Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Sean_Anthony

I think back to negotiations, I think between Clinton, Arafat and Rabin (my memory may not be correct) where the Israelis were pretty much ready to give Arafat 95% of what he wanted (in return for nothing but a promise of recognition) and Arafat turned it down because he wanted more.

The PA deserve precisely nothing.


4 posted on 02/07/2017 10:03:47 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Abortion is what slavery was: immoral but not illegal. Not yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ClearCase_guy

as an aside...Arafat’s nose was out of joint because Clinton let Chelsea sit in on the talks.


5 posted on 02/07/2017 10:05:41 AM PST by stylin19a (Terrorists - "just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ClearCase_guy

Dennis Ross always says exactly that. It was Ehud Barak for the Israelis, but otherwise just as you say and maybe more so. The Israelis also had land to trade for the handful of settlements they were not willing to abandon as they were fully operational towns by then.

The papers were drawn up and ready to be signed and Arafat left the room for one last conference with his deputies, and came back and said he wasn’t signing.

The supposition at the time was (I believe) less that “he wanted more” and more along the lines that he knew if he made the deal that he would face the same fate as Anwar Sadat, murder at the hands of Islamic radicals for making a peace deal. That last part is just my opinion, however.

But yes, the two state solution was absolutely there and they could have had their independent country and billions of cash for signing it, and they could not do it.


8 posted on 02/07/2017 10:12:37 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ClearCase_guy
I think back to negotiations, I think between Clinton, Arafat and Rabin (my memory may not be correct) where the Israelis were pretty much ready to give Arafat 95% of what he wanted (in return for nothing but a promise of recognition) and Arafat turned it down because he wanted more.

Abba Eban nailed it in 1973: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Often misquoted as "Palestinians", but they sure fit the mould. I can't think of one decision they made that worked out in their favor. A sample of the magnitude: Those working in Kuwait rallied in support of Saddam when Kuwait was invaded and when the Kuwaitis got back in power, they kicked the whole lot out of the country and to this date, never hired any more.

12 posted on 02/07/2017 10:31:36 AM PST by Oatka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ClearCase_guy

I’ve always praised Clinton in a backhanded way for the result of those negotiations. After all, he did make a full, massive good faith effort to get peace through a two state solution. His failure proved conclusively the total bad faith of the Palestinians and the absolute futility of such negotiations. Really a remarkable proof of reality, although he certainly didn’t intend it that way.


17 posted on 02/07/2017 11:56:47 AM PST by libstripper (oHillary is willing to risk her own life to protect her secretive nature. She would rather go to her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ClearCase_guy
(in return for nothing but a promise of recognition) and Arafat turned it down because he wanted more.

____________________________________

Of course, the “Palestinians” always insist the “right of return” with any peace agreement. The “right of return” is the end of Israel.

20 posted on 02/07/2017 2:11:14 PM PST by HenpeckedCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson