len, do you know what 242 actually says? It speaks of the return of territories taken in war, the right of all countries in the area to secure borders, and settlement of border and refugee issues by negotiation.
Because 242 implied the right of existence to Israel, the PLO flatly rejected 242 for over twenty years. Then they switched to a new interpretation, 242 says, give us all the land, no questions asked. The Israelis pointed out that issue of return of territories is somewhat problematic since the countries it was taken from (Egypt and Jordan) don't want it back. Israel tried to give Gaza back to Egypt in 1979 and they wouldn't take it. Jordan washed their hands of the West Bank in 1989.
However, after the first Intifada convinced Israel that they could not continue occupying the territories, they were willing to negotiate with Arafat, if he recognized the right of Israel to exist. They considered that they were negotiating to satisfy 242.
Arafat got land, money, an army, and legitimacy, in return for promises which he has broken repeatedly. These negotiations culminated with Camp David and Taba last year, when Israel offered 95% back (dismantling 80% of the settlements), and Arafat answered with a guerilla war instead of a counterproposal. The Palestinians have since admitted that Oslo was a "Trojan Horse", "a hudna" (cease-fire), not a peace process. Now they're fighting for all of Israel. So tell me, which side has actually paid more attention to 242? |
