|
The problem is that what Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000 was certainly not generous, despite what the Israelis and the Americans say. If Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton thought itwas 'generous' to offer Gaza and four Palestinian cantons on 60% of the West Bank with the roads between them under Israeli control, unlimited Israeli settlement in the rest of the West Bank, agreement to Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinians driven from their homes, no compensation and not even an apology for driving most of the Palestinians out in 1948, then I shudder to think about what Ariel Sharon will consider 'generous' in any future negotiations.
However, the Geneva Accord, agreed in 2003 between Israeli Labour politicians and the Palestinians, set out much better terms - a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem; the Old City shared between the two sides, with international monitors; compensation to Palestinians for loss of property in 1948. It's still not fair - the Palestinians will still have lost 80% of their homeland - but it's a practical solution that broadly follows UN resolutions, except for the Palestinians accepting compensation rather than a right of return, and accepting sharing of the Old City, rather than getting it all back from Israel.
If Barak had offered that at Camp David, the Palestinians would almost certainly have gone for it. The problem is that there's no sign the Israeli public is prepared to withdraw the settlers and allow a real Palestinian state. Without Arafat, Sharon will think of more excuses not to offer the Palestinians anything acceptable.
|