In response to Manny Benhamou’s interesting and not too accurate letter, I would like to take this chance to clarify one of the issues that he raises — that of the Camp David II agreements so often used as an attempt to continuously discredit the Palestinians (“Palestinian people victims of bad leaders,” Dec. 4, pg. 6).
The way Israelis argue that Yassir Arafat was offered 95 percent of the West Bank is misleading. According to their proposal, Israel would withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. However, the West Bank would be divided into two areas — north and south, with Israel controlling the route in between.
Furthermore, Israel wanted control of the Trans-Samaria highway and the Tel Aviv-Amman road, which would further divide the West Bank into three separate and unconnected cantons. In total, there would be four separate areas: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Israel would seize control of vital West Bank territory, which included most of the area’s illegal settlements and the region’s most important water aquifers.
On the other hand, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert. But what did that translate to? A meager one-tenth of the size of the land it would annex from the Palestinians that, rather interestingly, was reported to include a former toxic waste dump.
Palestinians would be forced to cross Israeli territory every single time there is any movement of labor or goods from one of the areas of the West Bank to another because of the way the skewed land swap and the division with bypass roads. They would not have access to their international borders — Israel would keep indefinite control over the Jordan Valley at the West Bank eastern border. Access to the Egyptian border in Gaza is denied. Therefore, on both sides, from without and within, the Israelis would determine Palestinian movement.
Israel would keep the above mentioned controversial bypass roads, which would divide the so-called Palestinian state further. The purpose of those roads is to connect Israel proper with its illegal West Bank settlements. Those are available only to Israelis.
Palestinians would not have access over East Jerusalem. More accurately, they would have control over separated neighborhoods with an overall Israeli control over the area. This translates to nothing more than a ghetto. Last but not least, Israel would accept no legal or moral responsibility for the millions of Palestinian refugees.
Let us not forget that the reason for this ending this whole conflict is to bring about security for Israel and end the occupation and its devastating effects on Palestinian society. Nevertheless, the so-called “generous” offer made by the Israelis is a mockery of the fair compromise expected on both sides, which allows for only the security of Israel while permanently locking into place Israeli occupation and making it legal. However, many times the argument of generosity is made that does not remove the fact that the proposal would enable a greater and stronger Israeli hold over Palestinian lives.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
