What is Reddit's opinion of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth that you have used here.

2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth.

The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, <strong>The Missing Peace,</strong> and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.

The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
The <strong>Taba summit</strong> was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.

The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer. Both are true, both fudge the timing.

A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.

Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat. Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.

Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.

The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, <strong>with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews,</strong> ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)

Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration?

The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis. It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.

its unfortunate for you than you happen to be posting to me.

let me tell you about the 2000 deal. please read this. Drunk as I am is better than any shite you'll read from some agenda pushing bullshitter. I've been there and I know what went down.

Camp David:

Here's the truth of it:

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth the pro-Israel poster replyng to you post.

2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth pro palestinian posters use.

The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, <strong>The Missing Peace,</strong> and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.

The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
The <strong>Taba summit</strong> was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.

The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer. Both are true, both fudge the timing.

A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.

Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat. Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.

Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.

The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, <strong>with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews,</strong> ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)

Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were and biased towards Israel.
For example, Ross wrote regarding Palestinian/Jordanan border where Israel would be in control. &quot;<strong>This formula was designed to meet Palestinian symbolic needs while also responding to very real and legitimate Israeli concerns about security.</strong>&quot; but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan, their only access to the world, is an absolute necessity, not an symbolic need? It shows his sensitivity to Israels needs and blindness to Palestinian.

The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis. It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.

An interesting quote: <strong>&quot;If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David&quot;,</strong> Shlomo Ben Ami Israel chief negotiator and foreign minister

The End!

I'll tell u about the Olmert offer once youve digested this, tell me when you are ready.

I'm a avid reader of the Camp David articles and books,

Here's the truth of it:

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth the pro-Israel poster replyng to you post.

2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth pro palestinian posters use.

The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, <strong>The Missing Peace,</strong> and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.

The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
The <strong>Taba summit</strong> was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.

The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer. Both are true, both fudge the timing.

A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.

Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat. Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.

Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.

The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, <strong>with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews,</strong> ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)

Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration?

The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis. It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.

The End!

Thanks for reading and may I remind posters that the downvote button is for those posts that do not contribute to the discussion.

Well I'll give you a long, fully cited, answer and suppose get downvoted for not contributing to the discussion.

Here's the truth of Camp David:

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth /u/TomCoughlinHotSeat has used here.

2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth.

The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, <strong>The Missing Peace,</strong> and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.

The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state, Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer. more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
The <strong>Taba summit</strong> was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.

The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the later offer at Taba. Both are true, both fudge the timing.

A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.

Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat. Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.

Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.

The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, <strong>with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews,</strong> ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)

Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration? having all your borders controlled by another state is simply not unviable. Also the 9% Israel intend to retain included control of the West bank water aquifires leaving the Palestinian state reliant of Israel good will for water.

The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis. It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.

BTW The EU monitored Taba and based the talks on Clintons parameters.

For what it's worth. this is the truth of it.

There are two myths regarding camp David and Baraks offers.

1. Arafat was offered everything, the best offer ever, but kept saying no. This was later used by Sharon as the excuse to expand settlements, as Arafat could not be regarded as a reasonable partner for peace.
   This is the Israeli myth.

2. Israel offers were awful, the West bank and Gaza split into 4 cantons. A non-viable state. This was proof of Israeli bad faith as it would not allow a viable Palestine.
   This is the Palestinian myth.

The truth is well documented and all parties agree on what happened, but neither add any context that explains what happened. My sources are Dennis Ross's book, <strong>The Missing Peace,</strong> and articles I've read written by the Israeli Slomo Benami and Palestinian Hussain Aga, both Camp David negotiators. All agree on the facts but differ widely on value judgments.

The offer was what was it was claimed to be by the Palestinians, its right there in Ross's book, but that was the starting point for Israel, by the end the offer was of a contiguous state with a Jordanian border. Palestine would lose 9% of the West bank but gain 1% of Israel, also Israel would control Palestine border and airspace, and East Jerusalem would be largely annexed. That was the Camp David offer, more was offered later in Taba, and this further offer is often conflated with Camp David offer for propagandist reasons.
The <strong>Taba summit</strong> was as close to peace as the two parties have ever come. That's a good Wiki on it should you care to look. ( Barak pulled out of that negotiation to fight an election that he lost.) Both sides think they were 6 weeks from Peace. Sharon nullified the talks.

The Palestinian myth focus's on the first offer, The Israeli myth on the 5 month later offer. Both are true, both fudge the timing.

A thumbnail sketch of the Camp David talks.

Barak wanted a Short sharp negotiation, he watched Rabin's political capitol drain away and did not want a repeat. Arafat wanted pre-negotiation with final talks after outline agreements made.

Barak had a plan that Ross went along with it. The plan was, A high stakes summit, A low offer, after 2 days Arafat would be under pressure to get something out of the summit, then make a offer Arafat would find acceptable. The US agreed to go along with this.

The trouble was the Palestinians would not play ball. Their position could be thought of as this, if you have a car worth $11,000. and some one makes an offer of $2000 you do not start haggling from there as if that is your start point its unlikely you'll get close to $11,000. If you start haggling at $9,000, you'll get closer. So Palestinians simply would not even start negotiating. They also were very aware that is was a Israel + USA v Palestinians, <strong>with all the America advisers being pro-Israel Jews,</strong> ( Ross was AIPAC's policy wings chief of staff.)

Thus the no's. This angered the Americans. "Why can't you start haggling?" they asked, "Why are their tactics OK and mine not" was the Palestinian reply.
The Americans shuffled back and forth, "the time for games was over start talking" said Ross. But the whole exercise was an Israeli game with the US going along with it.
Each time the Americans came back with a offer they said, this is the final offer for starting, but each time the Palestinians said "No" the came back with a better offer. This made them look complicit with the Israeli's which they were.
For example, Ross wrote "I will always side with Israel strategic necessities over Palestinian aspirations." ( something like that.) but surely for Palestine controlling your own border with Jordan is an absolute necessity, not an aspiration?

The Clinton Parameters after this and the Taba talks based on them were much better. This is what the US should have done in the first place, present what they though was a reasonable deal and got the others to sign up and discuss it. Dennis Ross was incapable of pressurizing the Israelis. It would be like having your mother-in-law brokering your divorce. She's not going to be able to pressurize her daughter in favor of you.