09-18-2001, 08:21 PM
Intersting article in the New York Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Going beyond the main theme of the article (which is a historical context for the mistakes made be negotiators on all sides), I think the most interesting feature is how close the two sides are to peace, at least on the issues.
I've seen many posts here and on other sites claiming that the Isreali position extends no farther than a series of Palestinian enclaves in a West Bank that is still largely controlled by Isreal. That doesn't appear to be the end game the Isreali's were putting forth at the summit.
I guess my questions are twofold:
1) Are the Palestinians still reluctant to discuss permament status, and if so why?
2) Is the Isreali end game really committed to a fully sovereign Palestinian state?
What does everyone think?
Pat Charlton
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Going beyond the main theme of the article (which is a historical context for the mistakes made be negotiators on all sides), I think the most interesting feature is how close the two sides are to peace, at least on the issues.
I've seen many posts here and on other sites claiming that the Isreali position extends no farther than a series of Palestinian enclaves in a West Bank that is still largely controlled by Isreal. That doesn't appear to be the end game the Isreali's were putting forth at the summit.
I guess my questions are twofold:
1) Are the Palestinians still reluctant to discuss permament status, and if so why?
2) Is the Isreali end game really committed to a fully sovereign Palestinian state?
What does everyone think?
Pat Charlton