Arafat says YES to Clinton Peace plan. A little late?
From the AP:
JERUSALEM ? Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is prepared to accept a Mideast peace plan put forward by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 2000, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday.
In an interview at his Ramallah headquarters, Arafat told Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar that he would take the Clinton plan without changes, Eldar told The Associated Press on Friday.
"I am prepared to accept it, absolutely," Eldar quoted Arafat as saying, and he endorsed the points of the plan one by one, Eldar said.
Palestinian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.
Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke down without an agreement. According to the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed holy site.
The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original homes.
After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.
Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon. At that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the table.
Now Arafat is willing to sign on to the Clinton plan, Eldar wrote, calling it the first time the Palestinian leader has endorsed it.
Arafat said Israel would receive sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of the compound of the Jewish Temples, Judaism's holiest site.
Also, Arafat said he would be prepared for modifications in the line between Israel and the West Bank and exchanges of territory with Israel, principles the Palestinians have balked at up to now.
The official Palestinian demand has been that Israel must pull back to the 1949 cease-fire line, relinquishing all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem and dismantling all Jewish settlements there.
Arafat did not repeat the demand for the right of return of all the refugees and their families to Israel, Eldar said. Instead, he said, a solution must be found for the 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that he was calling on European and other world bodies to help.
Israel has refused to take in large numbers of refugees. Lebanon says there are 350,000 refugees there.
However, Sharon is prepared to offer much less than his predecessor. Sharon insists that all violence must stop before peace talks resume, and then he would propose a long-term interim agreement, during which the Palestinians would maintain control over the areas they now have.
The Palestinians have rejected the idea of another interim accord.
How long did it take him to decide it was a good idea in the first place? Now he has to deal with Sharon who is a hardass and Bush. Bush will not be a tough sell and maybe he will let Clinton do some diplomatic work here, but this isn't Barak we're dealing with now. He should have done the right thing 2 years ago when the going was better.
JERUSALEM ? Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is prepared to accept a Mideast peace plan put forward by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 2000, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday.
In an interview at his Ramallah headquarters, Arafat told Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar that he would take the Clinton plan without changes, Eldar told The Associated Press on Friday.
"I am prepared to accept it, absolutely," Eldar quoted Arafat as saying, and he endorsed the points of the plan one by one, Eldar said.
Palestinian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.
Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke down without an agreement. According to the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed holy site.
The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original homes.
After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.
Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon. At that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the table.
Now Arafat is willing to sign on to the Clinton plan, Eldar wrote, calling it the first time the Palestinian leader has endorsed it.
Arafat said Israel would receive sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of the compound of the Jewish Temples, Judaism's holiest site.
Also, Arafat said he would be prepared for modifications in the line between Israel and the West Bank and exchanges of territory with Israel, principles the Palestinians have balked at up to now.
The official Palestinian demand has been that Israel must pull back to the 1949 cease-fire line, relinquishing all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem and dismantling all Jewish settlements there.
Arafat did not repeat the demand for the right of return of all the refugees and their families to Israel, Eldar said. Instead, he said, a solution must be found for the 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that he was calling on European and other world bodies to help.
Israel has refused to take in large numbers of refugees. Lebanon says there are 350,000 refugees there.
However, Sharon is prepared to offer much less than his predecessor. Sharon insists that all violence must stop before peace talks resume, and then he would propose a long-term interim agreement, during which the Palestinians would maintain control over the areas they now have.
The Palestinians have rejected the idea of another interim accord.
How long did it take him to decide it was a good idea in the first place? Now he has to deal with Sharon who is a hardass and Bush. Bush will not be a tough sell and maybe he will let Clinton do some diplomatic work here, but this isn't Barak we're dealing with now. He should have done the right thing 2 years ago when the going was better.
Comments
Problem is not for him to accept it - its for his people to stop killing Israeli civilians and for him to understand that violence would not get him anything... its not talking he needs doing its actions he needs to take. and stop the violence. once this is fuly understood by the Palestinians the rest will fall into place and peace will follow....
It really is that simple !
.....
If I were Sharon and truly interested in the peace and security of my people in Israel, I would embrace Arafat's acceptance and work with what little government there is in Palestine to form a stable state for the Palestinians.
A healthy Palestinian state would do more for cutting back on terrorism than any amount of Arafat saying, "Terrorism is bad, stop it." would.
Here's to hoping this will be the first step in bringing real peace to the troubled region.
[edit]
Is it a coincidence that "Hopeless Bleak Despair" by They Might Be Giants came on while I was writing this post or is God telling me something?
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Think of all the blood that could have been saved ... over 2000 lives and all for nothing ....
in the end we're back to where we were 2 years ago
its so sad !
Those that still want to deal with Arafat, truly deserve Arafat. First, get rid of this murderous gangster. Second, reform those PA institutions. Third, have re-elections (without Arafat). Forth, re-negotiate some kind of a settlement. That?s assuming the violence ends.
It?s a self-serving bait Arafat has put out. And if Israel and the Americans have any brains at all, they would reject it, and insist that Arafat steps down.
mika.
Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?
The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly.
Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?
Get real.
It?s another ploy to give himself and his corrupt political structures legitimacy. Any agreement under the duress of violence, under international law, is considered null and void. Arafat once he regroups can easily claim that his ?capitulation? to Israel was as a result of her inserting her military forces into the areas under his control. He then can easily continue his guerrilla war against Israel to claim some more victims, and the title of Saladin of the 21st century.
quote
The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly.
I hope it does prove that to them. Sharon shouldn't want peace that badly! Nor should any Israeli.
End to the violence. Elected a new leadership. Reform the PA institutions. And once a legitimate settlement is negotiated, members of the Knesset will vote on it. As will the members of the Arab parliamentary assembly.
mika.
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
Did I just hear you say the Palestinians would be forced to act "under the duress of violence"?
Unexpected.
Harald
[EDIT: Dodgy grammar]
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
And whose fault would that be?
[quote]He then can easily continue his guerrilla war against Israel to claim some more victims, and the title of Saladin of the 21st century.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]End to the violence.<hr></blockquote>
And how will the violence end? Through more Israeli-instigated violence?
That's not an end to violence, mika, that's just an end to Palestinian violence.
[quote]Elected a new leadership. Reform the PA institutions. And once a legitimate settlement is negotiated, members of the Knesset will vote on it. As will the members of the Arab parliamentary assembly.<hr></blockquote>
Elected by who?
Reformed how?
What is "legitimate"?
Why is a peace plan that was fine 2 years ago not good anymore? Why would Israel change stances?
"Arafat accepts peace plan. The violent bâstard."
Let's award him another Nobel peace price.
mika.
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>
Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha ! Grover ... come on.. You know this is so mega obvious ...don't play dumb
Words are cheap for Arafat, he has lied so many times, its a second nature to him - say one thing but do the opposite in reality... he has broken every single agreement he has ever signed (both with Israel and with Arab states)
What does he stand to gain ?
Its so simple , Arafat knows Israel is about to kik some butt in the OT after more then 50 Israelis have been murdered since the beginning of June, He also knows that it wont take much for Sharon to try and expel or kill him ( another big suicide massacre could finally tip the balance) and Bush is so f****** fed up with him that he probably won't come to his aid this time. this is a way for the old fox to play for some time and sympathy, to appear to suddenly embrace peace and be willing to compromise while still instigating extreme violence on the sly... we have been seeing this now for 2 years .. "the PA condemns all forms of terrorism against civilians and calles on the Israelis to return to negotiations" Arafat always says .. but in reality he is just as part of the war and the bombings as Hamas or Islamic jihad are ... Israel has provided plenty of prof to that effect. And if this doesn't explain it enough for you then just try to remember that one of the major terrorist groups responsible for dozens of murders and suicide missions are Arafat's own Tanzim ( a wing of the PA's Fatah movement) AKA -The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Talking like that has been a pattern of Arafat's behavior for ages... the fact you guys don't see through this is amazing to me .
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sharon has nothing to reject, nothing has been put on the table, this would disappear like a wave in the ocean. Arafat didn't make an official declaration all he said was in an informal interview to an Israeli left leaning newspaper ...this isn't a political or a diplomatic channel where serious proposals are made ... it looks like such an obvious PR stunt... He knows darn well that if he wants to really end the violence he could do it tomorrow ...
[quote]Originally posted by Harald :
<strong>
"Arafat accepts peace plan. The violent bâstard."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
ha ha ha you're so very funny ....
Arafat can CLAIM to accept anything ... personally me and most other israelis don't give a s*** what he accepts or not , I care about what he DOES ! and more then 50 dead Israelis in 3 weeks is a very good example to HIS ACTIONS (as opposed to his words) .....
Sorry to be a bit too verbose on this, but it seems as though this is the only way to get this into your skull
Lets see Arafat stop funding and sending suicide bombers into Israeli buses and cafes lets see him be a leader and say to his people and the rest of the world stop this bloodshed NOW ! and then actually ACT and do something to make them stop . if he does this and then says 'I accept the Clinton plan then maybe Israelis would start believing him.. maybe.....
Though I'm afraid this would probably never happen , he is too obsessed with the destruction of Israel and with his own ego.
Like mika said it - Our very own 21st century Saladin ....
<strong>Arafat and Clinton are both bad men who should be ignored.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton a terrorist ?
Interesting comparison. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>I'm curious? What if they did kick out Arafat, reformed the PA institutions, and stopped the bombing in Israel (which I doubt). What if they do all that, but Israel keeps building settlements? What should the Palestine do then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
look, 80% of Israelis polled are against the settlement policy and support an independent Palestinian state .. they just don't like being killed .. Most supporters of Israel around the world are against the settlement policy and would like to see a political solution that ends with a Palestinian state and the removal of many settlements.
These Clinton proposals we are talking about here were fully accepted by the Israeli government at the time.
If the Palestinians grow up and do these things you say, many Israelis would come out and support them strongly, don't forget that the last PM, Barak, was elected by a landslide specifically to make that final deal with them and don't forget that the only reason Sharon was elected after that was the extreme disillusionment Israelis felt when the Clinton proposals were rejected by Arafat and violence erupted so fiercely. Israel felt that it and the US offered the Palestinians peace on a plater and got a spit in the face in return and that Arafat's real agenda wasn't a solution to the conflict but the destruction or at least the extreme weakening of Israel.
And last but not least - I think the whole world would be justified in pressuring Israel to compromise if the palestinians show some maturity and stop their violence while Israel continues with the occupation.
<strong>This is a very interesting move. I think Arafat may be coming to realize that fighting Israel will get him nothing but losses.
If I were Sharon and truly interested in the peace and security of my people in Israel, I would embrace Arafat's acceptance and work with what little government there is in Palestine to form a stable state for the Palestinians.
A healthy Palestinian state would do more for cutting back on terrorism than any amount of Arafat saying, "Terrorism is bad, stop it." would.
Here's to hoping this will be the first step in bringing real peace to the troubled region.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arafat must love people like you. It's all on Sharon now huh?
How do you know when Arafat is lying? He?s speaking English.
<strong>
look, 80% of Israelis polled are against the settlement policy and support an independent Palestinian state .. they just don't like being killed .. Most supporters of Israel around the world are against the settlement policy and would like to see a political solution that ends with a Palestinian state and the removal of many settlements. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If 80% of Isralis are agianst the settlements, why were they built in first place? As far as rest of the world, we have people such as Dick Army who blieve that there shouldn't be a Palestiain state, well, in west bank. Perhaps there is people who blieve there should be a state. Just not where Paestines want it.
[quote]These Clinton proposals we are talking about here were fully accepted by the Israeli government at the time.
If the Palestinians grow up and do these things you say, many Israelis would come out and support them strongly, don't forget that the last PM, Barak, was elected by a landslide specifically to make that final deal with them and don't forget that the only reason Sharon was elected after that was the extreme disillusionment Israelis felt when the Clinton proposals were rejected by Arafat and violence erupted so fiercely. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>
I heard that Palestinians and Israelis continue to negotiate after Clinton proposal, but was stop for the election. Was this true?
[quote]Israel felt that it and the US offered the Palestinians peace on a plater and got a spit in the face in return and that Arafat's real agenda wasn't a solution to the conflict but the destruction or at least the extreme weakening of Israel. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>
I think that's debatable but every one is allow there own opinion.
[quote]And last but not least - I think the whole world would be justified in pressuring Israel to compromise if the palestinians show some maturity and stop their violence while Israel continues with the occupation.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
The world doesn't want what the Palestinians want. They just want the violence to stop. So if stop, would any one follow up? Would any one care? I know what goes on because of it's on the news. But if it went away who would then care. It was ten years from the Oslo accords, but settlements bloom from there.
[quote][QUOTE] <hr></blockquote>
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Mike Ghost ]
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Mike Ghost ]</p>