XPost: soc.history.war.misc, sci.military.naval

Christopher Aeneadas
Follow
Technocratic Globalist Intern (1980–present)Fri

Why can't Palestinians and Israelis split the country into two and each
of them take their cut so we could avoid more brutality?

This guy. This guy right here.

2000 Camp David Summit - Wikipedia
Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
shake hands at the White House in Washington. The negotiations were
based on an all-or-nothing approach, such that "nothing was considered
agreed and binding until everything was agreed." The proposals were, for
the most part, verbal. As no agreement was reached and there is no
official written record of the proposals, some ambiguity remains over
details of the positions of the parties on specific issues. [8] The
talks ultimately failed to reach agreement on the final status issues: Territory The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full
Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip ,
although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. Their
historic position was that Palestinians had already made a territorial compromise with Israel by accepting Israel's right to 78% of "historic Palestine", and accepting their state on the remaining 22% of such land.
This consensus was expressed by Faisal Husseini when he remarked:'There
can be no compromise on the compromise'. [9] They maintained that
Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories,
which were captured in the Six-Day War , as part of a final peace
settlement. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators
accepted the Green Line borders (1949 armistice lines) for the West Bank
but the Israelis rejected this proposal and disputed the Palestinian interpretation of Resolution 242. Israel wanted to annex the numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and were
concerned that a complete return to the 1967 borders was dangerous to
Israel's security. The Palestinian and Israeli definition of the West
Bank differs by approximately 5% land area as the Israeli definition
does not include East Jerusalem (71 km 2 ), the territorial waters of
the Dead Sea (195 km 2 ) and the area known as No Man's Land (50 km 2
near Latrun ). [8] Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank,
Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West
Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the
Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a
maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1
percent from a land swap). [8] [10] From the Palestinian perspective
this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of
the West Bank. [8] According to Robert Wright , Israel would only keep
the settlements with large populations. Wright states that all others
would be dismantled, with the exception of Kiryat Arba (adjacent to the
holy city of Hebron ), which would be an Israeli enclave inside the
Palestinian state, and would be linked to Israel by a bypass road. The
West Bank would be split in the middle by an Israeli-controlled road
from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea , with free passage for Palestinians,
although Israel reserved the right to close the road to passage in case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

The Israeli PM offered more at Camp David than would ever be on the
table once he left office. It was a scandal in Israel. The offer was
full of cash and prizes that were literally taboo to offer, like
substantial parts of Jerusalem.

The deal was so painful m that as the conference went on and news broke
in the Israeli press, the government coalition came apart. It was far
more than Palestinians can reasonably ever be expected to be offered again.

Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no
Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged
over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now,
for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed
in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while
secretly plotting the destruction of Israel. Interview by Benny Morris. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3 Canny negotiators never take the first offer. Mr. Arafat followed that conventional wisdom, and sometime after the talks broke down he was
indeed offered an even better deal.

His response was basically that someday someone would come drive all the
Jews out, so why accept anything less than all of the land from the
river to the sea?


Yassar Arafat made Palestine the nation it is today.

His failure to take a good deal has devolved into no deals being
offered. The Palestinian hand is much weaker so they will never be
offered such a good deal again.

Have you ever not bought a plane ticket you thought was too expensive,
and then by the time you came back to buy it after checking other
airlines that same ticket it was more expensive?

Paying for that ticket tasted like ashes, didn’t it?

The Palestinian people are going to have to eat those ashes if they want
their own state now. They have no appetite for it. So no one can really
come to the table from either side.

64.4K views
View 1,313 upvotes
View 8 shares
1 of 17 answers
187 comments from
Gregory N
and more

Gregory N
· Fri
I keep bringing up the almost agreement at Camp David and Hamas
apologists on Quora simply ignore what happened or deny that a good
faith offer was made.

Arafat's inner circle was in favor of the deal and so was the PLO's main sponsor: Egypt. I believe Arafat is still revered among Palestinians
despite having sentenced them to Hell.

John Ferguson
· 23h
He was afraid of assassination.

Tom Ryugo
Cynics also said he was afraid of actually having to manage day-to-day government.
Profile photo for Kirk Halonen
Kirk Halonen
· 15h
He was worth billions when he died. Explain that?

Frank Sundstrom
· 22h
It took me years to understand this. Peace isn't better for guys like
Yasser Arafat or the leaders of Hamas. Peace is worse for them. They
lose their power. New people are voted in and they're out. It takes
courage to sign a peace deal with israel. The strongman types completely
lack courage. They talk tough, they pushed their chest out but they're
never the ones that do the fighting.


Gijs Van Klingeren
· 11h
It's al calculated sabotage, nothing new, it's been done throughout
history, like a roman general cleaning territory from barbarian tribes.
They will always ensure to keep 1 or 2 small pockets of resistance in
place to ensure their own relevance and becoming obsolete. Generals
thrive through conflict not peace.

P
Milva Belalova
· 15h
Frank, please read the Koran. It contains a multitude of suras urging
Muslims to kill and mutilate infidels. It is not about political power.
Of course Hamas leaders want power, but that’s no the root of the
Israeli - Hamas conflict: it is a religious war.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)