Arafat ready to accept Clinton's 2000 peace plan.
June 21, 2002 7:57 AM   Subscribe

Arafat ready to accept Clinton's 2000 peace plan. "Clinton's plan had offered Palestinians control of most, but not all of the territory taken by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, and called for Palestinians to scale back their demand for the right of return of refugees, a move Palestinian officials said earlier this week they were willing to make."
posted by o2b (22 comments total)
 
How many thousands have died horrible deaths because he didn't take this deal two years ago?
posted by Argyle at 8:39 AM on June 21, 2002


How many thousands have died horrible deaths because he didn't take this deal two years ago?

Who cares - let's try to give up the vendettas and move on. Will Sharon be brave enough to take this?
posted by Marquis at 8:45 AM on June 21, 2002


I think that peace between Palestinians and Israeli will not be achieved by the movements of the 'leaders' (Arafat, Sharon and company).

It has to be something that comes from the people that live there. I've seen many TV news reporting that there are many Palestinian people and Israeli people that live along in peace on a daily basis. Only when people are willing to stop killing their neighbors or sending their sons to death (whether by serving the army or by killing themselves), it will be solid peace.

In the meantime, while I appreciate news like this, that try to show some commitment and advance of the process, I think it's still all empty speeches.
posted by rexgregbr at 8:58 AM on June 21, 2002


It will never end, I'm not being pessimistic, saying their religion on both sides are taught one will win eventually. Yes, I would like to here constructive feed as I'm lacking knowledge on the Palestinian side. I'm not baiting here, sad the the middle of the road are being run over. It is not natural to wakes up and say I want to die because I'm right(both sides). And how can our country, 225 years young, tell a society that has existed from the start. Maybe a policy of MYOB would work better.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:09 AM on June 21, 2002


Man, how annoyed would the current Bush administration and Conrgessional Republicans be if it turns out Clinton's plan is that one that works for the Middle East for now...

How long do you think it'll take Ari Fleischer to try and begin to spin it that it's really been Bush's idea all along?
posted by warhol at 9:20 AM on June 21, 2002


There's got to be a separation between religion and fundamentalism. It's not religion that kills people, but fundamentalism. And fundamentalism may not be only attached to religion, but to general creeds or principles.

I think that once your mind is not damaged by fundamentalism, you can get along with different people and different creeds.
posted by rexgregbr at 9:22 AM on June 21, 2002


good point rexgregbr, you made my comment a waste of time - Thanks, give yourself the tcs nobel prize.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:45 AM on June 21, 2002


Feint. Dodge. Parry.

Red herrings provide little nutrition.
posted by rushmc at 9:49 AM on June 21, 2002


warhol, would Clinton get the full credit, I thought there is more to an administration, than one man, unless you pull a Nixon. No bash here, I met him.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:54 AM on June 21, 2002


What an idiot. Does he think that now, with Israeli tanks about to blow his ass up, that accepting a defunct plan (one that he made defunct, btw) is going to stop everything? The situation has changed; there were no al Aqsa Martyrs back then, and Arafat had both an office an a leg to stand on. Now he's got stumps. And something tells me that neither the Israelis - just looking for an excuse to oust him - nor Bush - who's about to unveil his own plan - are likely to bite. Too little, too late. Too bad.
posted by risenc at 10:40 AM on June 21, 2002


I'd think this could be interpreted as a sign that Israel is winning. Not just in the obvious military sense, but in the grand what-kind-of internationally-brokered-deal-can-I-get sense. The Palestinian radicals and (to a lesser extent) Arafat would have you think that every attack Israel makes on their cities and camps helps their cause. This is perhaps the first public acknowledgemtn that htis isn't the case.
posted by gsteff at 11:01 AM on June 21, 2002


If the plan involves East Jerusalem or a right of return," it's a non-starter. Moreover, there's no one to negotiate such a plan with. Arafat has no clothes. And Hamas' contains bombs.

The Palestinians need to prove themselves collectively responsible, civilized and under control. Until then, no plan can really go anywhere.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:05 AM on June 21, 2002


If the plan involves East Jerusalem or a right of return," it's a non-starter. Moreover, there's no one to negotiate such a plan with. Arafat has no clothes. And Hamas' contains bombs.

The Palestinians need to prove themselves collectively responsible, civilized and under control. Until then, no plan can really go anywhere.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:05 AM on June 21, 2002


I'd think this could be interpreted as a sign that Israel is winning.

no, it's a sign that Arafat is losing. not necessarily the same thing.
posted by hob at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2002


That's fer sure. There are no winners in the mid-East conflicts.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:10 PM on June 21, 2002


Arafat has, according to King Abdullah of Jordan, lost control of the extremists (ignoring Al Aqsa and Fatah for the moment) which means that his offer, coming on the heels of the Israeli invasion, well, doesn't amount to much.
posted by swerdloff at 3:21 PM on June 21, 2002


The Palestinians need to prove themselves collectively responsible, civilized and under control. Until then, no plan can really go anywhere.

Ahem. If that test were to be applied to, say, the USA right now (by a government with limited sympathy), you think it'd pass?
posted by riviera at 3:56 PM on June 21, 2002


Ahem. If that test were to be applied to, say, the USA right now (by a government with limited sympathy), you think it'd pass?

That's a pretty empty statement, I'm sure I could find an enemy for practically any government in the world. So, tell me, would you rather live in a world in which Islamic fundamentalism or the Constitution of the United States determined your rights? I'm not saying either one is perfect but there is a HUGE gap between them. I certainly have NO doubt about which side I am on...
posted by RevGreg at 4:23 PM on June 21, 2002


There's got to be a separation between religion and fundamentalism. It's not religion that kills people, but fundamentalism. And fundamentalism may not be only attached to religion, but to general creeds or principles.


Sure there's a difference, but if religion breeds fundamentalism and little is done by the religious leaders to stop it, then they are liable for the actions they've inspired. Religious instititions can easily get away with racist speech and hate speech. Eventually someone is going to call their bluff that take their 9mm down the to abortion clinic, put on the dynamite belt, or gang up on a homosexual. Sorry, these events are just too common to pass off as a fluke.

Why isn't the religious community self-regulating the nuts it helps create? Or more importantly what would this territorial skirmish look like if it wasn't for end time prophesies or the jihad and promises of 72 vigins?

The religious time and time again have failed to control their own. They don't want to lose their political influence. Until religion is seperated from politics and power it will always contribute to ignorance and hatred. Most general creeds and principles don't have this kind of entrenched power and at least secular principles and creeds can be questioned unlike the unquestionable words of the gods and those who speak for them.
posted by skallas at 4:35 PM on June 21, 2002


So, tell me, would you rather live in a world in which Islamic fundamentalism or the Constitution of the United States determined your rights?

RevGreg, The Palestinians are not fighting for an Islamic state, any more then the founding fathers were fighting for a fundamentalist Christian state. I mean, Arafat's wife is a Christian. The PA is a secular organization.

I mean, would it kill you to actually know what your talking about before forming an opinion?


The Palestinians need to prove themselves collectively responsible, civilized and under control. Until then, no plan can really go anywhere.

You know, if the same standard were applied to zionists in the 1940s and before, Isreal as it exists today would never would have been created.
posted by delmoi at 5:53 PM on June 21, 2002


I mean, would it kill you to actually know what your talking about before forming an opinion?

Hmm, did I not speak specifically of fundamentalists? And which Palestinians are you speaking of, those who behave within the tenets of common decency or those who feel that jihad and martyrdom are the way to freedom? The Palestinians you are speaking about are NOT the problem - but they are also not making themselves part of the solution which basically makes them of no importance in the greater scheme of things. The problem is that Arafat has NO control over the fundamentalist factions and, therefor, he does not speak for those that ARE the problem. Since he does not, there is very little reason to care what he says - especially since he spent many years supporting terrorist activities himself.

You know, if the same standard were applied to zionists in the 1940s and before, Isreal as it exists today would never would have been created.

It wasn't. Your point is moot.
posted by RevGreg at 6:49 PM on June 21, 2002


You know, if the same standard were applied to zionists in the 1940s and before, Isreal as it exists today would never would have been created.

Given that the UK has very good relations with Israel, your statement is senseless.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:58 AM on June 23, 2002


« Older We wuz robbed.   |   China thrown off balance as boys outnumber girls Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments