Your flippant remarks suggest that you have seriously considered what I have said.
Re Barak's proposal - I suppose you could not possibly entertain the possibility that Barak's proposal had inherent problems inacceptable to the Palestinian side:
------------------------------------------
First, Israel offered no solution to the refugee problem. This by itself would have been a deal-breaker, since it meant relinquishing the valid legal and political rights of over half the Palestinian population. In effect, Palestinians were being asked to sweep under the rug the principal historical injustice Israel had inflicted upon them.
Second, the Israeli-proposed Palestinian "state" would have been divided into four non-contiguous enclaves completely surrounded by Israeli-controlled areas. The "state" would have no control over the border with Jordan, the Gaza Strip sea border, or passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The "state" could thus be shut down at Israel's whim -- hardly an exercise in Palestinian sovereignty.
Third, the Israeli offer involved annexing 9 percent of the West Bank, including all major settlement blocs, which contain around 150,000 Jewish settlers outside Jerusalem. Israel, not content with the 78 percent of Palestine that Palestinians had already conceded, was demanding even more. The Israeli proposal also would have meant accepting the legitimacy of illegal settlements built for Jews only on confiscated Palestinian land during the 35-year military occupation.
Fourth, Israel did not offer Palestinians a real sharing of Jerusalem. Israel would keep all Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. Palestinians would get sovereignty over some outlying Palestinian neighborhoods, but not the old city of Jerusalem where the third holiest site in Islam, the Haram al-Sharif, is located. This meant Palestinian access to the old city and the Haram al-Sharif would remain subject to Israeli discretion.
For these reasons, Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David was anything but generous. Palestinian sovereignty? No. Palestinian security? No. Solution to the refugee problem? No. Sharing of Jerusalem? No. Dismantling of Israeli settlements? No. Barak's proposal amounted to nothing more than consolidation of the Israeli occupation, rejection of the minimum requirements for a just peace, and perpetuation of Israeli violations of international law. The Palestinians were right to turn it down -- accepting it would have been glorified surrender.
stanford.edu
Read the whole article if you have a few minutes.
And here, take a look at the maps:
stanford.edu |
