response 26 of 173:

May 8 22:38 UTC 2002

i'm sick of Israel beating around the Bush.

response 28 of 173:

May 8 22:53 UTC 2002

"scrub"

response 30 of 173:

May 9 13:18 UTC 2002

they're working on it.

response 32 of 173:

May 10 09:42 UTC 2002

Another fine example of attacking the messenger when you can't argue
with the message. Perhaps you want to edify us with your thoughts about
Ambassador Ross' comments and the Clinton compromise?  (See #1)

Current News:

13:48   Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa blasts idea of regional
        conference on Mideast 

So much for the "Saudi Plan". A light without a tunnel.

17:28   Arab League Secretary General Moussa: no Palestinian will sign
        agreement with Israel in place of Arafat 

And Arafat won't sign either. So much for thoughts about circumventing
Arafat by holding a ministerial level conference.

response 34 of 173:

May 10 19:03 UTC 2002

As the subject states, this item is about the details of the Camp David
and Taba peace plans advanced by President Clinton (which were accepted
by Israel and some Arab negotiators but rejected by Arafat). A summary
is provided in the item text and a lengthy interview with US Ambassador
Dennis Ross appears in response #1.

I entered the item because elsewhere Marcus said he wasn't aware of these
details (or perhaps that the details weren't really known).

If this is of no interest to you, feel free to "forget" the item, but I
am at a loss regarding what you hope to achieve via personal attacks
which you concede are directed at the messenger.

response 36 of 173:

May 11 18:32 UTC 2002

Marcus, this wasn't one "loose-lipped US negotiator". This was the man
in charge of the negotiations. President Clinton has also made statements
which corroborate what he has said. Palestinian negotiators (Abu Ala'a and
Abu Mazen, two of the top negotiators -- the designated Arafat successors)
have corroborated the major parts of what is outlined in response #1.

What is it about the top two Americans involved in the peace process
detailing the elements of the Clinton plan that makes them "partial"?

Is it because the truth is embarrassing to Arafat? Because we can't
understand why he walked out on such an offer, first seeking to circumvent
the peace process by seeking support for (in violation of Oslo) a unilateral
declaration of independence and then ordering violence?

Is it because it it embarrasing to Arafatphiles and his apologists in the
west because it demonstrates that Arafat is not a good faith partner in
the peace process? That he sabotaged the Oslo process by refusing to
compromise and pay even the smallest price for peace?

Arafat wasn't even willing to accept Israeli sovereignty over the
Western/Wailing wall: there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, he said,
and the "Al Buraq" wall (according to a legend invented for political
reasons in the 1920s) was where Muhammed docked his winged horse (in a dream).

Is it because Arafat, who compares himself to the Kurdish Saladin, is more
interested in driving out the "infidels" than in making peace WITH Israel
and establishing a modern state alongside it? Does that explain why he
invests western assistance money in arms rather than building infrastructure?

Is that what the late Feisal Husseini (a "moderate") meant when he said that
the Oslo process was a "Trojan Horse" designed to get Arab fighters into the
disputed territories (Arafat's lifelong dream of "resistance" from the inside)?

response 38 of 173:

May 12 09:00 UTC 2002

There's no reason the man in charge can't be "loose-lipped", but the fact
remains that you attempted to dismiss the guy without cause. First as if
his was the Israeli (not American) position. Then as just some negotiator
(not the top American diplomat in the process) and I really haven't a clue
what relevance "loose lips" has to do with anything (other than to make it
appear that this guy is speaking out of turn, or when he shouldn't be).
Then you claimed he was "partial".

This item is about the Camp David / Taba peace process. We were discussing
the settlements in item 37 (well, up to your last response which conveniently
ignored what I had said).

You've done everything but address the issue!
Now you want to change the subject?

So, why do you think that Arafat rejected the Clinton compromise without as
much as a counter-offer and over recommendations from some of his advisors
that he should accept it?

Why do you think that instead of submitting to any compromise Arafat left
Camp David and sought to circumvent the peace process by seeking support
for a unilateral declaration of independence (creating a state without first
establishing peace with Israel)?

When that failed (primarily because world leaders realized what happened at
Camp David), why do you think Arafat ordered his men to violence? (Even
before Sharon announced his plans to visit the Temple Mount.)

And what do you make of Feisal Husseini's statement to an Egyptian paper that
the Oslo peace process was a "Trojan horse" designed to get Arab fighters
into the territories, to fight from inside?

response 40 of 173:

May 15 17:12 UTC 2002

You are alone in your deafness.

response 42 of 173:

May 16 01:17 UTC 2002

Saudi Arabia -- where the women are veiled but the threats are not:

18:52   Saudi Prince Sultan bin Turki: If Mideast peace fails,
        U.S. will not be unscathed by `dangerous result`

response 44 of 173:

May 16 20:01 UTC 2002

Some welcome developments regarding Palestinian elections and the elimination
of "chieftans" who would otherwise have de facto "for life" appointments:

16:06   Palestinian Legislative Council decides to hold presidential
        elections early in 2003 

16:37   Palestinian Legislative Council limits tenure of heads of security
        apparatuses to four years 

18:33   PLC approves law appointing security apparatus minister, banned from
        making political statements 

19:41   Arafat decides to hold presidential and parliamentary elections
        within six months 

21:00   Tenet may bring Israeli, Palestinian officials to Washington for
        security talks 

response 46 of 173:

May 18 07:27 UTC 2002

No matter how nice you make it sound, no matter how pretty 
the picture, the presence of armed Israeli citizens inside
the proposes palestinian state protected by IDF is 'balkanization'
or 'balukistanization' or whatever.   If the stateless arabs
are to be having their own state just as the stateless jews
did half century ago then it is gonna have to be a sovereign
nation with a secure border without little spots of non-state
inside its secure border.  Its like trying to make hamburger
out of hotdog.  No matter how fine you dice it or define it
unless you set out to make hamburger in the first place you
are gonna have little spots of hotdog.  Better to set out
and make hamburger in the first place.

response 48 of 173:

May 21 06:35 UTC 2002

Some of those "little" fingers reach nearly all the way through to
Jordan.  Some of the bits of Palestinian controlled land might are on
fat round penninsulas with thin necks of land -- might as well be
islands for all the good those necks do.  It's certainly not a
"defensible" border following the natural barriers built into the land,
unlike most "terrain" based natural borders.  Yup, jerrymandering is a
perfectly reasonable term for this sort of "settlement"; it's hard to
see how such a map could not fail to lead to more conflict, more war,
and more territory loss for the palestinians, in short order.  I can't
say that I blame them at all for turning this "settlement" down.