If 80% of Israelis are against the settlements, why were they built in first place? As far as rest of the world, we have people such as Dick Army who believe that there shouldn't be a Palestiain state, well, in west bank. Perhaps there is people who believe there should be a state. Just not where Paestines want it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever looked at the Clinton proposals ? the Palestinian state according to that would have been established on around 97% of the OT and the rest would be covered by land exchanges .. so there's absolutely no fogginess about where or what kind of state the Palestinians would have, and thats been basically endorsed by the Bush administration as well.
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I heard that Palestinians and Israelis continue to negotiate after Clinton proposal, but was stop for the election. Was this true?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's half true - In december 2000 Arafat and Barak met again in Taba in Egypt where Barak tried for the last time to get some kind of a deal with Arafat ... he offered him even more then what was on the table at Camp David in September that year but again, Arafat rejected it all and then Israel and the US went into elections....
As usual the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance...
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I think that's debatable but every one is allow there own opinion.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if that is so then I would love it if you could debate it .... for me it's crystal clear !
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you and so many others fail to see is that one of the main groups who care are Israelis. before Arafat started his new war on Israel there was a massive movement within Israel that supported Palestinian self determination and a removal of the settlements, Israelis and Palestinians are like brothers living side by side, mutually dependent on each other for survival. before the current conflict ignited there were intricate business economic and social ties between the two nations but sadly these have all been destroyed by the fighting... the Palestinians are singularly responsible for the collapse of the israeli peace movement, How can any Israeli care for them when all they are interested in doing is killing as many israelis as they can ?
Where they to renounce violence plenty of Israelis would support their legitimate claims ... but only as long as the accept that Israelis have a right to live in peace and security in their own land.
And I think that the indirect linkage you create between the settlements and the violence is appalling, how can you compare the two ? killing innocents is in no way made moral by linking it to the Israeli settlement policy. and anyway Palestinians and Arabs have been busy killing Israelis and Jews long before the occupation ever took place .....so even from a pragmatic point of view I can't see how the two issues are ralated....
The bottom line is this: If Palestinians renounce violence as a political tool for extracting concessions from Israel they will get their state and they will be helped by the rest of the world financially and politicaly. if they don't all they are achieving (along with killing lots of innocent palestinians and Israelis) is a deterioration in their status on all fronts !
<strong>Eitorial: Arafat is not convincing</strong>
On the face of it, Yasser Arafat's remarks published in his interview to Ha'aretz on Friday should make us feel hopeful. The Palestinian leader expressed readiness to accept the peace proposal made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton, came out in support of the advertisement against suicide bombings published by a group of Palestinian intellectuals, and expressed the wish to pay personal condolence calls on the families of Israeli victims of terrorism. However, the lesson that the Israeli public has learned over the past 21 months from Arafat's behavior is that one cannot trust his word, since there is an intolerable gap between what he says and what he does.
The interview appeared on the same day as the reports of the shocking attack on the settlement of Itamar in which five people were murdered, including a mother and her three children. The report followed on the heels of two harsh terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. When the Israeli public weighs Arafat's declaration against the events, it is not difficult to decide which has the decisive impact on the reality of everyday living: Since October 2000, the Palestinians have been waging an indiscriminate war of terror against Israeli civilians. This cruel method of operation has the backing or the tacit approval of Arafat, who considers it a legitimate means of bargaining with Israel over the terms of an agreement. This behavior is a crude and cynical infringement of the Oslo agreements to which Arafat is a signatory.
Even the many Israelis who are harshly critical of their own government for its part in fanning the flames and its lack of readiness to give diplomatic channels a chance, cannot give credit to Arafat for his conciliatory declarations. He has to be judged both by his deeds and his omissions, and these are systematically and unequivocally contradictory to the declarations he made at the week's end.
Moreover, Arafat fails to explain why he rejected the Clinton blueprint in July 2000 and what has supposedly caused him to change his mind now. He is likewise not convincing when he expresses support for the Palestinian intellectuals' initiative against terror attacks. The leader of a nation does not need to add his name to a petition in order to influence public opinion or decision-makers; he has other, much more effective tools at his disposal. His appeals to the terror victims' families can be seen in the same light: Instead of imitating the sincere gesture of King Hussein [who made personal condolence calls on the families of the victims of the Naharayim shooting attack in 1996], he could use his authority and his influence - however limited they may now be - to curb the murderous Palestinian terror attacks, or at least to minimize them.
Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete
Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete threat to their lives over the past 21 months.<hr></blockquote>
[quote] And I think that the indirect linkage you create between the settlements and the violence is appalling, how can you compare the two ? killing innocents is in no way made moral by linking it to the Israeli settlement policy. <hr></blockquote>
This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse. However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow, under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.
To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.
Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relatonship, is not too far fetsched.
<strong>This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Far worse I would say ! and I would expect any rational self respecting moral person to realize that.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally disagree ! Palestinians and Arabs were murdering Israelis long before the occupation ever took place... apart from the 3 times (1948, 1967, 1973) when the Arabs tried to ELIMINATE the state of Israel, there have been numerous massacres and terrorist acts performed against Jews long before 67 when the OT were captured ( As a result of a war inflicted on Israel by the Arabs...).
Few examples:
1929 riots began with the massacre of 20 children and old people in Safed.
1936 riots left 133 Jews dead and 399 injured.
1947 In the first ten days after the United Nations vote in favor of partition, 79 Jews were killed.
Also, don't forget that the Palestinians were treated much worse under Jordanian and Egyptian rule during 1948-1967 and in these cases Palestinians weren't using terror against these occupations.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is wrongly explained by you , Many of the so-called settlements that were ' growing' during the Oslo years were actually neighborhoods of jerusalem and other towns bordering the OT in terms of real land mass the growth was minimal and though it is true that right wing groups still occupy settlements deep inside the OT this is a minority group which do not have the support of israel's main parties or indeed the Israeli public... Its widely accepted in Israeli society that these settlements would have to be removed once a proper deal would be struck between Israel and the PA... Just like most Israelis supported the removal of settlements in the Sinai Peninsula when a peace treaty was made with egypt .... and just to remind all those who doubt Sharon and believe his secret agenda is to maintain control of the OT try not to forget that he was the one responsible for uprooting these settlements back in the early 80s.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough ... I can agree with that but please note that this is a very fine line we're talking about here... and maybe you don't but there are plenty of people around the world who constantly make that link and use is as a means for justifying terrorism I think you have to be extremely cautious here....or else you end up inadvertently supporting the terrorists and by that intensifying the conflict on the ground.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relationship, is not too far fetched.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What land grabbing ? Would you call Israel offering Palestinians 97% of the pre 67 OT plus land exchanges for the rest land grabbing ?
this is a complete twisting of the facts ! the fact is Israel offered (more then once) to end the conflict and withdraw from the OT - Arafat and the Palestinian nation rejected the offer and started using violence as a tool for extortions in the negotiations ..... surly this can not be seen to succeed!
if it does the whole world would reap the nasty rewards in countless other conflicts... think of this carefully.....
I'd like to see some place that has a definitive layout of the Clinton Proposal, and I think an accompanying map would be necessary to sort out claims that the plan is either "very generous" or "divisive because of the settlements still being held".
Clinton?s plan is exactly that. The Arabs missed their opportunity to strike a deal. And as much as they like to every time go back in time, they can?t. They now need to deal with Sharon. Not Clinton, and not Barak. Sharon. And Sharon is quite correct on insisting that reforms and real accountability take place before any diplomatic negotiations.
What?s the point of ceding more powers to these people if they refuse responsibility for things that are under their control? Let?s see them exercise a little responsibility first before we continue in these talks.
<strong>I'd like to see some place that has a definitive layout of the Clinton Proposal, and I think an accompanying map would be necessary to sort out claims that the plan is either "very generous" or "divisive because of the settlements still being held".
Anyone have a link??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well this is not an easy request to fulfill .. the actual negotiations details were kept secret and boh sides tell conflicting reports about why and how exactly the talks broke down ( although the american hosts generally support the Israeli description of events)
All we clearly know that in general terms what was offered was an Israeli withdrawal from around 93 -97 percent of the OT and land exchanges for the rest and and its widely accepted that Barak was quite ready to compromise on the issue of Jerusalem....
I remember reading a fascinating story about this a the <a href="http://archives11.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_theme=NWEC&p_product=NW EC&p_perpage=20&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base= camp%20david&p_maxdocs=200&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_ ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=-1qzY&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&%5B+Search+%5D.x=54&%5B+Search+%5D. y=14" target="_blank">Newsweek web site</a> but going back there its become a part of the Archives and it costs for accessing it now .. if any of you out there can get to it .. please copy and paste it for us
As for a map - I'm sure no definitive maps were ever made public but the image bellow should give you a rough (very rough) impression of what was talked about.
The red areas with thin white pinstripes would become the Palestinian state. This consists of 95% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. The Golan, including the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, has already been offered to Syria.
The roads marked in red would become safe passage routes for Palestinians traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.
The red areas with slightly thicker white stripes located in the Negev, south of Gaza, has been offered to the Palestinians, as a trade off for the 5% of the West Bank that Israel proposes to annex.
The red areas with thick white stripes located in the Beer Sheva region, and in the Galilee are areas within the present sovereign borders of Israel in which the current population is over 70% Arab.
Note: This map does not address the issue of Jerusalem.
Comments
<strong>
If 80% of Israelis are against the settlements, why were they built in first place? As far as rest of the world, we have people such as Dick Army who believe that there shouldn't be a Palestiain state, well, in west bank. Perhaps there is people who believe there should be a state. Just not where Paestines want it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever looked at the Clinton proposals ? the Palestinian state according to that would have been established on around 97% of the OT and the rest would be covered by land exchanges .. so there's absolutely no fogginess about where or what kind of state the Palestinians would have, and thats been basically endorsed by the Bush administration as well.
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I heard that Palestinians and Israelis continue to negotiate after Clinton proposal, but was stop for the election. Was this true?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's half true - In december 2000 Arafat and Barak met again in Taba in Egypt where Barak tried for the last time to get some kind of a deal with Arafat ... he offered him even more then what was on the table at Camp David in September that year but again, Arafat rejected it all and then Israel and the US went into elections....
As usual the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance...
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I think that's debatable but every one is allow there own opinion.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well if that is so then I would love it if you could debate it .... for me it's crystal clear !
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you and so many others fail to see is that one of the main groups who care are Israelis. before Arafat started his new war on Israel there was a massive movement within Israel that supported Palestinian self determination and a removal of the settlements, Israelis and Palestinians are like brothers living side by side, mutually dependent on each other for survival. before the current conflict ignited there were intricate business economic and social ties between the two nations but sadly these have all been destroyed by the fighting... the Palestinians are singularly responsible for the collapse of the israeli peace movement, How can any Israeli care for them when all they are interested in doing is killing as many israelis as they can ?
Where they to renounce violence plenty of Israelis would support their legitimate claims ... but only as long as the accept that Israelis have a right to live in peace and security in their own land.
And I think that the indirect linkage you create between the settlements and the violence is appalling, how can you compare the two ? killing innocents is in no way made moral by linking it to the Israeli settlement policy. and anyway Palestinians and Arabs have been busy killing Israelis and Jews long before the occupation ever took place .....so even from a pragmatic point of view I can't see how the two issues are ralated....
The bottom line is this: If Palestinians renounce violence as a political tool for extracting concessions from Israel they will get their state and they will be helped by the rest of the world financially and politicaly. if they don't all they are achieving (along with killing lots of innocent palestinians and Israelis) is a deterioration in their status on all fronts !
Its very simple !
[quote]
<strong>Eitorial: Arafat is not convincing</strong>
On the face of it, Yasser Arafat's remarks published in his interview to Ha'aretz on Friday should make us feel hopeful. The Palestinian leader expressed readiness to accept the peace proposal made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton, came out in support of the advertisement against suicide bombings published by a group of Palestinian intellectuals, and expressed the wish to pay personal condolence calls on the families of Israeli victims of terrorism. However, the lesson that the Israeli public has learned over the past 21 months from Arafat's behavior is that one cannot trust his word, since there is an intolerable gap between what he says and what he does.
The interview appeared on the same day as the reports of the shocking attack on the settlement of Itamar in which five people were murdered, including a mother and her three children. The report followed on the heels of two harsh terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. When the Israeli public weighs Arafat's declaration against the events, it is not difficult to decide which has the decisive impact on the reality of everyday living: Since October 2000, the Palestinians have been waging an indiscriminate war of terror against Israeli civilians. This cruel method of operation has the backing or the tacit approval of Arafat, who considers it a legitimate means of bargaining with Israel over the terms of an agreement. This behavior is a crude and cynical infringement of the Oslo agreements to which Arafat is a signatory.
Even the many Israelis who are harshly critical of their own government for its part in fanning the flames and its lack of readiness to give diplomatic channels a chance, cannot give credit to Arafat for his conciliatory declarations. He has to be judged both by his deeds and his omissions, and these are systematically and unequivocally contradictory to the declarations he made at the week's end.
Moreover, Arafat fails to explain why he rejected the Clinton blueprint in July 2000 and what has supposedly caused him to change his mind now. He is likewise not convincing when he expresses support for the Palestinian intellectuals' initiative against terror attacks. The leader of a nation does not need to add his name to a petition in order to influence public opinion or decision-makers; he has other, much more effective tools at his disposal. His appeals to the terror victims' families can be seen in the same light: Instead of imitating the sincere gesture of King Hussein [who made personal condolence calls on the families of the victims of the Naharayim shooting attack in 1996], he could use his authority and his influence - however limited they may now be - to curb the murderous Palestinian terror attacks, or at least to minimize them.
Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete
Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete threat to their lives over the past 21 months.<hr></blockquote>
This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse. However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow, under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.
To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.
Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relatonship, is not too far fetsched.
<strong>This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Far worse I would say ! and I would expect any rational self respecting moral person to realize that.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I totally disagree ! Palestinians and Arabs were murdering Israelis long before the occupation ever took place... apart from the 3 times (1948, 1967, 1973) when the Arabs tried to ELIMINATE the state of Israel, there have been numerous massacres and terrorist acts performed against Jews long before 67 when the OT were captured ( As a result of a war inflicted on Israel by the Arabs...).
Few examples:
1929 riots began with the massacre of 20 children and old people in Safed.
1936 riots left 133 Jews dead and 399 injured.
1947 In the first ten days after the United Nations vote in favor of partition, 79 Jews were killed.
Also, don't forget that the Palestinians were treated much worse under Jordanian and Egyptian rule during 1948-1967 and in these cases Palestinians weren't using terror against these occupations.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is wrongly explained by you , Many of the so-called settlements that were ' growing' during the Oslo years were actually neighborhoods of jerusalem and other towns bordering the OT in terms of real land mass the growth was minimal and though it is true that right wing groups still occupy settlements deep inside the OT this is a minority group which do not have the support of israel's main parties or indeed the Israeli public... Its widely accepted in Israeli society that these settlements would have to be removed once a proper deal would be struck between Israel and the PA... Just like most Israelis supported the removal of settlements in the Sinai Peninsula when a peace treaty was made with egypt .... and just to remind all those who doubt Sharon and believe his secret agenda is to maintain control of the OT try not to forget that he was the one responsible for uprooting these settlements back in the early 80s.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough ... I can agree with that but please note that this is a very fine line we're talking about here... and maybe you don't but there are plenty of people around the world who constantly make that link and use is as a means for justifying terrorism I think you have to be extremely cautious here....or else you end up inadvertently supporting the terrorists and by that intensifying the conflict on the ground.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relationship, is not too far fetched.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What land grabbing ? Would you call Israel offering Palestinians 97% of the pre 67 OT plus land exchanges for the rest land grabbing ?
this is a complete twisting of the facts ! the fact is Israel offered (more then once) to end the conflict and withdraw from the OT - Arafat and the Palestinian nation rejected the offer and started using violence as a tool for extortions in the negotiations ..... surly this can not be seen to succeed!
if it does the whole world would reap the nasty rewards in countless other conflicts... think of this carefully.....
Anyone have a link??
What?s the point of ceding more powers to these people if they refuse responsibility for things that are under their control? Let?s see them exercise a little responsibility first before we continue in these talks.
mika.
[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>I'd like to see some place that has a definitive layout of the Clinton Proposal, and I think an accompanying map would be necessary to sort out claims that the plan is either "very generous" or "divisive because of the settlements still being held".
Anyone have a link??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well this is not an easy request to fulfill .. the actual negotiations details were kept secret and boh sides tell conflicting reports about why and how exactly the talks broke down ( although the american hosts generally support the Israeli description of events)
All we clearly know that in general terms what was offered was an Israeli withdrawal from around 93 -97 percent of the OT and land exchanges for the rest and and its widely accepted that Barak was quite ready to compromise on the issue of Jerusalem....
I remember reading a fascinating story about this a the <a href="http://archives11.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_theme=NWEC&p_product=NW EC&p_perpage=20&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base= camp%20david&p_maxdocs=200&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_ ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=-1qzY&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&%5B+Search+%5D.x=54&%5B+Search+%5D. y=14" target="_blank">Newsweek web site</a> but going back there its become a part of the Archives and it costs for accessing it now
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec00/albright_7-25.html"; target="_blank">this interview with former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright</a> about the talks is very interesting as well ...
As for a map - I'm sure no definitive maps were ever made public but the image bellow should give you a rough (very rough) impression of what was talked about.
The red areas with thin white pinstripes would become the Palestinian state. This consists of 95% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. The Golan, including the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, has already been offered to Syria.
The roads marked in red would become safe passage routes for Palestinians traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.
The red areas with slightly thicker white stripes located in the Negev, south of Gaza, has been offered to the Palestinians, as a trade off for the 5% of the West Bank that Israel proposes to annex.
The red areas with thick white stripes located in the Beer Sheva region, and in the Galilee are areas within the present sovereign borders of Israel in which the current population is over 70% Arab.
Note: This map does not address the issue of Jerusalem.
[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>