Editor,
Regarding the tribute to Yasser Arafat, I can say I can appreciate his overlooked endeavors. However, to say that signing the Camp David offer would have been a stab in the back is a glib simplification.
Arafat simply rejected the offer. He did not counteroffer or put forth any proposals of his own. Furthermore, the Camp David offer would at least have opened up a framework for future negotiations. While the deal was not perfect, it would have been a first step and was probably more generous than even the disengagement plan of Ariel Sharon.
Also, how is it feasible to allow the refugees to return without compromising Israel's territorial integrity? And are we referring to the refugees who were displaced due to the events that took place in 1947-48 or the refugees who were casualties of the Six-Day War?
It is reasonable and feasible to completely withdraw from the occupied areas and to allow for a sovereign state of Palestine and respect for the territorial integrity thereof. It is not a realistic aim to allow 3.77 million Palestinians - the combined populations of Gaza and the West Bank - into Israel proper unless there is some form of unification or commonwealth which creates a single political entity - an action that is not likely to happen at any time this century.
Lastly, from 1949-67, the Gaza Strip was not an independent Palestinian entity. It was governed by Egypt, while the West Bank was annexed by Jordan following the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war - I know that to claim otherwise makes good copy, but it is not good scholarship.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Andy Watson
Daily Lobo reader
