What Arafat turned down and Why?

national | miscellaneous | news report Monday April 22, 2002 19:30 by Ken Davids - media analyst

excerpts from Dennis Ross's interview on Fox Television with regard to Taba and Camp David.

What Arafat Turned Down, And Why
The following are excerpts from a Fox News interview yesterday with former American Middle East mediator Dennis Ross (the entire transcript can be seen at "http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html"). The topic was the Clinton peace plan that Arafat rejected:

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 [2000] by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state. On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs...

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give... He was supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be [Israeli] sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that... He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent. He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace... So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.... The Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons [cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state], completely untrue. It was contiguous."

Ross said that the Palestinians recorded every word of the offer, yet "to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available." Asked why Arafat refused this offer, Ross said, "Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself."

Ross also acknowledged that Arafat may have concluded that his violence was working:
"It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world. And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it. Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way."