I was so glad to hear Ross speak so forthrightly without any diplo speak. He left no doubt who is the problem here.
the main-stream media didn't get tagged "lame-stream media" for no reason. They are either a bunch of lazy, ignorant, slough's or they are the biggest anti-semites of modern time. Perhaps both.
For all those who says that Israelis did not give to Palestinians everything they wanted during the negotiations: that's not how negotiations are conducted. You don't give everything to begin with. You give less. Then, you NEGOTIATE to the compromise, which is not the ideal solution for neither party, but is a PAINFUL compromise. This is bargaining, screaming and kicking like on the Eastern BAZAAR. If you agree with a price, you are not the respectable customer, but a sucker, who should be dealt with as a looser worthy of no respect. You must bargain. Of course, its presumes that you WANT to negotiate. And Arafat did not, because he rightfully (for him) concluded that he can
get more with the violence, because he is supported by the "whole world". It remains to be seen if this is ultimately the case, but for right now in the eyes if the world all good will of the Israel has evaporated, and the violence he started instead of the negotiations brought only sympathy to Palestinians almost universally everywhere. In my opinion, this is extremely dangerous not just for Israel, but for all democracies. You can't reward terrorism and violence even once, because barbarism has already instant advantage by using all possible means, whenever civilization is consciously limiting itself. The only solution is NO REWARD FOR TERRORISM.
Here are the excerpts from this interview worth repeating again , not necessarily in the order they were said.
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.
And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.
...So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
...And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give?
ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.
.....He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.
You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
ROSS: ..... We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS: Well, exactly.
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations. ....It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.
HUME: This was a final offer?
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.
HUME: This was the solution.
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.
......HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
.......HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
We all should do some mass emailing of this entire transcript to media outlets. See freeper backhoe for easy email lists.
I'm constantly impressed by Dennis Ross, and am glad that Fox has him on so often as a consultant. He's the only on of the 'toons people who strikes me as a decent person. Billyjeff must have made a mistake in taking him on board. Thanks for posting this interview, it was an important one, and I hope it will get out there into the lamestream, though I have my doubts.
Good one and I have copied this to post later. Prvious Sunday Dennis Ross layed out the same to Brit Hume. Brit questioned him closely so there would be no mistake.
Let me get this straight. Clinton and his resident Israeli lobbyist (Ross) didn't want to put their so-called "final offer" in writing. The Palestinians were just supposed to take notes and say yes? It seems like a con game with Arafat as the mark, the pigeon, the dupe expected to sign a blank agreement to be filled in later. Later, of course, the real "final offer" would turn out to be so much less rosy than Ross now claims it was. If the "final offer" had been for real it would have been written down and spelled out, with every t crossed and every i dotted.
