Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Adam, from your perspective, what do the Palestinians want? What should they have expected from the Oslo Accords and international agreements such as UN 242? What is it that they are not satisfied with in negotiations?
[/b]
|
My perspective on what the PLO wants is irrelevant, since what I think about what they want makes no difference.
However, as I have said before, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer to Yassir Arafat which included virtually all of the Gaza Strip, 90+% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, <b>and</b> PA control of the Temple Mount- the holiest single site in Judaism (as compared to its being the third holiest in Islam). Arafat turned this down.
Rewind to 1948-49. The original partition plan for the British colony of Palestine included three pieces: the independent country of Jordan (aka Transjordan- that part of Palestine which was east of the Jordan river), a Jewish state, and a Palestinian Arab one.
Here is a map of the original partition plan:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/partmap.html
Immediately upon the partition agreement, Israel declared statehood. This was followed immediately by its being attacked by all of the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinians were encouraged by these Arab states to leave their homes in Palestine so as to not be in the way when the Arabs, in their minds inevitably, destroyed the Jewish state. History tells what happened next- not only did the Arab states not destroy Israel, but each time they launched a war against Israel they wound up with less land.
Fast forward to the '70s. Israeli PM Menachem Begin established the principle of land for peace when he agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in return for the first peace treaty it signed with an Arab state. Put this in context: has <b>any</b> European state returned land which it captured in a war unless it was lost in yet another war? Did the US return Florida, Cuba, or the Phillipines to Spain after capturing those territories? No. Israel did so, and was demonstrably willing to do so again in the case of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.
In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel had agreed to sign over part of its <b>capital city</b>. Would England ever sign over control over part of London? Would the US ever sign over control of part of DC (except to drug dealers, natch)? I dare say no.
And Barak's offer included control of the Temple Mount- the single holiest place in the world to Jews. Would the Catholic Church ever cede control over Vatican City? Would Islam ever cede control over Mecca or Medina? Again, I dare say no.
But, clearly, the Israelis are being unreasonable here. All of these offers were <b>not</b> what Arafat wanted, because all would still include the state of Israel's continued existance. The PLO's track record and charter are crystal clear about one thing: the PLO's aim is to destroy the Jewish state. It's pretty tough to negotiate peace with someone whose sole aim is to see you disappear. And Israel isn't likely to negotiate itself out of existance, as inconvenient as this might be to the rest of the world.
We're still here, get over it,
Z