Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (195144)	8/5/2006 1:33:53 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. Reparations had long been on the table, and long refused, for the same reasons that the Palestinian refugees, unlike every other group of refugees in the 20th century, have never been resettled anywhere. Barak let 150,000 Palestinians "return" as a good will gesture, much good that it did him. Arafat was not demanding negotiations on the subject. He was demanding a blanket right of return to Israel. Arafat's style of negotiation was never to give a starting position or a counter offer, just to pocket concessions and make more demands. This naturally made negotiations very difficult and taught people never to present him with a clearly spelled out offer because he would move the goalposts farther away, not closer. Arafat wanted the peace process, which in his mind involved talks AND terrorism, but he definitely did not want to do a deal. Sure Clinton was angling for a legacy. He is quite clear who he blames for the failure of the talks - Arafat.