On Friday 28 September 2001 03:53, you wrote: > On 27 Sep 2001, at 23:14, Trent Shipley wrote: > > Date sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:14:45 -0700 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brin-L) > Subject: Palestinian right of return > > > I regard the following as a reliable source. > > > > On this basis I submit that the insistence by Crystal and others that > > "right of return" killed a sweetheart deal for the Palestinians is so > > gross a misrepresentation as to be false. > > Pfffffffffffffft. Sure, it's not the only reason, it was the excuse.
No. Neither the Sontag article, nor even --- http://www.haaretzdaily.com Saturday, September 29, 2001 Tishrei 12, 5762 Israel Time:�08:58�(GMT+2) End of a journey How did a peace process that started with such high hopes end with an intifada? What really happened at Camp David? Former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami kept a diary there; in a conversation with Ari Shavit, he reveals, for the first time, why the stormy negotiations ended in failure By Ari Shavit --- support this contention. Both indicate that the negotiations could not be concluded because the Palestinians had feet of clay and the Barak government ended before a deal could be concluded. Ben-Ami does indicate that he thinks the Palestinans intentionally torpedoed a rapidly progressing process at Taba, but he does not indicate that the right-of-return was *the* excuse per se. The Palestinian response was a "no" that could be interpreted as "We do not percieve it to be in our interest to make sweeping pre-commitments at this time." That said Ben-Ami says, in effect, that he thinks the Palestinians are *never* going to make any commitments. Why? Because if the grid of outcomes for Israel is: Defeat (unlikely, to say the least) Status Quo Peace Deal (probabaly not possible) Soverignty over all territory with Jewish majority (doable) Then for the Palesetinians the matrix is: Defeat (possible) Status Quo Peace Deal (possible, but probably not with acceptable terms) Soverignty over all territory with Jewish minority (would require a miracle) Ben-Ami believes that the Palestinians are holding out for total victory. Furthermore he adds a possible outcome: Mutual destruction giving a Palestinian outcome matrix of: Defeat (possible) Status Quo Peace Deal (possible, but probably not with acceptable terms) Mutual destruction Soverignty over all territory with Jewish minority (would require a miracle) That is, the Palestinians would rather satisfy their sense of justice and wounded honor than take a peace deal. <tangent> > > Furthermore, I submit that failure to achive a peace deal lies > > primarally with Ariel Sharon. (Whether this is good or bad depends on > > your POV.) > > Sharon? What HE really have to do with Barak's deal? Not much, > is the answer. I don't like Sharon, but blaming him for that is unfair. Sharon, regarded with cause as a human-rights criminal by the Palestinans, visits the Temple Mount. The Second Intifada starts. Was this intentional on the part of Sharon? Who knows. Then Sharon becomes Prime Minister. He sets security preconditions for resumption of talks that even a good-faith effort by the Palestinian Authority could not meet. That is, he stone-walls the peace process. I'm not blaming him for Barak offering "far too much." I am saying that Sharon has offered nothing at all. I am also saying that there is reason to suspect (but no proof) that Sharon intentionally inflamed Palestinian public opinion inorder to spike Barak's negotiations. </tangent> > > Finally, I reiterate my point that under the current prevailing > > conditions the cleansing the West Bank of its Palestinian population > > is doable and in the best interests of Israel. > > And it absolutely inexcusable, especially in the light of Jewish > history. You're sick, if you feel that genocide is acceptable. It > would *destroy* Israel's position internationally. 1) I might well be sick; however, I prefer to think of myself as a monster. 2) I am not making excuses for ethnic cleansing. It is a crime against humanity. So what? 3) I am not advocating genocide. I am advocating ethnic cleansing. I do not believe that it would prove necessary murder large fractions of the West Bank Arab population. Instead they could be forcibly deported or exiled much like Jews and Muslims were exiled from Spain or Muslims driven from India or Serbian areas of Bosnia. 4) What international Israeli position would that be? Yes, there would be some short-term consequences, but people forget. After ten or fifteen years most consequences will be behind us. > > morally distasteful) solution. Furthermore, ethnic cleansing is > > preferable to a status-quo situation in Israel-Palestine for the > > US-EU. > > LMAO! Clueless. Totally ******* clueless. Clueless!? Dang, I'll just drop that minor in Near Eastern Studies for my Ph.D. now and my focus on the Arab Middle East too. Drat. Andrew Crystal says I'm clueless. He must be right. > > Since the Israeli public looked at the records of the Taba > > negotiations they seem to have rejected land-for-peace as a fool's > > bargain. Therefore the only remaining options are variations on > > status-quo and ethnic cleansing. > > The PALESTINIANS rejected it. Most Isralies still want peace. > What we see with Sharon is a natural backlash to the refusal of > Barak's offer. Yes. Most Israelis say they want peace, but that doesn't seem to be what they mean. What I interpret that to mean is that most Israelis want security. <Sontag piece> > > Mr. Malley added that the Palestinians had agreed to negotiate a > > solution to the refugee issue that would not end up threatening > > Israel's Jewish majority. </> > So why didn't they? They stonewalled on the right to return! Where is your proof? I can't find this in the two post-mortems I've looked at. ======= Look. Ben-Ami concludes by saying he still wants peace. Given his analysis of the Palestinian position this is absurd. He can't really mean that, and if he does then he is a fool. If either of these are a true statement then Zionist commitment to peace process, let alone a peace deal, is also absurd. 1) The Palestinians (or their leaders) are not *really* interested in land-for-peace. 2) The Palestinians cannot be trusted and will be strong enough to use the rewards of a peace deal to produce a worse state of affairs than the status quo.
