To: Katelew who wrote (195131 ) 8/5/2006 12:26:31 AM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 As I recall, the Palestinians, under Arafat, made a good faith effort to follow the Mitchell plan The words "good faith" and "Arafat" don't belong in the same sentence. Like King Hussein said, Arafat never met a bridge he didn't double cross. Arafat promised to recognize Israel, to renounce terror, to work for a two state solution. He talked peace in English and jihad in Arabic, created a gangster statelet with no social services except a Ministry of Information and 17 overlapping "security" force, most of whom doubled as terrorists. In the end, he was offered All of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank, and broke the deal demanding the "right of return" of all Palestinian refugees, not to Palestine, but to Israel. When you want your people to move to some other country, maybe building your own country is not your first interest.For 16 mos. there were no attacks on Israel There were plenty of attacks, both that succeeded and many more that were only attempted, which the newspapers didn't bother to report. The most you could say during the "lull" (they didn't even call it a hudna) was the number of attacks dropped. Would you like the casualty figures for how many Israelis died from these non-attacks?Barak was willing to actually grant statehood and then was voted out of office. Well if Arafat didn't like Sharon, maybe he shouldn't have elected him. Barak's only chance of reelection was to make a peace deal. When Arafat responded to his offers, not with a counter-offer (there never was one) but with a Terror War, then refused Clinton's last offers at Taba and boasted of it, everybody knew Sharon would get in.