Originally Posted by F6_Turbo
@al Furquaan - why do you think the Palestinian Authorities are so desperate now(or were a couple of years ago) to reach an agreement, when talks under Clinton in 2000 came oh so close to fruition, but for the issue of Jerusalem and the Right of Return?
according to the SMH, the cables go back "for the past decade". it doesn't mention how long the PA has been bending their back to get a deal, but implies for the past decade, i.e early 2001 given the report was published in Jan 2011.
the Clinton talks weren't close to a deal. if it was close, it woulda been sealed like the 1979 deal between Begin and Sadat. there are basically 4 parts to any settlement/dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
1) Israel wants security, ie a demilitarized future Palestinian state, and will maintain sovereingt over land/water borders as well as airspace. Since this predicates a Palestinian state being set up first, I don't think the PA has stated their official position. My guess would be they would oppose it.
Bottom line is that Israel will never be nor will they be forced to be in a position to compromise their security. So this position is not up for negotiations.
2) Palestinians want a Right of Return to Israel of some odd millions of expats. This could be a negotiable position in that sense that Israel can maybe agree to accept some set percentage. I'm not saying its likely, but this is something that conceivably can be negotiated on, but the Palestinians should pretty much drop the issue.
3) West Bank settlements. This is probably the most negotiable point since even the Israelis realize that its untenable. Sharone government pulled out of Gaza some years back, and although WB communities continue to grow, I can see even a hardline Israeli government trading this for peace.
4) Jerusalem. Arabs want E Jerusalem. Jews want all of it. Again, this is a position I can see both parties budging on somewhat.
So that means that out of 4 sticking points, only 2 are negotiable. That means that the Clinton deal was ruling security, refugees, and Jerusalem in Israel's favor and only settlements in the PA's. 3-1 is not a good deal, even if its the best one the PA has gotten. I don't think anyone would have accepted such an unfair deal even if it was the fairest one seen in 50 years, so I won't really blame the PA for walking.
A truly fair deal should be 2-2 in favor of neither, against neither.