Daily Herald Monday August 16, 2004
Longtime U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross finally explains in a new
book called "The Missing Peace" why the Palestinian-Israeli peace
he didn't intend his 840 pages of pro-Israel blather to be interpreted
this way, it's clear that what President Clinton tried to impose on the
Palestinians was not a peace plan at all. More importantly, Palestinian
President Yasir Arafat was right in rejecting the offer, knowing full
well the alternative would be endless Israeli military violence.
Ross describes himself as "an observant Jew." Like many Jewish
supporters who claim to want peace, the reality is they always start
from a position of anti-Palestinian bias. Rose's heart was clearly
always with Israel, even in this redact four years after the peace
His definition of "compromise" is tilted against the Palestinians.
Nothing Israel did prior to 1967 and only some of what happened after
was "negotiable" by his definition. That's called "the new realities."
The so-called "negotiations" were a deceitful imposition of
Palestinian surrender. Clinton's entire purpose was to protect Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak and push a "deal" in time for Barak to defeat
a challenge from Ariel Sharon.
It was a safeguard Barak demanded. If the peace plan failed, Barak
might salvage his career and blame failure of Arafat. That is the
Barak offered nothing of real substance. Arafat was asked to
surrender Arab East Jerusalem and accept that Israel would expand it's
already large confiscation of land around Jerusalem, separating it
physically from a so-called "Palestinian State."
Palestinians would get "Abu Dis," an obscure hill a mile west of
Jerusalem cleverly re-designated as being a part of Jerusalem.
The plan allowed Israel to keep the largest settlements reaching deep
into the West Bank, and there even was a clouding of Israel's insistence
of "security corridors, Palestinians said would severe the West Bank
into three "reservations."
The other lie was in exchange for keeping the specifically defined
settlements, the Palestinians would get "1 to 3 percent" of land on
Israel's side of the 1949 armistice line.
It was easy to claim otherwise. Neither Clinton nor Barak ever
presented Arafat with any maps that clearly defined the deal.
Barak's peace is a death sentence every Palestinian would be left to
regret. Better that Arafat reject the surrender and call Israel's bluff,
because Israel's refusal to genuinely negotiate a fair compromise
guaranteed violence would erupt.
Clinton lacked Jimmy Carter's genuine desire for a Middle East peace.
It was all a slick-Willy scheme to deceive Palestinians into formally
giving Israel all that it has taken by illegal military force. The only
compromise was on inalienable Palestinian rights.
Read Rose's book for yourself. It's filled with praise for Israel,
and ignores all of Israel's faults, which I think is the pure definition
of America's Middle East policy.
So what was Israel conceding?
Well, it's like a thief who steals your home and large backyard. With
the backing of a corrupt police department, the thief agrees to give
back most of the back yard and the garage.
Jewish leaders always lecture that the Palestinians cut off their
noses to spite their faces. They "never miss an opportunity to miss an
Very clever, indeed. What they prefer, of course, is that we
Palestinians cut out our hearts.
# # #