SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (195135)8/5/2006 1:27:00 AM
From: Katelew  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Here's my take and then I'm off to bed.

Clinton's last ditch effort at Taba was weak and probably motivated by a desire to enhance his place in history.

Arafat was way out of his league as a negotiator and thought he had time to up the ante.....but only months later Barak was gone. Arafat knew he had no peace partner in Sharon as subsequent events proved.

There never was a complete offer, as you imply. Important elements remained to be negotiated after Clinton left office...one being water rights and usage regarding the aquifer under the West Bank...another the Balkanization of the west bank by the settlements.

Of course Arafat would ask for the 'right of return' issue to be addressed. You act so indignant and call this a deal breaker. The original refugees were forced off their land, it wasn't 'empty space'...lol. I know actual return was a non-starter, but a generous offer of reparations would have been a starting point.

There just wasn't enough time before Clinton left office and Barak was defeated.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News