Arafat wasn't the "sole culprit" for a deal not being signed but that's not my point. Of course it would have been better for everyone if Israel agreed to remove all their settlements, if Clinton/US were more reasonable and firm about some form of the right to return and put some more pressure on Barak. All parties deserve some blame on a deal not getting done, but that's not my point.
My point is the deal that was on the table that Arafat rejected. Even if it wasn't what Palestinians ideally wanted, that deal still could have materially improved things from what did happen culminating in the current situation. It's easy to see the internal logic of why Barak did not offer more and why Arafat rejected it, but that doesn't change the fact that the rejection looks like the wrong choice for the long-term welfare of Israeli and Palestinian civilians from where we sit now.
Just one example, I think reining in the settlements (even if not completely reversing them) would have improved the situation and incentivized more moderate policies moving forward. I think with even an imperfect agreement, the extremists would have been less empowered than they have been in the last two decades.
You seem to disagree and fair enough, we can agree to disagree. You seemingly believe that no agreement on the table in the past 30 years could possibly have improved things from where we are now. I'm afraid I have to disagree with that notion.
I think most neutral parties want some form of a two-state solution. The question is how to get there when you have extremists in control on both sides that don't want that outcome. For me, the negotiations of Camp David had a chance to realistically move things forward to a better place than where we ended up now. And where we are now seems like the worst of almost all possible outcomes.
There is no point to your "point".
You can't reasonably expect from the palestinian side, or any side for that matter, to agree to an accord that:
- Only gives them, at best, 97% of the 22% of their original territory.
- Allows Israel to control every single strategic road leading in and out of Palestine with the ability to close them at leisure.
- Takes away the most fertile and strategic region they're entitled to (hint: the Jordan Valley).
- Takes away the control of their borders.
- Takes away the control of their airspace.
- Takes away the sovereignty of what the Palestinians consider their legitimate capital (hint: East-Jerusalem).
- Allows Israel to build radar stations on Palestinian territory.
- Forbids Palestine to build any international alliance with any country, without Israel's consent.
- Forbids Palestine to have any kind of military force.
- Forbids the Palestinian refugees driven out during the Nakba to return to their homes.
- To top it all, the Palestinians will be forbidden to make any further revendication once they sign this incredibly generous accord.
And I haven't even touched on the settlements.
So tell me, in your infinite wisdom, how the fvck is that supposed to work? How the the blazing hells could it be considered as a reasonable basis for an independent, functioning state? How is that supposed to improve the long-term welfare of the Palestinians? Why the fvck would Arafat have put his pen on the paper without buying a bullet for his and his own country's head?
If you go by "might is right" and consider the living hell that Gaza was and currently is, as well the West Bank to a lesser extent, then sure, it's an improvement. However it's not quite the bar I'd refer to or what the Palestinians have fought for. Or anything decent if we go by international laws. It also would simply leave "Palestine" at the eternal mercy of its de facto occupier. And as far as I know, Israel doesn't deal with Gandhis.
Camp David never had a chance. It was rushed, ill-thought and ill-timed. None of the parties were ready to make the necessary concessions to make it viable in the long-term. Period. You and many others are living in La-la-land if you truly think that it was
the opportunity to shake things up and make them better.
But as you said, let's agree to disagree. I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine.
