Next Show: ...loading...

Israel's Response to Terrorism

March 25, 2004

(.mp3 broadcast )
This is the Palestinian State rejected by Arafat at Camp David in 2000 without a counter-proposal. Had he accepted it — or the more generous maps later offered by Israel, the Palestinian State would be four years old now. The map is provided by the Palestinian Authority.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Mark Levine August 30, 2005 11:45 am

    You’re right that no maps have officially been published, but Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross has said that the map I provided (and published by the Palestinian Orient House) is far closer to being accurate as the last Camp David proposal than the map you cite. The Israeli proposal did NOT divide the West Bank into three separate cantons, and Ross has emphasized that this map you describe — put out by the “PLO Negotiations Affairs Department is inaccurate. It does not even accurately show what Israel initially proposed at Camp David, much less the final proposal or the proposal at Taba.
    As you know, Arafat produced NO counter-proposal at ANY time, forcing the Israelis to negotiate against themseleves as Arafat consistently said no, no, no…first to 83% of the West Bank, then to 87%, then to 90%, then to 94%, then to 97% (at Taba).
    See the maps and descriptions in this link:
    For more look at all the maps and discussions around Camp David and Taba, see:
    “MidEast Web” is no organ of the Israeli Government. It is a peace organization representing moderate Arabs and far-Left Israeli views. Nevertheless, it will not publish maps unless they are authentic and it explains where the disagreements lie.
    I’m afraid, Steve, you were fooled by the PLO propaganda. The whole “bantustan” claim is false — unless you think Clinton is a liar too.
    Why did Arafat reject Clinton’s plan? If I had no state at all and I were offered 94% of what I was seeking, I would take it…that is, if I cared more about my people than about money in Swiss Bank accounts.
    Arafat never wanted a Palestinian State, because it would mean he had to rule, clean up open sewers, fill potholes, build schools, and cut down on corruption. He preferred being seen as a glorious martyr.
    I don’t think most Palestinians would reject the maps that Arafat rejected at Camp David. Arafat should have put those maps to a vote.

  • Steve April 5, 2005 6:11 pm

    I happened to come across this 2004 page during research. I can’t believe that you are trying to pass off a map prepared during the Taba Negotiations as being the “generous offer” of the Camp David Negotiations. The map you provide a link to is clearly labeled. Anyone can visit the Orient House website (same link you have for the Taba map) and find their map of Israel’s offer at Camp David. Based upon that map, Arafat would have to have been in a chronic vegitative state to have agreed to and offer of a non-sovereign state into 3 distinct non-contiguous cantons. Mark Levine should admit to this incredible goof and correct the information on this page. After all, the page is almost a year old. You must have realized the error or fraud by now. And to all the other readers, you should be asking yourself the question of how you can trust Mark Levine’s research, if he is willing to contiuously insult your intelligence with such an obvious manipulation of the facts.
    For those of you that may not be informed, here is a brief synopsis of Taba. Please read and see why it should not be confused a bit with Camp David. In Tab the Palestinians agreed to the map that Mark Levin has presented.
    Following the breakdown of the Camp David talks between Palestinians and Israelis in July, 2000, and the subsequent outbreak of violence on September 28, the sides nevertheless agreed to continue talks during December and January 2001. Late in January, they met in Taba, on the Israeli Egyptian border. The government of Israeli PM Barak had but a few days of life left before the election that brought Ariel Sharon to power. US President Clinton was no longer in office at the end of January. The outbreak of the violence had made it unlikely that Israelis would approve any proposal of concessions to the Palestinians in a referendum. Nonetheless, both sides hammered out proposals that came much closer to each other’s positions than ever before. Israeli PM Barak suspended negotiations at one point because of a terror attack by a Palestinian group.
    No official summaries of the proposals were issued, but subsequent leaks provided some details. The Palestinians, according to Israeli sources, agreed to a map that would allow Israel to keep most of the settlements and about 4% of the territory. Palestinian sources have leaked a part of the Palestinian proposals and Israeli counter proposals dealing with the refugee problem, as well as maps proposed by the Israelis and bridging proposals by President Clinton in December 2000.
    At the conclusion of the talks, both sides issued an optimistic joint communique. Given the short time left to the Barak government, the lack of interest of the Bush administration, and the continuing violence, the proposals came to nothing. Both sides had agreed that the proposals would be binding only if they resulted in an agreement. The joint communique noted, however, that foundations had been laid for a future agreement. Following the talks, the Palestinians insisted that the proposals should be the basis for the next round of talks.

  • Jennifer Connors November 9, 2004 5:07 am

    Good Read

  • Mark Levine May 8, 2004 3:54 pm

    My discussion on Israel today was fascinating because it showed me the amazing amount of anti-Israel propaganda that has been absorbed by some left-liberals. Many Republicans like to point out how some on the Left are anti-Israel and that therefore Jews should support Bush. I am glad to say that most Democratic members of Congress are strongly pro-Israel, as is Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.
    You can agree or disagree on Israel’s tactics, but I am surprised by those that would question Israel’s existence. Remember: in the 1940’s, the Jews had literally no place to go, other than the death camps (America and Europe closed its doors during the Holocaust), while Arabs had more than 25 Arab States to choose from. Anyone who is opposed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish State has to explain where the Jews should have gone. And no, gassing the Jews I don’t believe is an acceptable option.
    Callers were surprised when I pointed out that 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries at the same time that 600,000 Arabs left Israel — and that Israel, which numbered less than 1 million at the time — took in these Jews while the Arab countries numbering over 200 million refused to let 600,000 Arabs become citizens in their countries. Arab countries put these Arabs (later to be called Palestinians) in refugee camps precisely so they would remain miserable enough to attack Israel. And the Palestinians have had every opportunity to get a state peacefully. But their leadership prefers on-going terrorism, death, and destruction to obtaining a Palestinian State peacefully.
    Proof of this, of course, is in the Camp David Maps. According to Arafat’s PLO — which controls the “Orient House” which Palestinians call their “embassy” in Jerusalem — Israel offered 94% of the West Bank in a contiguous area and Arafat rejected it without a counter-offer. According to the Israelis (and Bill Clinton), the offer was considerably more generous. But even if you look at the Palestinian map, it is clear that they could have had 94% of the West Bank and be currently living in peace in a state of their own if they did not enjoy violence so much.
    Take a look at this Palestinian map. If you had been fighting for half a century to get a state and were offered 94% of what you wanted, would you take it? Or would you strap bombs on to your children and send them to blow themselves up and kill Israeli children too?
    This Palestinian map tells you what they rejected. Instead of reproducing the map, I am taking you to the Palestinians’ own site so you can see I’m not making this up. And as I said, Bill Clinton and the Israelis have said Israel was considerably more generous (offering 97% as well as the holiest place in the world to Jews, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem).
    So if anyone tells you that the Israelis would only accept a Palestinian state divided into four areas with checkpoints, please let them know that they have been an unfortunate victim of a BIG LIE.
    Another fascinating misconception is the belief that Arab Israelis do not have the right to vote or other equal rights in Israel. Of course they do. Israel is a democracy. 10% of its Parliament is Arab. Arab voters have often been the decisive factor in Israeli elections. Arabs also participate in Israeli labor unions, including the largest one, Histadrut (kind of like an Israeli AFL/CIO). The official Israeli languages are Hebrew and Arabic, and all government proceedings are conducted in both languages (Israeli money even has both languages). The vast, vast majority of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel over living in a Palestinian State. Many serve in the Israeli army. Indeed, Israel has even freed terrorists from prison in order to bring home its Israeli Arab citizen-soldiers (such as Ron Arad) held hostage.
    If the Palestinians ever decide to give peace a chance, Israel will be waiting with open arms. But I fully support Israel’s responding to suicide murderers with an iron fist. And I also think it’s about time to build a fence.