Roadmap or Road to Nowhere?

Now, I knew you'd say Camp David; but I'd suggest that this choice merits some research. I'll gladly get back on it.

Barak would concede nothing on Jerusalem or freedom of worship there and insisted upon the illegal (in UN terms) settlements.

One might begin here:
www.mideastweb.org...

"The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years. "
apologies for cut'n'paste

Look at this map, how can you honestly say that this is an offer the Palestinians can't refuse?!?

www.mideastweb.org...

The link you posted from CNN proves nothing more than the fact that you still can't see that there are two distinct groups of Palestinians. You just can't help but link the terrorists and the politicians. Too much media brainwashing I guess...

I have seen no incontrovertible proof that Arafat orders these suicide bombings. None at all. Yes, I've heard Sharron acuse Arafat of ordering the bombings, the Israelis claim that they have incontrovertible proof, but they haven't actually shown that proof to the public. Could it be that this is just like the WMD "proof" the US/UK used to invade Iraq? Proof of links in the past = proof of links in the present. Spot the dodgy logic?

[Edited on 20-5-2003 by dom]

There are 2 distinct groups of Palestinians, I'll give you that.

But Arafat isn't in the camp that you're claiming him to be in. The new Palestinian prime minister is though. He's the man that Sharron says that he can deal with to reach a peace settlement. So why does he have the support of only 5% of Palestinians if the Palestinians want to jump for the chance of peace?
Arafat is undermining everything that he can to keep Israel away from the table. That includes turning the population of Palestine against the very government that he has created.

If there is no peace in the roadmap process, why don't you take a close look at Arafat. I guarantee that he will come out of it with a stronger powerbase in his society than he had before. The very fact that his power has grown so large whilst the Palestinians have been in a state of war shows that he thrives on disorder. For someone who has been claiming to be looking for peace for 40 odd years now he's done rather well at managing to benefit from the discord. And a 40 year record of war with Israel tells me that he has neither the skills to make peace or the will.

Finally I read somewhere that the Palestinian government could not stop the suicide bombings. I totally agree with this. The new government has no hold over it's people (as the 5% support shows). Arafat does have control though. Maybe not over all of them but his word DOES still count. You don't remain in power for 40 years without some control over your people.

Every time they raid Arafat's compound, there are mountains of paperwork proof. Likewise when they raid the bombers' homes, or trace the money. I lump the terrorists with the politicians, because Arafat is a terrorist, plain and simple. He may do it more under the table now, but that really changes very little.

More Proof? If Arafat says halt the bombings, they halt. If any other Palestinian says it, it doesn't matter. This is more proof than any paperwork....

As for "This is a "state"?

Look, it would be a start, which is more than they have now. They want everything now, now, now, and their demands are pretty unreasonable for a state that really has little right to exist in the first place. If they used that start, and then showed they could behave, then those other aspects that you mentioned would disappear one by one, and it would grow to resemble a true state. But they're not willing to work at it, they want it through blood and violence, and unfortunately for them...the majority of that will be on their side if they persist in it....

[Edited on 20-5-2003 by Gazrok]

I think they'd probably argue that Israel has little right to exist. And I can see their point. The only reason it's there is because of the West's guilt over the holocaust.

As for Arafat saying "stop the bombing" and it stops. He's had occasional successes with that, and common failures. Although I suppose you're just going to tell me that the times he said "stop the bombing" and it didn't stop, were the times when he didn't really mean it, and secretly he was saying "continue the bombing".

Well, I suppose this is a conspiracy theory site...

Do you have links to those documents? The only thing I can find are links to people talking about having been shown the documents by the Israelis. Which doesn't fill me with confidence...

but the reality is, Isreal as it stands, is a powerful nation, and allowing another state to suddenly spring to existence, within it's borders, is quite a concession, even if it isn't a state in all respects (yet). I still say it's a start, and it would be up to the Palestinians to make it a "state".

As for Arafat being a terrorist, looks like that's just going to have to remain a point of disagreement. As I mentioned, I grew up with Arafat being synonymous with terrorism....and I don't see suicide bombings by members of his movement as changing that view....

I still say I'd like to see a link to incriminating evidence, not just some US senator saying "Israel showed me the evidence, Arafat is Satan!!!" But as you say, we'll probably have to disagree on that.

But your point about Israel as it stands is false. The occupied territories are exactly that... occupied... it's impossible to claim that those lands are part of Israel unless you're a member of the nutty Jewish factions that say "look, the bible says it's ours so it must be!!!". Settlements are also illegal under international law, so there really is no reason at all that the Israeli's shouldn't be made to remove them in the fullness of time. As you say, it was a start, but as soon as the Palestinians said "now lets move to step 2", the Israelis would have said "no, this is the final settlement", and then the bombing would have started, Israel would have reoccupied the territories and off we go again.

There has to be a meaningful settlement if we want the peace that follows to last...

I think that another problem is that you're looking at Camp David as if it was to be the final agreement in a peace accord. This was not the case. OK, Rabin refused to budge on Jerusalem - I can't say I blame him for that. IMO it should be neutral territory run by the UN or maybe even a separate state in itself run along the lines of the Vatican City and shared between the Muslim, Jewish and Christian churches. But because Rabin wouldn't budge over the period of a couple of days didn't mean that it wouldn't have been negotiable later down the line though.

As I've stated elsewhere, when you go to peace talks you go with the strongest hand. That way every little concession you make can be construed as a victory by you and your opposition ( incidentally, the North Koreans are masters of this tactic). That's all the Israelis were doing with Jerusalem at the time. Kind of like "you can't have this but you can have that at the moment". It's basically a trade off or like a chess match - you try to manouevre you opponent into a postion where he wants something so bad that he will trade you something else in return and hopefully you get the better deal.

Arafat wasn't interested in this though. He could have taken what was on offer and carried on the negotiations and got more concessions. That's the way politics work and that's the way any roadmap in the present day works. This present roadmap gives a specific area over to the Palestinians. Don't think for one moment though, that those boundaries are set in concrete. Political outlooks change, societies change and everything is fluid over a period of time. What may not be acceptable to one side one week may be acceptable the next. Once peace is made and the bombing has stopped the Palestinians will find it far easier to gain concessions. If Arafat had been able to walk away with the beginnings of a Palestinian state his people (or those he claims to represent) would have had a foothold and something with which to work with and their lives would have been a hell of a lot better than they are now.

But Arafat couldn't see this. Either because he didn't want peace or because he has no real grasp of politics. My gut feeling is that it was the former. He walked away without really trying. He could have got a foot on the first rung to peace, even if he didn't get everything that he wanted at Camp David.

Fix everything. Say that settlement building stops today. Then specify timelines for the removal of all settlements, borders on the 1967 line, no remaining settlements inside the West Bank or Gaza by 2013.

And finish building the bloody big wall, stick UN monitors in charge of it, make sure that neither side chuck anything across it.

Rebuild Palestinian security forces so that there is some way for the PA to police the terrorist organisations inside the occupied territories. UN monitors observe the peace and make sure neither side breaches it.

Not too far off what the roadmap says right now, but a little bit less pro-Israel.

Leveller - you've ignored the possibility that the Israeli's just say that the Camp David settlement is the final word as soon as it's agreed. Aswell as that the Palestinians didn't have as much as they wanted, Jerusalem is a MAJOR issue. If Arafat went back to the people looking like he'd conceded to the Israelis in every measurable way then he'd have been forced out of office, the terrorists would have taken over and all hell would have broken loose.

That's why he needed time away from the summit to talk it over with various groups. If he accepts a settlement which is unacceptable to various Palestinian groups then he's in the doodoo.

Fix everything. Say that settlement building stops today. Then specify timelines for the removal of all settlements, borders on the 1967 line, no remaining settlements inside the West Bank or Gaza by 2013.

And finish building the bloody big wall, stick UN monitors in charge of it, make sure that neither side chuck anything across it.

Rebuild Palestinian security forces so that there is some way for the PA to police the terrorist organisations inside the occupied territories. UN monitors observe the peace and make sure neither side breaches it.

Not too far off what the roadmap says right now, but a little bit less pro-Israel.

Still the problem of Jerusalem though... I'm still in agreement with Leveller though, that they should've taken the toehold, and then worked from there....

In hindsight it would have made more sense to take the Camp David offer on the condition of future talks and a changing settlement. But perhaps that condition wasn't there.

Regardless, Arafat wasn't to know that the Israeli's wouldn't come back to the table...

Originally posted by dom
Leveller - you've ignored the possibility that the Israeli's just say that the Camp David settlement is the final word as soon as it's agreed. Aswell as that the Palestinians didn't have as much as they wanted, Jerusalem is a MAJOR issue. If Arafat went back to the people looking like he'd conceded to the Israelis in every measurable way then he'd have been forced out of office, the terrorists would have taken over and all hell would have broken loose.

I disagree Dom. My whole point is that the Camp David talks were not about a final solution. They were a prelude. Real peace would take years to reach and both parties are aware of that. You're not giving Israeli politicians too much credit if you believe that "no" always means "no". It's never meant that in any other country when uttered by a politician and Israel is no different. The one thing I have learnt about the Israelis (and I guess it's a stereotype of Jewish people) is that they are very shrewd negotiators - not just in politics but in all walks of life.

Nobody EVER gets exactly what they want from a peace agreement. The whole point of sitting down at discussions is that you are going to have to make concessions somewhere along the line but you will also get something that you wanted at a later date too. You blame the Israelis but Arafat wasn't prepared to make a concession over Jerusalem either. Why does this shift the blame on the Israelis? They have the stronger hand, they're the guys who call the shots to begin with. To begin with one of the parties is always going to be stronger and they always have the process under their control until the other side finds it's feet. Arafat should have been the one to lay aside Jerusalem for further negotiation when his hand was stronger.

And Arafat would not have had to return empty handed to his people. He would have had the beginnings of a free Palestinian state. Believe me, he's wangled and lied his way out of so many holes with nothing to offer - at least he would have had something to show his people if he had gone for peace instead of his empty hands and an order telling them to carry on dying.


Also, I dispute your view on the state of Israel itself. I agree with you that it was set up illegally and I agree that some of the settlements are illegal. But I do not dispute Israel's right to exist. Historically, the Palestinians have no more claim to the land than the Jews. But the main fact is that Israel does exist and it is recognised by the United Nations which gives it it's legal status.


You wouldn't dare disrespect the United Nations, would you Dom?

I never said that I think Israel should be destroyed, I just said that some Palestinians think that. Presumably we don't actually have any disagreement on that point. Personally I think we should have two states where we currently see 1 + occupied territories. I also think, as you say, we should allow the UN to have Jerusalem back under it's control, as was originally envisioned all those years ago...

As for Camp David, I think Arafat was willing to concede a lot, but he couldn't concede everything. Really, Camp David was a start, but it needed modifications to be acceptable.

And where future negotiations and Israel is concerned, surely the Israeli's shouldn't make the settlement impossible to accept, if they were eventually going to do so much more?

[EDIT]
Found this.. talking about returning another 15% of the West Bank to the Palestinians in 10-25 years:

"In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem). "

Still sounds like there was no fixed time table for this. Ultimately I guess we'll never know why the talks broke down, both sides have released their own versions of what was on the table for discussion. It would have been nice if talks could have continued though...
[/EDIT]

[Edited on 20-5-2003 by dom]

as I've often said...this was a time that the Palestinians could have had 90% of the area the wanted...not a bad percentage. He was a fool to walk away from the table, and if I were Isreal, I wouldn't have come back to the table after such a refusal either....

One thing has to be removed if a Palestinian state is ever to happen there, and that one thing is Arafat.

Well, I think that's how some of the more extreme Palestinian groups looked at it too. Must have been, because I seriously doubt that Arafat had much to do with starting the intifada. In fact, we all know which politician it was who sparked that little conflict off with his insensitive visit to an extremely important religious site, at a time when a lot of Palestinians were becoming tired of the dragged out peace process which appeared to be getting them nowhere.

I think maybe you've been listening to your own US media a little too much on the whole Arafat "problem".