Lately I blogged about Jerry Slater's important piece on Tom Friedman in Tikkun. Well now Ralph Seliger is going after it.
Why Slater resuscitates the issue of who was more at fault in the
breakdown of the peace process in 2000 is beyond me, but assessing
blame for 2000 is both complicated and besides the point.
My read is that then Prime Minister Barak, Yasir Arafat and Bill Clinton can all be faulted: I wish that Barak had been more sensitive to Palestinian sensibilities and been willing to go further in his peace proposals, that Arafat had been capable of swallowing his sense of wounded pride and had totally rejected the option of violence which he apparently embraced after their failed summit, and that Bill Clinton had been a more balanced mediator.
My read is that then Prime Minister Barak, Yasir Arafat and Bill Clinton can all be faulted: I wish that Barak had been more sensitive to Palestinian sensibilities and been willing to go further in his peace proposals, that Arafat had been capable of swallowing his sense of wounded pride and had totally rejected the option of violence which he apparently embraced after their failed summit, and that Bill Clinton had been a more balanced mediator.
Seliger contradicts himself. As soon as he bashes Slater for resuscitating Camp David, he resuscitates it himself. And the reason is obvious. The Clinton Parameters are going to be Obama's template before long. It is essential to try to understand what went wrong at Camp David if you are at all committed to the "peace process." I'm mixed on the peace process, because the great Henry Siegman tells me what to think, and I happen to be an American, and Lincoln was for intifada, but Slater's piece on the unfairness of Camp David remains essential reading if we are going to figure out a way out of this mess.
Siegman:
"What is required for a breakthrough is the adoption by the Security Council of a resolution affirming the following: 1. Changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties. Unilateral measures will not receive international recognition. 2. The default setting of Resolution 242, reiterated by Resolution 338, the 1973 ceasefire resolution, is a return by Israelâs occupying forces to the pre-1967 border. 3. If the parties do not reach agreement within 12 months (the implementation of agreements will obviously take longer), the default setting will be invoked by the Security Council. The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israelâs security by preventing cross-border violence, and monitor and oversee the implementation of terms for an end to the conflict."
Obama should hand this statement to Israel, along with the contextual matter leading up to Seliger's conclusion, this. And,
Obama should cut off aid to Israel to get the matter going, and
tell the America people directly what he is doing, and why.
His prestige (& the USA's) would go through the roof, both here and abroad.
that Arafat had been capable of swallowing his sense of wounded pride
This lady: Sumaya Farhat-Naser told us German nitwits, that what you write is not true. Had he given in, surrendered to the dictates, he wouldn't have been much welcome back in Palestine/Judea Samaria.
Amazing women. She kept addressing my inner resistances during her readings over here.
you above means of course: Ralph Seliger.
Do the Germans know that everything Clinton said to Arafat was first vetted
by his Jewish American team partnering with the Israelis, and that the converse was not so?
I can't speak for "the Germans" anon. I can only speak for myself. Admittedly I wasn't informed on the issue till very recently. I have read a lot lately. I see earlier encounters in a different light now, though. Especially with both Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. They never talked about their perspective on the issue. Why? One of them told me, when I asked him some time ago. You didn't give me the impression you were interested. Then he started to tell me the story of his family.
***************************************
But this is interesting:"class="grayText" & "class="comment-error hiddenBox" Exactly what I see. Unaccessible preview and submit buttons in light gray. Hmm??
Typepad is not very "commenter" friendly. Seems to have a tunnel view on its customers. ????
p_new_search=1&p_new_search=1&cat_lvl2=0&cat_lvl3=0&cat_lvl4=0&cat_lvl5=0&cat_lvl6=0>tunnel view on its customers. ????
"Why Slater resuscitates the issue of who was more at fault in the breakdown of the peace process in 2000 is beyond me, but assessing blame for 2000 is both complicated and besides the point."
In other words, please stop talking about the fact that the main reason for the conflict is that Israel has, for decades, refused to withdraw to its legal borders.
"My read is that then Prime Minister Barak, Yasir Arafat and Bill Clinton can all be faulted: I wish that Barak had been more sensitive to Palestinian sensibilities and been willing to go further in his peace proposals, that Arafat had been capable of swallowing his sense of wounded pride and had totally rejected the option of violence which he apparently embraced after their failed summit, and that Bill Clinton had been a more balanced mediator."
What is all this vague nonsense about "pride" and "sensitivity"? The relevant question is: did the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israeli rights at Camp David, or did Israel refuse to recognise Palestinian rights? All accounts agree that it was the latter, which Shlomo Ben-Ami (one of Israel's lead negotiators at the Camp David talks) acknowledging that he would have rejected Israel's offer were he on the Palestinian side.
There really is very little controversy here. Israel made a joke offer at Camp David, both sides accepted the Clinton Parameters with reservations and at Taba it was Israel that walked away.