firstly, back then in nov 2000, days before the the peace talk
at the white house, Israeli army assasinated one of Mr Arafat's
right hand man, people killing him, and a couple of innocent
bystanders on the West Bank. is that a act of sincerity? or like
chinese like to put it, xia ma wei?
Barak faces an uncertain coalition situation back home then before
the Middle East peace summit at Camp David, Maryland
Writing in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley, who
was Mr Clinton's special adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs,
claims that Mr Barak failed to honour previous Israeli
agreements assurances which Mr Clinton had been
personally guaranteed to Mr Arafat. Mr Barak, the author writes,
failed to fulfil promises to withdraw from three villages around
Jerusalem and to release Palestinian prisoners provoking an angry
confrontation with Mr Clinton.
Immediately after the Camp David talks broke down, Israel mounted a
huge public relations exercise to convince the international
community that it had made unprecedented offers to Mr Arafat which
amounted to the return of almost the entire occupied Palestinian
territories. Israeli embassies wined and dined Western newspaper
editors with stories of the supposed 96 per cent of land which was
offered to Mr Arafat, repeating the tired old shibboleth that the
Palestinian leader "never lost an opportunity to lose an
opportunity".
Mr Clinton took the unprecedented step of appearing on Israeli
television to blame Mr Arafat. American journalists dutifully
reported that the Palestinian Authority president out of greed or
stupidity had demanded the return of 100 per cent of the occupied
land and, failing to achieve this, opted for a second intifada in
which more than 600 men, women and children, the vast majority of
them Palestinians, have been killed by Israeli soldiers, Jewish
settlers, Palestinian guerrillas and suicide bombers.
In reality, Palestinian officials and American sources the latter
wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously have
pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the
percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate
not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.
~~~talking about sincerity...~~~
Palestine did not asked for all the land. in fact left out of the
equation was arab east jerusalem illegally annexed by israel
after the 1967 arab-israeli 6-day war the huge belt of jewish
settlements, including 'male adumim', around the city and a 10-mile
wide military buffer zone around the palestinian territories.
along with the obligation to lease back settlements built
illegally under international law on arab land to israel for 25
years, the total palestinian land from which israel was prepared to
withdraw came to only around 46 per cent a far cry from the 96
per cent touted after Camp David.
The israelis had only offered the palestinians "control" over some
arab streets in jerusalem a miniature version of the little
"bantustans" that already exist in the west bank and "control"
over the Al Aqsa mosque and its surrounds, the territory beneath
(including the remains of the jewish temple) being under israeli
sovereignty. the palestinians were apparently to receive some
territorial waters in the dead sea upon which they could hardly
build any houses.
The US State Depart. have often (back then) refer the palestinian
murder of Israelis as a barbaric attack of "unconscionable
vigilantism" rather than 'terrorism'.
~~~the terror word catches on onli in recent years.~~~
Footnote: the above infor were extracts from a news commentary on
Mr. Robert Malley, who was Mr Clinton's special adviser on
Arab-Israeli affairs. as i the above were taken from an analysis
report which i had did quite some time ago, i'm unable to provide
the exact link to the page. any kind souls out there to provide the
links?
