Story Comments
Posted by: Lurch 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
signed by Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993. Indeed it was a sub-clause that the Israeli generals, who took over the negotiations from the diplomats, never meant to implement.
The next years were not conducive for a continued peace efforts. They were characterized by violent opposition by militant groups on both sides that culminated in the assassination of Itzhak Rabin in 1995 and in Palestinian guerrilla attacks provoking a very harsh Israeli retaliation. But more importantly, the momentum was lost because Israel expanded its settlements in the areas promised to the Palestinians and maintained the same oppressive policies it had exercised in the previous years of occupation.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 1999, the Americans were called in to salvage the disintegrating peace process. Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton the same old three rules were revived. Israel was asked to dictate how the peace plan should look in 2000. It was one that had to win at least a minimal Israeli consensus before it would be presented to the Palestinians as a 'take it or leave it' offer. And nothing was learned from the previous attempt to impose an Israeli solution on the Palestinians by threats and force. In all the former attempts this failure to learn from the past had resulted in a vicious cycle of bloodshed and destruction. The same happened again in 2000: 'Pax Americana' instead of reconciliation meant another tragic chapter of violence.
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-p...
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everything was supposed to change after Arafat signed Oslo. But while Israelis saw Oslo as the end of the war, Palestinians saw it merely as the first, conditional step toward peace. Today they still live with no state, no capital in Jerusalem. Israeli forces still occupy much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, requiring Palestinians continually to move through humiliating military checkpoints. Jewish settlements housing 180,000 Israelis dot the territories. Palestinians have seen economic decline, while Israel's GDP initially took off.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...Palestinians saw it [Oslo] merely as the first, conditional step toward peace.
Apparently, this is the reason that even eight years later Arafat REFUSED to include an "end of hostilities" statement in the final agreement, correct?
> Today they still live with no state, no capital in Jerusalem.
No wonder... Both were offered to them in Camp David and later in Taba and consequently rejected by Arafat.
> Israeli forces still occupy much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
Yes, and it will continue until the Palestinians will force their leadership to stop violence and ask for peace negotiations. They'll have to realize that the Camp David offers were one time deal that will not be repeated. In August, 2000 most Israelis still believed that the Palestinians were genuinely interested in peace. This is not the case anymore.
...and a "sub-clause" Arafat and Rabin signed in 1992 in no way was a "peace accord" you initially told us about.
Reply
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (1)
dissentPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.