- Aug 1, 2012
- 896
- 989
Israel appeared to have a genuine interest in peace post-Oslo for a brief moment (as did the Palestinians) but the far right simply had too much power and was not going to truly let it happen
I don't know Arafat's exact motivations (does anyone?) but it would truly be a world historical tragedy if the reason there’s still no peace is that he didn't want to give up his corruption gravy train
I do not understand this narrative and I find it very skewed as what is often conveniently left out of the story is what exactly these “offers” entailed for the Palestinians. Every single deal given to Palestinians has limited the sovereignty of the state to such an extent that it can not be genuinely regarded as independent. Furthermore, it has rendered the state practically ungovernable as a single entity.
Every single offer given to Palestinians has proposed a Palestinian "state" without the ability to protect itself whatsoever, no sovereignty over all resources, no sovereignty over the airspace, borders or the ability to decide its own international alliances without Israels permission. If your country could not protect itself, didn't have sovereignty over its waters and airspace, couldn't decide for itself, its international alliance, I highly doubt you would argue you had independence.
How could anyone accept a state where they don’t even have control over their own capital or not allowed to have their own military? This is how all of the “generous” Israeli peace offers play out by the Israeli and Western narrative. The majority of people who hear about this on the news have no clue what the parameters of the offer are.
Us Palestinians are glad Arafat and others never accepted those shady, scrap proposals.