Is it true, as I’ve read, that the palestinians were offered huge amounts of land elsewhere, and refused, or that NO arab countries would let them in at all, preferring to use them as a “see how bad Israel is?” issue?
I always thought the same. It should be done in the same way a corridor had been established between West-Germany and West-Berlin.
Besides, why should palestine, rather than israel be sliced in half (and currently rather sliced in 50 different parts) , anyway?
I had been completely unconvinced by this “95%” offer. If you look at the maps of the proposal (preferably detailled ones, if you can find them, it’s all the more blatant), the “95%” were dotted with large areas of settlement, crossed in all possible ways by zones under Israeli control, linking Israel and the settlements, the settlements between them, the strategic spots, the accesses to the border (and by the way, a large band of territory along the border was to stay under Israeli control also), etc… It didn’t look like the map of a country, but to a patchwork. Besides, “the symbolic part of greater Jerusalem” had nothing to do with east-jerusalem that the Palestinians are claiming. It was a bit of the outskirts that had been previously integrated into the “greater Jerusalem” by Israel.
Had I been a Palestian I would have refused to approve such a proposal. You just need to imagine your own country similarily handed back to you in the same way (say, in my case, france, but without this town, and this one, and this other, and these roads, and this region, and these areas, and the borders, etc…) to understand why.
This won’t suffice. Even forgetting about israel occupation and the other political issues, radical islamism thrive on misery nowadays (since it has at least some hope of a better life to offer. Sort of in the way communism used to have a lot of appeal). And as several posters mentionnned, the Hamas and other militant groups in other places don’t merely speak about a bright future. They work hard to actually help people in a meaningful way. They put their work, if not their money, were their mouth is (plus of course the appeal to religion and traditionnal values).
So, given the economical situation in Palestine, unless some huge unknown oil or platinium ore reserve is found right under their feet, I don’t expect the radical islamists to lose any ground any time soon, even if the PLA becomes a parangon of virtue and Israelis officials peacenicks.
Where? And by whom? Did Nepal or Argentina offered them a territory?
A large number are currently living in Lebanon and of course Jordan. But generally speaking, arab countries weren’t very willing to take Palestinians refugees in (with a special mention for the black september).
But besides the evil motive you’re presenting, given that they were opposed to Israel, why would have they helped Israel in creating a “fait accompli” where the Palestinians would leave the territory to the Israelis? If your country A is opposed to the taking over of country B by country C, should you let in the population of country B, so that country C, the policies of you were opposed to at the first place, would get its way?
Finally, why should arab countries let the Palestinians in? Why should they bear this burden? Just because they’re arabs too? If you want to offer new opportunities to Palestinians refugees (and I’m sure many would take it), rather than complaining about the unwillingness of the arab states to do so, you rather should lobby you own government to open the gates for them. The number of palestinian refugees allowed yearly in western countries is ludicrously small. If you compare it to the number living in Lebanon, taking into account that it’s both a very small and a quite poor country, I think we should rather close our collective western mouths about the fate of the Palestinian refugees (*).
(*) And for that matter, about all refugees, who in their overwhelming majority are living in poor third-world countries that probably could do without them, having already enough problems as it is That despite the weird belief of many westerners that they’re the ones letting in crowds of refugees. At best they help funding the camps elsewhere. At best.
OY. Clair. This issue has been debated before several times and how good the offer actually was is not my point (I’ve provided those cites before). Nor today is it how little Arafat was willing to work with the process (no counteroffers, etc). All that right now is quite moot. No offer like it is likely to ever be on the table again, any more than Israel is likely to go back o partition status or pre-immigration status. The time is past and a new reality has now ratcheted in place. My point was to take a stab at what would satisfy “average Palestinians” enough so as to undercut Hamas’ support. In this regard you are right: it will take a realistic view that another course is likely to offer more hope in a short term along with the PA both reforming itself and offering more on the ground in real time than Hammas does. That and charismatic pragmatic leadership that is more interested in a best possible future for the next generation than in maintaining current fiefdoms and righting percieved past wrongs no matter how much it hurts the average Palestinian today and tomorrow.
Why not?
At that time large segments of the Israeli public believed that there was a good faith partner to negotiate with who could deliver the goods. Few in Israel believe that now. It would be considered way too risky for security by almost all. Even if they could be convinced that Abbas had the best of intents, they have no reason to believe that he could deliver. There is resignation by most that there is no one to negotiate with. A unilateral process with a heluva big fence is the only option they see is left. (Other than those who take extreme right positions. But there are few very left who are Left of where Sharon has staked his turf.) Forever is a long time. Maybe in a generation or two, after the Palestinians have matured as an entity trying to run a country and care more about questions of economy and infrastructure than a few arbitrary square miles … but not for the foreseeable future.