coral100cor
11-18-2004, 10:06 AM
The voices of the brave
By Alexander Yakobson
"Welcome. He was missed. He is a brave leader who broke taboos on the way to reconciliation."
This is how Jibril Rajoub commented in an interview on Ehud Barak's return to politics, published in Kol Ha'ir (November 5).
This must be the most favorable comment to be published in the Israeli media about Barak's return. Of course, Rajoub is no authority when it comes to evaluating Barak as a politician. However, his statement raises the question why, if indeed Israel's prime minister in the year 2000 was a brave leader who broke taboos on the way to reconciliation, did it end not with peace but with a terrible war?
Rajoub was asked whether the intifada was necessary, and he replied: "I have reservations about what happened. It is a pity things happened as they did; I said as much to Arafat."
Rajoub refused to disclose the content of his criticism, but it is not difficult to guess the gist of it.
Rajoub's statement goes further than the criticism directed at "the armed intifada" - which is shared by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) - and indicates the kind of proposals presented to the Palestinians in 2000. In recent years, there have been Palestinian voices criticizing Arafat for missing the opportunity to make peace. For example, his rejection of the "Clinton's parameters" - an improved version, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, of the Camp David proposals that Clinton presented toward the end of his term.
However, I also had a chance to hear the comments of a senior Palestinian official who was present at the Camp David proposals themselves. A few weeks before the intifada erupted I took part in a tour in Gaza, organized by the Council for Peace and Security, during which we met senior Palestinian Authority official Sufian Abu Zaida.
His words were filled with optimism. "Today," he said, "I am completely convinced that we are heading toward peace.
"Before Camp David I wasn't so optimistic. But today the parties' positions are so close, the remaining differences are so small and unimportant compared to the tremendous progress we have made at Camp David" - he held two fingers together to show how minute the differences were - "that it is simply impossible for the sides not to overcome them. It is not so terrible if we didn't succeed in solving all the problems at Camp David. The main thing is that the negotiations were resumed, the parties are continuing their talks and trying to solve the controversies, and I'm sure that soon we shall reach an agreement."
This statement was made in Gaza on the eve of the outbreak of the intifada. Since then, we have heard a number of times from Israelis that in fact Barak did not offer the Palestinians at Camp David a viable independent state, and that any self-respecting Palestinian would have had to reject such proposals - although there were members of the Palestinian delegation who responded favorably to the mediating proposals raised by Clinton and accepted by Barak at the end of the conference. We have also heard that the Palestinians resorted to violence only after they despaired of any chance of obtaining independence by peaceful means.
Every time I hear this, I recall Sufian Abu Zaida's two fingers held closely together demonstrating how close we were to peace. Those trying to vindicate Arafat's behavior at Camp David and afterward must deem it necessary to prevent the Israeli public from despairing of the chance for peace. This is a big mistake.
First, we should tell ourselves and the Israeli public the truth. Second, the attempts to absolve Arafat did not have a chance. It is the brave voices of the Palestinians complaining of the missed opportunity to obtain peace for their nation by peaceful means that provide some hope that now, after Arafat's demise, there will be someone to talk to about stopping the fighting and reaching a political settlement.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503070.html
By Alexander Yakobson
"Welcome. He was missed. He is a brave leader who broke taboos on the way to reconciliation."
This is how Jibril Rajoub commented in an interview on Ehud Barak's return to politics, published in Kol Ha'ir (November 5).
This must be the most favorable comment to be published in the Israeli media about Barak's return. Of course, Rajoub is no authority when it comes to evaluating Barak as a politician. However, his statement raises the question why, if indeed Israel's prime minister in the year 2000 was a brave leader who broke taboos on the way to reconciliation, did it end not with peace but with a terrible war?
Rajoub was asked whether the intifada was necessary, and he replied: "I have reservations about what happened. It is a pity things happened as they did; I said as much to Arafat."
Rajoub refused to disclose the content of his criticism, but it is not difficult to guess the gist of it.
Rajoub's statement goes further than the criticism directed at "the armed intifada" - which is shared by Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) - and indicates the kind of proposals presented to the Palestinians in 2000. In recent years, there have been Palestinian voices criticizing Arafat for missing the opportunity to make peace. For example, his rejection of the "Clinton's parameters" - an improved version, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, of the Camp David proposals that Clinton presented toward the end of his term.
However, I also had a chance to hear the comments of a senior Palestinian official who was present at the Camp David proposals themselves. A few weeks before the intifada erupted I took part in a tour in Gaza, organized by the Council for Peace and Security, during which we met senior Palestinian Authority official Sufian Abu Zaida.
His words were filled with optimism. "Today," he said, "I am completely convinced that we are heading toward peace.
"Before Camp David I wasn't so optimistic. But today the parties' positions are so close, the remaining differences are so small and unimportant compared to the tremendous progress we have made at Camp David" - he held two fingers together to show how minute the differences were - "that it is simply impossible for the sides not to overcome them. It is not so terrible if we didn't succeed in solving all the problems at Camp David. The main thing is that the negotiations were resumed, the parties are continuing their talks and trying to solve the controversies, and I'm sure that soon we shall reach an agreement."
This statement was made in Gaza on the eve of the outbreak of the intifada. Since then, we have heard a number of times from Israelis that in fact Barak did not offer the Palestinians at Camp David a viable independent state, and that any self-respecting Palestinian would have had to reject such proposals - although there were members of the Palestinian delegation who responded favorably to the mediating proposals raised by Clinton and accepted by Barak at the end of the conference. We have also heard that the Palestinians resorted to violence only after they despaired of any chance of obtaining independence by peaceful means.
Every time I hear this, I recall Sufian Abu Zaida's two fingers held closely together demonstrating how close we were to peace. Those trying to vindicate Arafat's behavior at Camp David and afterward must deem it necessary to prevent the Israeli public from despairing of the chance for peace. This is a big mistake.
First, we should tell ourselves and the Israeli public the truth. Second, the attempts to absolve Arafat did not have a chance. It is the brave voices of the Palestinians complaining of the missed opportunity to obtain peace for their nation by peaceful means that provide some hope that now, after Arafat's demise, there will be someone to talk to about stopping the fighting and reaching a political settlement.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503070.html