In today’s (Friday, May 17) op-ed of the New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof criticizes the idea that Arafat flatly rejected a reasonable peace deal. As a matter of fact, he calls it “a western myth”. Those of you familiar with the New York Times and its editorials will know that Mr. Kristof isn’t a knee-jerk pro-Palestinian journalist. Is he right? And if he is, should we accredit the total collapse of the peace process more to Prime Minister Sharon than Chairman Arafat?
I heard Dennis Ross. middle east negotiator for Clinton and Bush Sr, who’s now a FNC pundit, say that Arafat had rejected an offer. Ross was there; he ought to know.
The only question is, how good was the offer? Most everyone seemed to think it was a very good offer indeed, certainly far better than any previous offer. According to Ross, some of the Palestinian delgation would have accepted the offer. Arafat overruled them.
Even if the offer wasn’t good enough, Arafat had the alternative of continuing to negotiate, rather than call in intifada. Ross’s stated conclusion was that Arafat simply is not prepared to agree to peace under any circumstances. As Ross put it, Arafat always “wants alternatives.”
The NY Times op-ed page is not a responsible organ.
I’d wager that by the time Sharon became Prime Minister, it was too late.
Earlier Israeli Prime Ministers, however, made peace offers that were as generous as the Israelis were likely to get, including conceding East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. Apparently Arafat tried to attach conditions that the Isrealis find unacceptable, and the negotiations collapsed at that point.
Whether the offer was actually generous is a matter of debate, and I don’t know all the details, so I can’t really judge.
Of the players at the time, Arafat is the one still in office. Sharon isn’t about to make offers nearly as generous as Barak did. I don’t claim to know whom to blame more.
A link that suggests the Israelis made a generous offer
A link that suggests the Israeli offer was rotten
A Pro-Palestinian site on the issue
A Likud site on the negotiations
It is certain some deal was offered in Washington and that Arafat sunk that deal. What is debateable is whether the deal was actually generous or was only generous in terms of offering more than the Israelis have in the past.
The OP notes, quite correctly, that Mr. Kristof is not known as an Arafat fan. Quite the contrary- he’s usually given Arafat most of the blame for the intifada and the collapse of peace negotiations.
In today’s column, however, he tries very hard to salvage Arafat’s reputation. Having read the column, I can tell you this: he does NOT refute the notion that Arafat rejected all peace proposals put forward by Barak and Clinton. That’s simply a fact. Arafat DID reject all proposals, not just once, but repeatedly.
What Kristof DOES claim is that Arafat’s refusals weren’t of the “Hell no, forget it, we don’t want peace, we want to annihilate the Jews” variety. Rather, they were of the, “Well, yes, no, maybe, I don’t know, let’s wait and see” variety.
That is, if Kristof’s account is to be believed, Arafat behaved like a frustrating, indecisive, wishy-washy nebbish who didn’t know what he wanted- NOT like a militaristic, anti-semitic fanatic.
But though Arafat wasn’t eager to sign anything, he was willing to keep talking. To insiders, that SEEMED like progress.
IF you buy that account, then there was still some slim hope of a settlement, right up until Ariel Sharon was elected. In Kristof’s view, talks between Barak and Arafat might still have yielded fruitful results, if the Israeli elections hadn’t come up, and put and end to negotiations. In kristof’s view, it wasn’t unti lSharon was elected that further talks became impossible. Again, if you buy that account, there may STILL be a chance of reaching some kind of negotiated peace with Arafat (provided Sharon isn’t part of the equation).
Of course, that account conveniently ignores the fact that Sharon WOULDN’T have been elected if Arafat had shown any indication that he was truly interested in making a deal, or that he was able and willing to control the intifada.
Of all the posters in SDMB I should have expected you, December, to be the first to jump to this thread. So be it. I will engage you, despite your knee-jerk anti-Palestinian attitude.
As for the above quote goes, I’m a bit dumbfounded. Yes, an editorial is an editorial and offers an opinion. Hence the name op-ed! But as for the New York Times op-ed not being a responsible organ? I don’t know what you’re trying to get at? Should I begin to defend the NY Times now as being made up of reasonable journalist who’s opinions are well-informed??? Anyway, what this responsible organ supposed to mean? Like the UN? Oh, I forgot, they’re all in cahoots against Israel. The oh-so bipartisan U.S. Congress perhaps? The never politically biased Whitehouse? The U.S. Supreme Court where judges never write dissenting opinions? Need I go on? Very strange idea…
Fine. So you disagree based on Dennis Ross’s claims. Do you need to set up a strawman with this thing about casting some bizarre cloud of doubt over the NY Times op-ed? If what you’re saying is that I should reject what Mr.Kristof writes because of his irresponsability, I’d say I have a very flawed argument at hand.
Mr. Kristof quotes Robert Malley as having said:
The new intifada may have helped propel Sharon into office. And Arafat may be accredited for not putting sufficient pressure on stopping it. Still, it can’t be ignored that the Israeli electorate and Sharon share the blame for deepening the conflict. The 1 billion dollar question is: has Operation Defensive Shield improved the situation for the Israeli electorate or not? If it has, they can be said to be justified for electing Ariel Sharon into office. But, IMHO, the way Operation Defensive Shield has been carried out has just worsened the situation.
I think what’s important in Mr.Kristof’s editorial is that the blame for a break down of negotiations isn’t fairly accredited to both sides. The blame is ENTIRELY placed in the Palestinian court. Using the causality argument quoted above, we could trace blame back to the founding of Israel. Or the widespread pogroms of the 19th and 20th centuries. Take your pick…
Actually, I believe the name derives from the fact that it’s opposite the editorial page.
That’s a debate I’d be happy to engage in. I am one of many who despair over how the current managment of a once-great paper is not fulfilling their responsibility to maintain it.
It’s supposed to mean what the Times used to be, and ought to be.
I agree. My argument stands or falls on its own.
Obviously I wasn’t present. Malley’s observation is similar to Ross’s, but his interpretation is different.
How can we tell whether Ross is correct that Arafat was never going to make an agreement or whether Malley is correct, than an agreement was still possible? Here are a couple of clues:[ol][li]These negotiations took place near the end of Clinton’s term. Arafat might have realized that his negotiating poslition might weaken once Clinton left office. Arafat called for a new intifada, rather than continue to negotiate. Naturally, Israel stopped negotiating once there citizens were being murdered.[/ol][/li][qUOTE]
The new intifada may have helped propel Sharon into office.
[/quote]
This is an understatement. Sharon was washed up politically, before the intifada.
I suppose anything is possible until it doesn’t happen. It seems unreasonable to have expected any Israeli leader to negotiate while the suicide bombings were going on.
The person most likely to take the leadership away from Sharon is Netanyahu, who is committed to no Palestinian State on the West Bank, ever. It’s too late to blame Sharon personally. He’s now an Israeli moderate.
As to the “myth” …
This has been discussed before. I’ll paste my quote from that thread regarding what was on the table at Camp David 2.
Ross’s interview is here.
<slight hijack>
When I was opinions editor of a small newspaper, we were quite clear op-ed stood for opinions-editorial – editorial being the editors’ official positions, opinions being the views of some of our readers, as well as that of the opinions editor. Often they were on the same page.
</slight hijack>
Robert Wright (linked) goes into the nuts and bolts on SLATE – this GD was essentially started by a Richard Falk article in the Nation. that can also be accesed below.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2064500
I think Wright does a nice job … It doesn’t change my mind on Arafat but does help me better understand waht was rejected at Camp David and Taba.
I no longer find it COMPLETEY inexplicable (as I did) what Arafat walked away from re Barak
Why are you so adamant on portraying the world in black and white December? My father used to tell my brother and I that old cliché “it ain’t one’s fault that two argue”. At the time, I’d think “bullshit, my brother’s the self-centered ego-maniacal asshole”. Fortunately for me, I’ve smartened up a bit since then. OK, sure, sometimes fault can be traced to a single individual or side. But how rare is that? Fortunately, the Third Rich and Paul Pot are not the rule but the exception. If they weren’t, humanity would be about as extinct as the dodo bird.
Overall, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a case were blame can be comfortably assigned to one single side. Yet you keep insisting this is the case. Whenever a discussion on the issue pops up in the board, you default into a state of mind where culpability is assigned to the non-Israeli side, whether that be Palestine, the international community or some other organization. Do you truly believe that the Israeli electorate and its leadership are incapable of mistakes? Do you really believe that they are purely defensive, responding only to the “evils” of those seeking its destruction?
Kristof, a journalist who’s been hammering down on Arafat for being the party responsible for the failure of the peace process, comes out and says : “maybe it’s not fair to be so one-sided about this”. You December, with a knee-jerk reaction exclaim: “Ah, a bunch of New York Times crock”. You’re first argument went as follows:
A. NY Times is an irresponsible organ.
B. Kristof writes for the NY Times.
- Since Kristof write for the NY TIMES, he is irresponsible.
- Hence, what Kristof writes is false.
I have already expressed my reluctance to engage in a drawn out debate about the truth of premise A. But even if I conceded that A was true, I can’t agree that what Kristof writes is necessarily false given his association with the NY Times. Perhaps, it makes him a dubious source ( <>~RELIABLESOURCE as opposed to ~RELIABLESOURCE ), meaning we should be more careful in examining his statements. But is this really what you’re claiming? Working for the NY Times places you on par with the National Inquirer (i.e. ~TRUE 
)? Even if the NY Times, as you imply, has deteriorated from its glory days, has it really sunk as low as to become a totally unviable source of information and opinion?
You’re next, more serious argument, concerns itself with Dennis Ross. You have identified the main problem at hand for this whole issue: opinion! Even Ross an Mallay, both on the “same side” can’t agree on how to interpret what happened. But based on their accounts, we can be quite sure that Arafat, presented with a final offer said yes but expressed so many reservations it cast his yes in doubt. Doesn’t that mean that, with further talks, there could have been further progress? If I say “Aright…but I don’t like it”, does that equivocate my answer with a “no”?
Having already spent 1000s of hours trying to hammer out a deal, the Clinton Administration most probably threw up its hands and said: We’re literally leaving the Whitehouse tomorrow and he next guy is a Republican. And thing’s ain’t looking rosy for Ehud either. Let’s face it, there’s not going to be any continuity here. Time to call it quits, ladies and gentleman. Ah, that damned Arafat who just can’t give you a clear “YES”. It’s all his fault!
And did Bush Jr. lift a finger to abate the violence and get back on the peace track? No. I remember some commentator saying that it seemed as if Bush was unwilling to touch anything Clinton had done with a ten foot pole (my words, not hers). So, Arafat becomes the scapegoat for every one: the failed attempts of the Clinton Administration, Bush’s reluctance to get engaged and the Israeli desire for retaliation. Very convenient indeed.
Kristof’s claim isn’t that Arafat is a misunderstood angel. His previous commentaries certainly speak against that. I think he’s simply saying that Arafat never categorically rejected a two party state solution. Therefore, there remained a possibility of achieving peace through negotiations. Or, had both sides reached a point where the final gap could not be bridged? I strongly doubt it. Someone once commented that negotiating peace in the Middle East is like riding a bicycle. If you stop peddling, you fall over. This seems more like what actually happened.
Using Arafat has a scapegoat for all ills in the region has been extremely damaging for the peace process. Instead of focusing on what can be done, we’ve been busy pointing fingers at Arafat. Instead of always deflecting blame to the other side, all involved (including we here in U.S.), need to take a look at ourselves and see how WE failed peace. So I retract my question “is Sharon more to blame”. We all carry responsibility: The Israelis, the Palestinians and the (not always so) good old U.S. of A.
Interesting point, and worthy of a thread of its own. I really do not know how often an argument is the fault of 2 vs. how often it is the fault of 1.
Actually my intended point was to argue* against* the following:
C. The NY Times is a prestigeous newspaper
D. Kristof writes for the NY Times.
E. Therefore Kristof should be presumed fair and accurate.
This would have been valid reasoning 50 years ago, but, alas, no longer.
Anyhow, we both agree that Kristof’s opinion should neither be presumed accurate nor inaccurate. That’s why this is a good debate topic.
However, this description ignores the intifada. If Barak had ordered a campaign of mass murder against Palestinian civilians, inclding brutal, murderous attacks on children’s parties and religious ceremonies, that would have indicated that the talks were ended, wouldn’t it? That’s what Arafat did.
And, if Israel had preciptated a war by attacking Palestinian civilians, it would have been Israel’s fault.
In my opinion, Bush was right to let Israel counterattack. YMMV.
I think it was obvious that Israel would not negotiate peace while its citizens were being murdered. The continuing suicide bombings were a gap that could not be bridged.
The best thing Israel could do is to put Arafat against a wall and put a bullet in his head. Arafat has been a terrorist dog for the past 40 years.
Oy.
ethicallynot,
Both Ross and Malley agree that Arafat said “No.” with no counter-offer. They agree that if Arafat had come to CD2 willing to deal, then a deal would have been reached. Malley has a sympathetic hypothesis as to what was in Arafat’s head that led him take such a stance and assigns blame for Arafat’s posturing to Barak’s mishandling of the preamble. Ross is less sympathetic, as is Clinton. All are guessing.
I agree that the blame game gets us no where. But it is a long road back up to where CD2 was. What reasons do any of us have to believe that Arafat is willing to discuss anything other than getting everything he wants (except Israel’s destruction), no matter how unrealistic? I’d like to believe that such is possible. Give me reasons to believe.
Aren’t you the guy they gave a good whopping in the Pit? I’ll just ignore commenting further on your ridiculously inflammatory post…
Look, December, this has not been a conflict with out massive blood shed on either side. Sitting in a state armed to its teeth saying “We don’t attack civilians. Aright, perhaps there’s collateral damage sometimes. Sorry about that. No harm intended. Cheers mate!” is bogus. Neither side are angels. I just wish you would admit that. You’re argument “they started it” reminds me of the sandpit in a playground. What’s sad is that we’re talking about human lives here. Palestinian and Israeli. And American for that matter.
The claim that Arafat ordered the new intifada is at best contentious. I could argue that not preventing Sharon from holding a speech at Haram al-Sharif and then on top of that electing him as Prime Minister clearly indicated that the Israeli weren’t interested in peace anymore. Which I, by the way, don’t think is the case. But, it could be argued…
Don’t you see how you’re part of the infernal circle, December? With you’re kind of unwillingness to take responsibility for what has conspired, things are not gonna get much better…
Now, do you read you’re own links, DeSeid? Let me quote the Fox interview with Ross:
And here’s a quote from Kristof 's op-ed article:
CD2 was indeed a no. My comment referenced the meeting in the Oval Office on January 2, 2001. Now even December, who seems to prefer Ross as a source, should agree that Arafat never categorically declined a settlement.
I guess you can consider that saying “yes, but …” I read the “rejected every single one” and see “No.” But I see your point.
From Malley’s article, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380,
And Arafat still preferred the ongoing intifada. What did he think wasw going to result from that decision? What would we be looking at today if he had said yes? I think we’d be looking at a hopeful future with greater Isaraeli security and the building of a Palestinian state. But Arafat said no. Or mumbled.
But could did he categorically say “No” to any two state solution? No.
Could we create some explanations for these decisions?
Malley has.
And any hope for developing a peaceful solution rests on the spin that Malley gives. If Arafat percieves pressure from Arab nations to compromise and the Israeli side can come back near the point Barak had brought them.