fantasies about what could/should have been.

[chequita guevara]

The problem with your view, Arrian, is that not only was the Israeli offer a slap in the face, but the Palestinians did make a counter offer. Try re-reading this thread.

[Arrian]

chegitz,

You call the offer a "slap in the face." As I recall, both sides have been doing a lot worse than that for years upon years.

As per your suggestion, I went back and re-read the thread. I've been staring at my computer all day, so maybe it's me, but I don't see a discussion of a Palestinian counter-offer. Please understand, I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know what you're talking about. If you can show me a link to a reputable news agency story about a Palestinian response to Barak's offer, I will check it out. It may impact my opinion.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Source: "Fictions About the Failure at Camp David," by Robert Malley, New York Times, 8 July 2001. Accessing article may require registration.

Also check the link I previously provided and also: The PLO's FAQ on the Camp David Negotiations

I also suggest you stare at those maps for a while, and try and imagine a viable state based upon them. Consider that the water was going to remain in Israeli hands.

[Arrian]

chegitz,

I guess I'll have break down and register for the Times (dunno why it annoys me that they require that, but it does). The PLO website, however, interests me not at all. No more than information posted on the official Israeli government site(s) would. Too obviously biased.

As for the question of a viable state, maybe you are right. I frankly don't know, and don't claim to be able to, based upon looking at a (pretty crappy) little color-coded map. I don't know the local geography well enough. Further, I am no expert on nation building.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

There's nothing wrong with bias as long as you are aware of it so you can account for it. I read stuff from all sides.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Can I come over to your house and take stuff you don't use? I'll return some of it, eventually. Some of it I need to keep.

A. The Jordan valley (like the rest of the territories) is not, legally, Palestinian territory Israel took. There is no legal boundary between ISrael and Palestine. The 1947 partition was rejected by the Palestinians. The pre-1967 green line is simply the armistice line from the 1948 war. It has never been recognized as a boundary in any treaty. after 1948 it was occupied by Jordan, not Palestine, an occupation that was recognized by almost no one. The Palestinian claim to land is based not on legal title but on the right of self-determination, and the need to end the brutalities of occupation. Logically these claims can only extend to POPULATED areas.

B. The Israelis are not taking land for arbitrary purposes, but for purposes of national security, to deal with concerns largely created by the last half century of Arab rejectionism.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Bill Clinton on the Camp David negotiations:
(January, 2002)


"Yasser Arafat missed a golden opportunity" to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former U.S. President Bill Clinton said at a Tel Aviv University ceremony on Sunday night in which he received an honorary doctorate degree. "Leaders have to prepare their people for peace saying that compromise is honorable, not shameful - a sign of strength, not weakness," he said.

Clinton, on a two-day visit to Israel, addressed a fund-raising dinner, which also established the "Clinton Program for American Studies" at the university, and spoke about his failed attempts at Mideast peace during the Camp David peace talks in the summer of 2000. "I think we have the outlines of a reasonable settlement. Last year I believe Chairman Arafat missed a golden opportunity to make that agreement. I think the violence and terrorism which followed were not inevitable and have been a terrible mistake," he said.

Clinton called on the Palestinians to take action against
terror, but added that there was no military solution to the conflict. "I think that many of the problems the Palestinians have can be alleviated if their leaders would do what is possible against the terror, but we need a process that will stop the violence and terror," he said.

"I know how difficult this is, but I plead with you not to become so discouraged that you give up the dream of peace and the willingness to be open to it whenever to opportunity presents itself," said the former president, whose speech was broadcast live on Israeli television and radio.



LOTM

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian
To answer the original question...
(wasn't Rabin shot by a settler?). Consistent Israeli refusal to halt the construction of new settlements indicates (to me) an aggressive mindset and bad faith in negotiations.


as info - there have been NO new settlements established by Israel since the Oslo accords. Not under Barak, not under Sharon, not under Netanyahu, not under Peres, not under Rabin.

There have been 2 things that have been controversial

1. Israel has expanded existing settlements, principally under the Likud PM's - Likud insists that these are simply accommodating natural growth (many settlers are young families, no accord can keep them from having kids, they need extra housing, kindergardens, etc) Doves claim that some of this goes beyond natural growth, and significantly extends settlements. This has been addressed in the Mitchell and Tenet accords, which could be implemented if the suicide bombings would stop. In any case I dont think it involves bad faith.

2. Israel has established a new neighborhood at Har Homa. It is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, and Israel therefore does not consider it to come under the terms of Oslo, which did not address Jerusalem. I beleive this is also addressed in Mitchell and Tenet.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

From the article quoted by Guevara.


." As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank, and the other 40 percents are blocked by the defense array of some 40,000 settlers. As always, unofficial rumors were spread in the media that Israel intends to evacuate these areas in some future. But all relevant government offices clarified repeatedly that no plan is being prepared for the evacuation of even a single settlement. First, the Palestinians need to prove that our imposed arrangements work, and then we will of course discuss and consider."


Why pray tell, would a govt office come up with a plan to evacuate settlements, when the PA has rejected the plan to turn over the land on which those settlements exist?

You ever buy real estate guevara ?

Person A - I ask $100,000 for this house. The garden comes with it.
Person B - Thats an outrageous price for the house. I reject it,
Person A - What are you willing to pay?
Person B - you have insulted me, slapped me in the face. Theres nothing more to discuss.

Person B, to third party.- They has junk left all over the garden. Their offer made no mention of cleaning up the junk. Oh, yeah, they released some "rumours" that they would clean up the junk, but when i asked there housekeeper if there were any plans to clean up the junk for the sale, he said there were none.


Obviously first the PA and Israel have to agree on boundaries, and then they can discuss the disposition of the settlements. Thats how negotiations happen, in stages, from broader agreements to details. The article you quopted is merely part of a Palestinian attempt to deflect the PR hit they took by rejecting the offer out of hand.

LOTM

[chequita guevara]

Some people are blind because they just refuse to see.

The negotiations were not supposed to be over territory, but over the implimentation of UN resolutions and the Oslo Peace Accords. Israel has no legal right to hold any Palestinian territory under Interntaional law. In other words, what they were supoosed to be discussing was not how much does Israel get to keep but how soon Israel is going to leave.

The occupation is illegal. The annexations are illegal. The settlements are illegal. The theft of Palestinian water for Israeli use is illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not only is che correct, but the settlements of Israel violate the Geneva Convention.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Some people are blind because they just refuse to see.

The negotiations were not supposed to be over territory, but over the implimentation of UN resolutions and the Oslo Peace Accords. Israel has no legal right to hold any Palestinian territory under Interntaional law. In other words, what they were supoosed to be discussing was not how much does Israel get to keep but how soon Israel is going to leave.

The occupation is illegal. The annexations are illegal. The settlements are illegal. The theft of Palestinian water for Israeli use is illegal.

The binding UN resolution is 227. It was passed in the immediate wake of the 1967 war. It does NOT specify that Israel must withdraw from all the territories - it says israel must withdraw from territories occupied - with no article - the original proposal said "the territories" but was withdrawn to avoid a US veto. The Oslo accords do nto specify the shape of the final settlement - it was always invisaged on the israeli side that they led to discussions of territory.

Now could you please cite for me the international law backing your opinions. In particular could you tell me where in international law the 1948 cease fire line is established as the boundary between israel and palestine?

The occupation is legal. the settlements are legal. the use of water is legal. they may not be good things, since they result in much brutality, and are obstacles to peace, but they are not illegal. You can assert as much as you want that they are not
legal, but you have no legal aruments.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not only is che correct, but the settlements of Israel violate the Geneva Convention.

No they do not. The geneva convention bans settlements in territory taken from a sovereign state, by another with no claim. No state has sovereign rights as such over the territories. The territories were part of the British Mandate, in which the right of Jewish settlement was guaranteed, as part of the terms of the original League mandate. The 1947 partition was rejected by the arabs and is not legally binding. The 1948 armistice lines are just that. The occupation of the territories by Jordan was not recognized by the world. Palestine has a claim to the territories. Israel also has claims. The territories are disputed, the Geneva convention does not apply.


LOTM

[Kautilya]

LOTM,
You are quite wrong about the legality of the settlements. Check out UNSC resolution 452

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unres452.html

BTW if 1967 cease fire lines have no validity of any kind then the Palestinians have the right to claim parts of pre-1967 Israel, no?

As for Barak's offer and Camp David the almost unbelievable misrepresentation about it in large sections of the US media played a big role in me ceasing to be pro-Israeli which I was a couple of years ago. It was a quite a revelation how a lot of American media coverage about Israel especially among the commentators is ,frankly, delusional.

Here is another good article by Robert Malley about exactly what happened at Camp David and about how the different parties in different ways were to blame.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

It should be required reading for everyone interested in the ME.