Second, tek has observed that Dennis Ross is not among the more reliable sources here. Ross, if I remember the history correctly, was involved in ME negotiations under Bush I, cleaned up his resume to do the same with Clinton, and now has cleaned up his resume again, hoping to get a position with Bush II. Sounds as if, from your rendering, he's gonna be successful.
Who would be more reliable? In the 'what happened' argument, you have two camps: President Clinton, Dennis Ross, Ehud Barak, Shlomo Ben Ami in one, and Robert Malley, and the (revised) PA position in the other. The PA truth track record definitely leaves something to be desired, and even Robert Malleys arguments center on 'Barak didn't negotiate the right way, Arafat didn't trust him, Peres should have been there'.
I don't know. If successful negotiations require perfection on one side, they will never happen. Clinton and Barak obviously both misjudged Arafat badly (there seems to have been little communication between Arafat and the other negotiators), and everybody's paying for their mistake. |
