This article somehow makes Ehud Barak’s generous offer disappear, an offer so generous that Bill Clinton became exasperated with the Palestinian side for rejecting it, for failing to make a counteroffer, and for starting an intifada in response.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/world/whose-holy-land-diplomacy-clinton-after-courting-arafat-feels-frustrated-latest.html

The article also fails to mention Ehud Olmert’s peace offer or Netanyahu’s six month settlement freeze.

The unasked question is why there is no Arafat or Abbas peace plan.

The article also fails to mention the rift between Hamas and the PA, a split that makes comprehensive negotiations impossible.

In the quarter century after Oslo, the Israelis have seen their hopes for peace repeatedly dashed and by and large have concluded their country was naive to have agreed to the Oslo accords. These are seen as faux agreements the other side viewed tactically as a stepping stone to destroy Israel.

The Palestinian nationality is an invention of recent origin that appears to have outlived its usefulness to the Arab cause. Many Sunni Arab states now see Israel as a strategic partner in the struggles to contain Iran and liquidate ISIS and Al Qaeda extremists. The Trump approach of penalizing intransigence instead of rewarding it, coupled with support to the Sunni Arabs in stopping Shia Iranian expansionism, may create a new dynamic that could produce the deal of the century. What we need desperately is to turn the page on the failed Oslo approach. Over a quarter of a century, from Clinton to Bush to Obama and Kerry, is enough to conclude it was a complete failure.

Mathematician, Statistician, Businessman, and Academic. Student of history, poli sci , and the Bible.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store