I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
one of my favorite 80's pins-let's kill all the extremists.
Its about time someone worked out a solution that is actually fair. It is telling how the likud prty and sharon react, Anyone watching the situation knew the do not care, hell they show a regular willingness to create tens and hundreds of casualties just to take a shot, not a guaranteed kill, just a shot at someone they dont like. Their "attempt" at peace has been a sham, this pisses them off because it is a deal that in the rough sounds both fair and workable for jews and arabs, more tan they have ever offered. Just like america tho, wait til the stories start breaking to smear Beilin and Rabbo. I can hear it already...... Hopefully this garners support, hopefully it sees some sort of implementation, anything would work better than the forgotten bush deal.
"What is true at home is true in diplomacy"....I stopped reading at this point...let me know how it turns out.
If they used the framework worked out by Clinton then BushCo will make sure its DOA regardless of the merits.
It's not so much "about time someone worked out a solution" as "three years since this solution was rejected by Arafat in the face of American and Saudi and Egyptian advice to take it." And while I'm no fan of Sharon, by some (current, not long-term) metrics his actions have increased Israeli security.
That said, this sounds like the way to go. I hope that President Clark and the international community can convince Sharon and PA to accept it.
Virtual peace treaty? Hell, a couple of bloggers could get that done in about 10 minutes and ratified by about 3,000 commenters. Who knew?
I almost hate to say this, but TF wrote a good, coherent article that was not....insane. I would like to think that just maybe he has recovered somewhat since going off the deep end after 9-11, but, the patient needs to be monitored. He may have a relapse.
Fried Man?
Sorry, but his recent history speaks for itself.
He has proven himself to be the sorry fuck that he is.
Bye bye, Tom
It's not so much "about time someone worked out a solution" as "three years since this solution was rejected by Arafat in the face of American and Saudi and Egyptian advice to take it."
If you really think that the Geneva Accord is the same offer as Barak's offer at Camp David, why is Barak so opposed to it?
In fact, the Geneva Accord is absolutely not a rehash of the Camp David "Generous Offer". It is instead a continuation of the later negotiations at Taba, which were based on the Parameters that Clinton drew up after the failure of Camp David. The Clinton Parameters were a much more reasonable basis for negotiation than the "Generous Offer", and both sides agreed that at Taba they were closer to a final agreement than ever before. In the end, the Taba talks broke down because of Barak's impending defeat in the Israeli elections, not because of any rejection by Arafat.
Whoa, somebody turn off the italics! Try again...
It's not so much "about time someone worked out a solution" as "three years since this solution was rejected by Arafat in the face of American and Saudi and Egyptian advice to take it."
If you really think that the Geneva Accord is the same offer as Barak's offer at Camp David, why is Barak so opposed to it?
In fact, the Geneva Accord is absolutely not a rehash of the Camp David "Generous Offer". It is instead a continuation of the later negotiations at Taba, which were based on the Parameters that Clinton drew up after the failure of Camp David. The Clinton Parameters were a much more reasonable basis for negotiation than the "Generous Offer", and both sides agreed that at Taba they were closer to a final agreement than ever before. In the end, the Taba talks broke down because of Barak's impending defeat in the Israeli elections, not because of any rejection by Arafat.
Score one for Mrs. Friedman
I think the most interesting thing about this article was that Switzerland funded the negotiations -- and I'm going to guess they didn't have a say in what was decided. They helped two men/groups who (1) wanted to try and solve this thing and (2) represented the actual countries involved, and they didn't push their views on the situation.
What a fascinating concept....
Diane, I haven't seen first-hand what Barak said about this, but I thought his position was that for the opposition to negotiate a peace treaty was slightly treasonous (which I'm somewhat sympathetic with - though on the other hand if it leads to peace who cares) and that the Intifada II showed that _more_ security guarantees were needed than originally sought.
Re Taba, it's true that the two sides had moved closer together. I believe that in part Arafat had "not-buyer's remorse" - anyway I recall a statement of his to that effect. But since (afaik) there was no clear statement of the Clinton plan it's hard to know how much Taba differed. In any case, the historical moment was lost when Arafat said no and got Sharon elected.
(To quote our fearless leader in his one smart opinion, I can't believe someone won't make a deal with two desperate people.) A clear statement from Clinton, Barak, and Arafat at xmas 2000 that they were reaching an arrangement while working out the last few % of land/returnees/security arrangements would have had a good shot at getting us to the place we may get to in the unlikely event this current plan is implemented anytime soon.
I think Freidman will support whoever is cutting him a paycheck whether it be bleeding hearted liberal or bigot minded conservative.
MYOB'
.
I think Freidman will support whoever is cutting him a paycheck
Yep. You got that right.
Friedman's been on the ball lately. Other than the slightly goofy suggestion that Israel and Saudi Arabia sign an accord. But in a way, it makes some sense.
Glad to have you back, Tommy! *sniff*
Even if you stole my term "fanatical moderate"!! Bastard! Copyright infringement!!
there was no clear statement of the Clinton plan it's hard to know how much Taba differed.
The Clinton Parameters are available online here. Also, the final state of the Taba talks was summarised in the Moratinos non-paper, which is available online here. And there is an excellent flash demonstration here showing how much Taba differed from Camp David.
I could just refer you to my blog item on Geneva, which lists useful links, but that would be blog-whoring, so I won't mention it. 
the historical moment was lost when Arafat said no and got Sharon elected.
Except that Arafat never did say no to the discussions at Taba. In fact it was Gilad Sher, the Israeli Chief negotiator (presumably speaking on Barak's instructions), who declared that the Israeli side would not finalise an agreement at Taba, as it would be unethical to conclude an agreement so close to an election. Arafat didn't have any say in that decision, and his negotiators have said repeatedly over the last three years that they have a mandate to resume at any time negotiations along the lines of Taba.
Nobody's hands are clean when it comes to the failure of the peace talks - not Arafat, not Barak and not Clinton - to try to pin it on Arafat is a gross simplification.
And I too would love to see a US President convince the PA and Sharon to accept the Geneva Accord. But bearing in mind that Yasser Abed Rabbo drew up Geneva with the blessing of Arafat, while Yossi Beilin got accused of treason by Sharon for his involvement, I think it's safe to say that Sharon will join Peace Now before he will ever accept Geneva.
(It's late and I'm sure to have screwed up some of those anchors. If the links don't work, here they are in full:
Clinton Parameters - http://www.fmep.org/documents/cl...rs12-23-
00.html
Moratinos non-paper - http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm
Flash presentation - http://www.gush-shalom.org/media...a/
barak_eng.swf )
You know when I really get mad? It's when my wife tells me I'm not helping around the house — and I have not been helping around the house.
Geez, he's not even looking for metaphors anymore. I'd say he's a column or two away from referencing his own bodily functions: "It's apparent that _________ is the stubborn ear wax buildup that can't easily be reached with the Q-tip of _________. And yet somehow the gunk must be cleared."
Diane, thanks for the links, will take a look. Note that re "historical moment" I was referring to xmas 2000, not Jan 18 2001 - see my "joint statement" statement. Re "details" I meant "what exact map A, B, and C were looking at" - I thought this was a continuing point of controversy. I see the Beilin/Rabbo map is a bit different in fact, though I guess not significantly.
I should note that I blame Arafat for the Intifada II (of course Sharon was somewat at fault too) - I've read that
instead of being a grass-roots movement this one was pre-planned - that its leaders have said they were looking for an excuse to start an uprising. This set up the circumstances making the Dec/Jan decisions so time-critical.
FWIW, I was just reading some European journalism which says that the current plan is much the same as the Clinton plan. They claim that in Jan 2001 Rabbo was saying Barak should be dragged in front of an international tribunal for war crimes, and that the Taba accords weren't worthwhile...
If you have access to the 24 Mar 2003 New Yorker article on Prince Bandar, I'd be interested in your opinion of it, esp. "Bandar believed that Arafat's failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake--a crime, really. Yet to say so publically would damage the Paletinian cause... Bush told Bandar that, unlike Clinton, he did not intend to intervene aggressively."
Ok, I hold the US Supreme Court in part responsible too.
Vachon....hold that thought...that bloggers could have figured out an Israeli-Pal peace deal....now take it to Baghdad. The administration's CPA and the Iraqi Governing Council need to put together an iterim govt. that really is Iraqi. They (and I) haven't got the slightest idea how to make it work. Maybe this could be done "virtually" in the blogosphere. Who knows?
On what happened at Camp David and Taba, I'd recommend a book called "Shattered Dreams" by Charles Enderlin. He spoke to all sides (American, Israeli, Palestinian, and others) and after reading it, I think any fair-minded person would blame all three sides--the Americans, the Israelis, and the Palestinians.
Yossi Beilin doesn't seem to think the Palestinians should have accepted Camp David. He says in the current November/December issue of Tikkun about Camp David that--
"Well, this was the most far-reaching offer by any Prime Minister of Israel to the Palestinian people. Having said that, I don't mean that the Palestinians could have or should have accepted it."
I don't expect to see Thomas Friedman quoting Beilin on that point.
Beilin goes on to say that what should have happened were more negotiations, not violence, while also criticizing Barak for pushing for a summit before negotiations.
i'll say it again: friedman isn't all that bad. i'll take a dozen of him over 1 brooks ANY day.
the country would be a pretty nice place if his ilk were running it.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
