----- Original Message -----
From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: Another police station gone
>
> Can you give a reason why Arafat would refuse if he was offered everything
> he wanted? And I mean a *real* reason, not propaganda-like answers like
"he
> wants the complete destruction of Israel".
>
Well, he probably wasn't offered everything he wanted, I'll agree to that.
He was offered everything he could possibly be expected to be offered. His
last demand could not have been met without turning Israel into a
Palestinian state.
The offer on the table for his consideration was:
1) West Bank fully turned over the Palestinians, with the exception of
Jerusalem
This was acceptable to both parties.
2) East Jerusalem being run under a complex, and actually quite imaginative,
power sharing
arrangement.
My memory is that there were still quibbles about this offer, but nothing
that couldn't be hammered
out.
3) Various security arrangements:
Worked out.
The sticking point was the "right of return." That is the Palestinians
who's families use to live in Israel had the right to return to Israel.
IIRC, that would make Israel a majority Palestinian state. (If not now, very
soon.) The Jewish residents would no longer be able to run Israel. Given
the fact that hatred of Israel has been taught for years, and that the
Palestinians have had the destruction of Israel as part of their charter up
until approximately 10 years ago, do you really think that it was immoral of
Israel to refuse this? Let me suggest that if that were part of the
agreement, it would basically be a negociated surrender. I would fully
expect that a written guarantee that any Israeli could become an American
citizen at will would also had been required. I know Great Britain is sort
of an exception, but most Jewish people I know only feel safe in Israel or
the US. (Andy can offer a different perspective on this.)
As far as occupying land, it should end. But, it is not unreasonable to end
it as part of a comprehensive peace settlement. Let me recall history here.
Israel was formed and immediately attacked. It was not expected to survive,
but it did.
It was attacked in 1956, occupied land and was forced to give the land back.
It was attacked again in 1968. This time it refused to give the lands back.
In their defense, the original borders were hard to secure.
It was attacked in 1973 (IIRC that was the year) on Yom Kippur (sp). It
barely survived. Do you think that, when Arab leaders vowed to kill the
Jews, that it was unreasonable for the people of Israel to think that they
would all die if they lost?
It appears that you think that their refusal of the demands for the right of
return are wrong. Why? Do you think that the fear of living in a Palestian
state are unwarranted? Do you think that it is immoral for Israel to exist?
Do you think that Palestinians won't exercise the right of return?
Since for over 30 years the Palestinians _explicitly_ called for the
destruction of Israel, is it irrational to feel that many Palestinians feel
the same way, and if the government of Israel were turned over to them, and
they control the they would use that control to start a pogum?
Remember, the only real sticking point in the negotiations late last year
was the right of return.
Dan M.
