| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine |
| Dennis Ross Tells Inside Story of Negotiations in New Book |
| 2004-08-07 |
| From The New York Times, a book review by Ethan Bronner about a book titled The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, written by Dennis Ross ... Dennis Ross began his service under the first George Bush and continued it through eight years of Clinton and several Israeli governments. For that reason alone, this is a work of historical significance. To the question of what went wrong, Ross offers two answers, one simple and one messy but no less true or important. The simple answer is that in the end Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was the principal cause of the failure. ... As Ross puts it: "A comprehensive deal was not possible with Arafat. He could live with a process, but not with a conclusion." The second explanation, the messier one, is that neither side had taken sufficient steps to grasp the needs and neuroses of the other. Ross says "the Israelis acted as if all decisions should be informed by their needs, not by possible Palestinian needs or reactions." Regarding the Arabs, he writes, "The kind of transformation that would make it possible for the Arab world to acknowledge that Israel has needs has yet to take place." As for the American role, Ross puts it this way: "Our great failing was not in misreading Arafat. Our great failing was in not creating the earlier tests that would have either exposed Arafat's inability to ultimately make peace or forced him to prepare his people for compromise." ... There has been much dispute over what was offered to the Palestinians in the 2000 Camp David meeting and in the months that followed. This book should end that discussion. The final deal, made orally to the Palestinians and Israelis by Clinton, is laid out in the appendix. Broadly, the ideas were these: Territory: The Palestinians would get all of Gaza and between 94 and 96 percent of the West Bank. In exchange for what they would not get of the West Bank, Israel would be required to give up between 1 percent and 3 percent of its own land. Security: Israel would withdraw from the West Bank over 36 months with an international force gradually introduced into the area. A small Israeli presence in fixed locations would remain in the Jordan Valley under the authority of the international force for another 36 months. Palestine would be defined as a "nonmilitarized state" with a strong internal security force and an international presence for border and deterrence purposes. Jerusalem: What is Arab in the city would be Palestinian and what is Jewish Israeli. Palestinians would have sovereignty over the plaza of the mosques and Israelis over the Western Wall. Refugees: Palestinian refugees would either move to the new state of Palestine, be rehabilitated in their host country, resettle in a third country or be admitted to Israel if Israel so chose. None would have the right to return to Israel against Israel's will. ... There is also one exceptionally poignant and prescient moment near the book's end. It is Dec. 29, 2000, and Arafat still will not say yes. Ahmed Qurei, known as Abu Ala, a top Palestinian negotiator (later he became prime minister), has come to see Ross, who tells him the new president, George W. Bush, will want to have nothing to do with Arafat after Clinton's experience. "Mark my words," Ross reports telling Abu Ala, "they will disengage from the issue and . . . you will have Sharon as prime minister. He will be elected for sure if there is no deal, and your 97 percent will become 40 to 45 percent; your capital in East Jerusalem will be gone. . . . " "He looked at me sadly and with a note of complete resignation, replied, 'I am afraid it may take another 50 years to settle this now.'" |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #6 Shame of it is, at one time, the Palestenians were, outside of the Nazi sympathizers (like Araft's cousin the Mufti of Jerusalem), well regarded as an educated people, bankers, doctors and the like. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2004-08-07 8:31:08 PM |
| #5 The paleos have pissed away every opportunity. They are just wired wrong. Their mischief will stop when their funding stops, and it looks like even that is tapering off. The smart ones (if any) will leave. The oxy morons will jihad till they are popped and that will be the end. They will go out with a whimper inside the wall. Devolution instead of evolution. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-08-07 1:52:20 PM |
| #4 Mike, thanks for the reference, this is a must-read book. Excellent summary of why Arafat can never be trusted. Since Ross worked in the Clinton administration, perhaps even the Democrats will listen to him ... ... ... nah! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-08-07 1:46:45 PM |
| #3 I don't care if the Paleos ever get their own state. It will only be the next Sudan or Afghanistan: a safe harbor for terror |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-08-07 11:18:01 AM |
| #2 The first reason negates any and all other perceived possibilities. End of story. The issue is moot. Q.E.D. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-07 11:13:50 AM |
| #1 So sad for the pali peoples. ummmmm....... fuck 'em. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-08-07 11:07:09 AM |