Realityman, that's all really simple. On the subject of refugees, the Arafat squad wanted a face-saving furmulation while agreeing that there would be no   right of return in reality. Says Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's Foreign Minister in 2000, who was also involved in virtually all final status negotiations since early 90s:

"Ben-Ami: "Throughout the entire negotiation process, Arafat has not even once explicitly demanded the return of refugees into the borders of Israel. All he wanted is that we get him out of this 'trouble,' he asked us to put together some kind of a formula. He agreed, for instance, to the principle that some of the refugees be relocated to Canada and others to Australia..."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/benamidiary.html

The already cited piece from same source, Israeli Minister Ben-Ami:

"Arafat was never very interested in the refugees problem. He was much more concentrated on Jerusalem. I saw him once saying to the current president of the Palestinian Authority, "Leave me alone with your refugees. What we need is Jerusalem."

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

And again, Barak's own attribution of the failure of Camp David:

""Arafat's positions on Jerusalem are those which prevented the achievement of the agreement."

 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%20by%20Israeli%20leaders/2000/Statement%20by%20PM%20Barak%20on%20Conclusion%20of%20the%20Camp%20Da

How about these as proofs that it was LAND and SYMBOLS (Al Aqsa), not refugees, that prevented peace. And all that land and all these symbols that Palestinians demanded are located....u know where.. in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Realityman wrote


OF COURSE we we talking about refugees. YOU were talking about refugees. That was your SOLE BUT SOLE way of deflecting my point (apart from the pre-1973 war situation which, as I said, is irrelevant to the point made about the situation since 80s). You wrote:



Now u deny we were talking about refugees?

Can I make it more simple? I said, "give them 1967 borders and u'll get peace", you responded "1967 not enough, they ALWAYS demand the right of return", I responded with quotes from Israeli sources disproving your allegation (Ben-Ami: "Throughout the entire negotiation process, Arafat has not even once explicitly demanded the return of refugees into the borders of Israel.")

U keep accusing me of running away from my point. No, my point has been perfectly defended. Palestinian negotiators have demanded the 1967 borders (even agreed to substantial loss of the 1967 land) and a face-saving formulation on refugees. That's all they asked for. The 1967 border. Again, read my citations of Ben-Ami. Arafat demanded territory, not the right of return. And it was because of Israel's refusal to return territory that peace was not achieved. And Barak explicitly ascribed the failure of Camp David to Arafat's position on Jerusalem (that is, Arafat's refusal to allow Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem). You say: "ALWAYS... I repeat ALWAYS... they were accompanied by additional demands,...namely the so-called "right of return", and Ben-Ami says: "Throughout the entire negotiation process, Arafat has not even once explicitly demanded the return of refugees into the borders of Israel." Thus your sole point of disproving me is itself disproved by none less an authority than the then Isr Forgn Min. And u somehow accuse me of running.

Palestinians demanded nothing more that the 1967 land, and ALL negotiations broke over the 1967 land. That is the proof of my point. I've already given quotes, and I could continue giving quotes proving my point for an eternity. Which part is unclear to you? Are u saying they want LAND outside of the 1967 borders, or that they want to return the refugees where they once were? Which part of my point do you protest?

Disproving??  Now that's funny....

YOU've "disproven" my allegations... with quotes??  lol... Just HOW have you disproven anything with quotes??  As if there aren't many quotes to the contrary... How about factual evidence??..  Documentation?? .. showing no other issues matter or mattered then??  lol

You're correct in that I stated the "they ALWAYS DEMAND THE RIGHT OF RETURN"... And Camp David was no different... While Palestinian negotiators tentatively agreed PRIOR to Camp David to some concessions on the "right of return", ARAFAT NEVER AGREED TO THEM and came into Camp David with the long-standing Palestinian Position of making no concessions.


Let's look at what YOU apparently consider PROOF...shall we?:

then you provide us with opinions of others as to what Arafat may or may not have been interested in, etc..:

AND YOU CONSIDER THIS PROOF??  LOL... Just how many other quotes and factual information did you have to ignor to consider the above PROOF??  Just how many other quotes FROM THE SAME SITE YOU REFERENCED did you have to ignor to attempt to provide the quote you did as some kind of proof to back up your position?? hmmm

From the SAME FIRST SOURCE YOU QUOTED, which you apparently prefered to ignor:

And again... from the same source YOU quoted, (where you apparently saw what you wanted to see, and ignored the rest):

Interesting how you seemed to ignor those statements... hmmmm 

It should be noted that while Israel clearly did not agree to the "return of refugees" (with no limits as the Palestinians wanted), the Palestinians made no concessions as to limiting the number.

It seems, from the quotes above, from the same source YOU quoted, that the "right of return" issue was not agreed to or resolved in any form or fashion which made both parties happy....

That Arafat didn't explicitly "bring it up" in negotiations, DOES NOT PROVE that it didn't remain an unresolved issue and obsticle to any peace settlement... It apparently simply means that the negotiations NEVER GOT THAT FAR... IN FACT, there are numerous accounts detailing negotiations leading up to Camp David and after where negotiating points on the very subject of "right of return" were debated and discussed, proving (as with the documentation regarding the summit) that the issue was one of the issues which needed to be resolved..

That you go on to quote one sentence of Barak's opinion DOES NOT PROVE that it was Arafat's position on Jerusalem WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON THE DEAL DIDN'T GO THROUGH... clearly there were numerous other issues of disagreement and "opinions" by others who were also involved which indicate that the status of Jerusalem was only ONE of the issues which were not resolved.  As they couldn't get past that issue, the others issues which remained in the way were never dealt with.

And let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we?  You stated:



And your latest:

All of which (above) are either unfounded as there were numerous issues left to be resolved at Camp David... Had (hypothetically) the Jerusalem issue been resolved, numerous other issues, namely the "right of return" and "security" procedures for the eventual transition still remained unresolved.


It should be noted that Arafat was not involved in the negotiations, and never signed off on them or agreed to the terms.



Seems that more than one opinion exists Peisi... Seems that also there were clearly other issues than Jerusalem which remained unresolved (which clearly show your quotes to be wrong and unsupported in light of all the evidence, not to mention the documented factual documentation to the contrary).

Have you ever looked at ALL the talking points for Camp David as defined by both sides??  You might want to do that sometime, as it clearly shows that many...MANY issues which needed to be worked out for an agreement.  Most of those issues remained unresolved and that while Jerusalem was certainly ONE sticking point of the negotiation... MANY MANY others remained.


YOU made the above statements (as quoted), yet you've failed to produce evidence showing where Arafat EVER FORMALLY AGREED to reliqueshing the "right of return" or further claims to Israel land (ala "The PLO Phased Plan")...




And your latest:

No... everyone was not cool with the '67 borders... You have provided no evidence to prove or make anyone assume that simply by giving Palestinians '67 borders (without the other concessions they've never formally backed away from) that you'll have peace... And clearly there were many other demands made by the Palestinians other than 1967 borders...

If you want to continue to purposely ignor seeing that which you clearly don't want to see, this is the kind of situation you'll find yourself in Peisi.  Should it shock anyone that you've had to resort to quoting the opinions of Norm Finkelstein, a well known anti-Israel radical who was recently denied tenure and placed on administrative leave at DePaul Univerisity??  Probably not 

LOL... There you go, TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC again.  Did you conveniently forget WHY I quoted Ben-Ami (who you quoted above)??  The only reason I quoted him, WAS BECAUSE YOU QUOTED HIM...FROM THE SAME SOURCE... attempting to back up your statements... Interesting that when YOU quoted him, you took the words YOU chose to use at face value, but NOW you're trying to discredit his OTHER ANSWERS from the SAME INTERVIEW??  ... So apparently it's only when his (Ben-Ami's) answers appear on the surface to support a point you're trying to make that his words are valid??  lol  Point Made!

You made the statements... and you have yet to back them up:

YOU quoted Ben-Ami, attempting to back up your above statements which I've called on YOU to support (since you made them)... And in attempting to do so, "conveniently" and obviously purposely ignored HIS OTHER STATEMENTS... FROM THE SAME SOURCE YOU QUOTED, which clearly show you above statements to be in error.

You then went on to, apparently, ignor the rest of what I stated showing your above statements to be clearly in unsupported... as clearly OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES remained unresolved and stood in the way of peace.

Again... It was YOU who quoted Ben-Ami attempting (supposedly) to back up your statements I called into question above.  WHAT YOU PRETENDED NOT TO SEE (or maybe hoped I wouldn't look at) was his other clarifying statements on the SAME PAGE:

From the SAME FIRST SOURCE YOU QUOTED, which you apparently prefered to ignor:

And again... from the same source YOU quoted:

As I stated, everyone was not cool with the '67 borders... You have provided no evidence to prove or make anyone assume that simply by giving Palestinians '67 borders (without the other concessions they've never formally backed away from) that you'll have peace... And clearly there were many other demands made by the Palestinians other than 1967 borders.

I know you're anxious to get off this subject (were you actually have to back up statements you made) and on to other subjects of "opinion", where you can't be shown to be in error so easily (as it comes down to a matter of opinion).  But if you're not going to defend your own positions with facts (in light of ALL the available facts), then you become no better than your buddy "Moshe" who used to make up facts as he went along (as I pointed out and sourced so many times in the past), and run away/change the subject when his "facts" were called into question... Think about it.

They're YOUR statements... You made them attempting to support a point YOU were trying to make.  Either defend them in a logical manner, or admit you can't back them up and were in error... THEN we can move on to the new topics you seem so anxious to get to.

Once again...You're apparently purposely missing the entire point, and purposely ignoring that which you'd obviously prefer not to see.

You made statements as if they were fact... You've failed to back them up (and continue to attempt to divert the topic to other topics).


Again... Clearly NOT EVERYONE was cool with the '67 borders (as there were many more issues yet to be resolved)... Clearly you have NO EVIDENCE to support your statement that giving Palestinians '67 borders (without numerous other concessions) would bring peace (any better than any other borders)... And clearly the Palestinians have always demanded MORE than just '67 land.

I don't know that the point can be made any more straight forward for you Peisi...

The Palestinians have never officially backed off from the "Right of Return" demand, and have never stated or implied that the 67 borders (without NUMEROUS OTHER CONCESSIONS) would be all that they want.  It's fairly straight forward... And that being the case, your statements quoted above clearly unsubstantiated....



And again... The above statement is from the same Ben Ami you quoted from.  BASIC LOGIC.. If the issue wasn't agreed to, than it still remained an obsticle... proving your statements with regard to '"67 borders" to be "made up" assumptions not based on facts.


Really??  Than maybe you missed the FACTS regarding what happened at CAMP DAVID:


As I also previously stated with regard to the above: It should be noted that Arafat was not involved in the negotiations, and never signed off on them or agreed to the terms.

You have proof otherwise??  I'd enjoy seeing it.  (ie, A source verifying that ARafat did in fact agree to officially negate the traditional "rights of return"...)... Otherwise, as you continue to refuse to want to see, my case has been made.  Your quoted statements are without merrit.

Peisi... you seem clearly obsessed with twisting/bending the topic AWAY FROM your statements, and on to Camp David issues.  You seem intent on ignoring quotes which you prefer not to recognize, and basing your reasoning only on quotes YOU WANT to see... YOU made statements, now back them up already.

Let's try basic logic...shall we?  Maybe this will help you have an intellectual breakthrough or revelation (probably not..lol):


To make this statement, YOU would have to have evidence that EVERYONE was was ready to recognize Israel's right to exist within '67 borders and that everyone felt that a Palestinian State on the '67 borders (with no more claims to other lands) or other concessions was "cool"... You have to be purposefully ignorant to documented facts and numerous statements to believe such nonsense... purposely ignoring (once again) the other demands made by the Palestinians and failure of those demands to be negotiated away and agreed upon...


To believe such nonsense, you again would have to ignor all of the other demands, not to mention Hamas, their stated objectives, their control of Gaza, and Fatah's refusal/inability to deal with them and provide for not only their own, but Israel's security.  Hence, another ridiculous, unsupported statement.  While YOU may be fine ignoring FACTS, anyone looking at the situation logically and rationally would quickly realize that many issues remained unresolved...borders being only one of those issues.  This being the case, your statement is clearly ridiculous.



Here, again, you'd have to be purposefully blind to ALL THE OTHER DEMANDS the Palestinians have made, and continue to make... Simply ridiculous.

That you seem to want to continue to bend/twist the topic away from your statements, and on to more hypothetical topics such as causes and reasons for Camp David's failures should be obvious to anyone who's objectively reading this at this point.

As I asked before: If ou have proof otherwise??  I'd enjoy seeing it...
As you have failed to present any such evidence, it (being the "right of return issue") is (logically) still an issue... This clearly being the case, makes your above statement wrong and obviously based on your purposely selective recognition of facts.

LOL... I love the way you make this stuff up... "always was the understanding"??  lol  (And someone's quote to back that up...regardless of (or purposely ignoring) what others may state??  lol ... And then...what...quote one of the participants "opinions" as proof for this statement??  lol 

At this point you're clearly hopeless on these issues and on backing up the statements YOU made.... (Maybe Moshe and Untouchables buy it, but that's about where it would end"  This would lead one to believe that you'll say almost anything, regardless of what the might be said to the contrary.  You use one person's opinion as if it's somehow fact, and ignor other opinions to the contrary...

Clearly your hatred for Israel and willingness to excuse Muslim violence clouds your ability to look rationally at ALL the available evidence and make rational interpretations of that evidence.

How many quotes and facts did you have to ignor THIS TIME??  Seems to be an ongoing theme for you at this point, making debate with you worthless.

As I'm getting quite tired of stating (with reference to YOUR quotes): ... Clearly NOT EVERYONE was cool with the '67 borders (as there were many more issues yet to be resolved)... Clearly you have NO EVIDENCE to support your statement that giving Palestinians '67 borders (without numerous other concessions) would bring peace (any better than any other borders)... And clearly the Palestinians have always demanded MORE than just '67 land.

The Palestinians have never officially backed off from the "Right of Return" demand, and have never stated or implied that the 67 borders (without NUMEROUS OTHER CONCESSIONS) would be all that they want.  IF THEY HAD, you'd be easily able to source a formalized offer or concession (rather than opinions of what one side wanted, etc).  Further proof for this is easily available by simply reading "Palestinian Proposal on Palestinian Refugees" (January 22, 2001 Taba) which clearly was proposed AFTER Camp David, and CLEARLY is a proposal NOT even close to being ACCEPTABLE TO ISRAEL.
 http://www.mideastweb.org/taba.htm

From the same Ben Ami you keep quoting:



Need more evidence as to the '67 borders not being the only issue before, during, or after Camp David (with reference to what your quotes suggest)?



Then we have your quotes, you desperately seem to want to hold on to:

Anyone who looks objectively at Camp David, or for that matter any other peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would quickly realize that MANY, MANY issues between the 2 remain unresolved.  Borders, let alone, '67 borders, while certainly important, ARE ONLY ONE ISSUE and will clearly not, in themselves, bring peace.  To "pretend" (or wishfully think) that borders are the only issue...or that Hamas would quietly go away if Israel was to conceed '67 borders is, well, in a word, RIDICULOUS.