Originally posted by takeo
no, there's a big difference!
barak's offer was even a far cry of the rather unclear oslo-agreements, and didn't promise to give back the occupied territories, only scattered parts of it without real borders as any independant state.
of course Arafat should be elected as well during new elections, but I'm sure that Arafat is more willing to commit to the two-state solution than the government-sharon is.....
If the Palestinians/Arafat wanted peace they could have made a counteroffer to Barak like " We accept BUT... After 10 years of peace we get more land back to fill in territorial gaps.. after 20 yet more.... after 30.. Yet more/all";
as a confidence building measure that was needed and only earned by time.
Surely even you don't expect Israel to return to thje 1967 lines in exchange for an Arab Promise!
Surely The Golan heights is OFF the table as a Launching platform.
Resolution 242 called on the parties to Negotiate "secure and recognized boundaries", and recognized Israel's need for more defendable borders. Language proposed to return "all" or "the" terrirories was specifically rejected in favor of just 'territories' in recognition that new boundaries would have to be drawn.
(Lest I have to go tthrough the basics of 242 again)