 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
|
|
 30-06-2003 06:58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Saudi Ambassador in Interview to The New Yorker: "Arafat's refusal was criminal"
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
This is taken from the New Yorker March 24 edition, as quoted in a PDF by the Saudi Foreign Ministry.
It's a cover about the Saudi Ambassador to the USA, Bandar bin Sultan.
He describes that
Arafat had the full backing of the Arab world to make a deal
Arafat lied to everyone, including Clinton, the Saudis and Egyptians about his actions and what he was promised
Arafat renounced everything he has got, contrary to the position of his entire staff of aids.
quote:
...
Clinton, who continued to apply his considerable energy to finding a Middle East solution, came to believe, in December of 2000, that he had finally found a formula for peace; he asked once more for Bandar's help. Bandar's first reaction was not to get involved; the Syrian summit had failed, and talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, in July, had collapsed. But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar the President's talking papers Bandar recognized that in its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories; all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.
Arafat told Crown Prince Abdullah that he wanted Bandar's help with the negotiations. "There's not much I can do unless Arafat is willing to understand that this is it," Bandar told the Crown Prince.
On January 2,2001, Bandar picked up Arafat at Andrews Air Force Base and reviewed the plan with him. Did he think he could get a better deal? Bandar asked. Did he prefer Sharon to Barak? he continued, referring to the upcoming election in Israel. Of course not, Arafat replied. Barak's negotiators were doves, Bandar went on, and said, "Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?" Bandar added, "We've always said to the Americans, 'Our red line is Jerusalem. You get us a deal that's O.K. on Jerusalem and we're going, too.'"
Arafat said that he understood, but still Bandar issued something of an ultimatum: "Let me tell you one more time. You have only two choices. Either you take this deal or we go to war. If you take this deal, we will all throw our weight behind you. If you don't take this deal, do you think anybody will go to war for you?" Arafat was silent. Bandar continued, "Let's start with the big country, Egypt. You think Egypt will go to war with you?" Arafat had had his problems with Egypt, too. No, he said. "I'll prove it to you, just to confirm," Bandar went on. Bandar called the Egyptian Ambassador. Bandar reported that the Egyptian Ambassador, who was to join them shortly, was willing to support the peace process. "Is Jordan going to go to war? Syria go to war? So, Mr. Arafat, what arc you losing?"
When Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian Ambassador, joined them, at the Ritz-Carlton, Bandar repeated much of his advice. Ararat said that he would accept Clinton's proposal, with one condition: he wanted Saudi Arabia and Egypt to give him political cover and support. Bandar and Fahmy assured him that they would, and Arafat left for the White House.
Arafat was supposed to return to Bandar's house after his meeting with Clinton and, with the Egyptian Ambassador present, call the Crown Prince and President Mubarak. After three hours, when Arafat still hadn't shown up, the Egyptian Ambassador told Bandar that something must have gone wrong. Bandar, too, was worried and called Arafat's security detail. Arafat had left the White I louse twenty minutes earlier, he was told, and was back at the Ritz. When Bandar called, Arafat said that he needed to talk to him at once. George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was on his way to the hotel to discuss the plan, and Arafat was then supposed to return to the White I louse. Bandar, accompanied by the Egyptian Ambassador, hurried to the Ritz.
Arafat said that the meeting with Clinton had been "excellent," but Bandar did not believe him; he thought that Arafat's staff looked as if they had just come from a funeral. The Egyptian Ambassador later privately remarked that Arafat looked dead. Bandar asked Arafat if he wanted to talk to the Crown Prince or President Mubarak. No, Arafat replied. He said that he'd had a great time with the President, but the meeting had turned sour when Dennis Ross joined them. Yet, he went on, he and Clinton were in agreement. Bandar, concealing his disbelief, said that was good news. Soon after this exchange, Bandar got a note from a security officer, which said, "Urgent. Call the President." In the corridor, Bandar called the White House and reached Berger. "Congratulations," Bandar said, loudly and sarcastically, for he knew by then that the talks had failed. On what? Berger asked. "Arafat is telling me you guys have a deal." Not true, Bcrgcr said, adding that he and Clinton had made it clear to Arafat that this was his last chance. Please, Berger said, tell Arafat that this is it. "It's too late," Bandar recalls saying. "That should have happened with the White House, not with me." (A spokesman for Clinton recalled, "At one point, [Clinton] said, 'It's five minutes to twelve, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to lose the best and maybe the only opportunity that your people will have to solve this problem on satisfactory grounds by not being able to make a decision.'... The Israelis accepted. They said they had reservations and Arafat never accepted.")
Bandar believed that the White I louse had hurt its cause by not pressing an ultimatum. Arafat, though, was committing a crime against the Palestinians - in fact, against the entire region. If it weren't so serious, Bandar thought, it would be a comedy. He returned to Arafat's room and sat down, trying to remember: "Make your words soft and sweet." Bandar began, "Mr. President, I want to be sure now. You're telling me you struck a deal?" When Arafat said it was so, Bandar, still hiding his fury, offered his congratulations. His wife and children were waiting for him in Aspen, he said, and he wanted to go. Bandar could see the life draining out of Arafat. He started to leave, then turned around. "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime." When Bandar looked at Arafat's staff, their faces showed incredulity.
The next evening, a White House spokesman said that Arafat had agreed to accept Clinton's proposals, with reservations, only as the basis for new talks. Arafat said later that he had not been offered as much as had been described. When Bandar told all this to the Crown Prince, Abdullah was surprised, particularly about the offer on Jerusalem. A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandars description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. Later still, the Crown Prince told Bandar he was shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity, and that he had lied to him about the American offer. Bandar told associates that it was an open secret within the Arab world that Arafat was not truthful. But Arafat had them trapped: they couldn't separate the cause from the man, because if you attacked the man you attacked the cause. "Clinton, the bastard, really tried his best," Bandar told me last week when we met at his house in McLean. "And Barak's position was so avant-garde that it was equal to Prime Minister Rabin" - Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in November, 1995. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer."
Before the outcome of the 2000 election was settled, Bandar had asked George II. W. Bush to go pheasant shooting with him at an estate that he owns in England. It was to be a kind of Desert Storm reunion. **** Chcney had accepted; so had former Secretary of State James Baker, the former national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft, and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the U.S. Central Command during the Gulf War. But when the shooting party arrived, on November 14th, Chcney had dropped out, as had Baker, who was in Florida managing the recount battle. A month later, when Al Gore conceded, Bandar felt that it was a victory not only for the Bush family but for Saudi Arabia. "Happy days arc here again," one of his aides said, almost singing the words, when I saw him at the Saudi Embassy shortly after Bush's Inauguration.
In Saudi Arabia, great things were ex pected of George W. Bush. He was the son of the American with the most iconic status in Saudi Arabia, and the team that he had assembled vis-a-vis the Middle East was considered first-rate: Powell, Cheney, and Tenet, a Clinton Administration holdover who had Bandar's endorsement. There were people with access to Bush who had deep experience in the region: his father, Scowcroft, James Baker.
But as violence in the Middle East intensified and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of the peace talks, Bandar began to worry. The Arab world was watching Al Jazeera, the satellite television network, which was constantly showing images of Israeli soldiers and suffering Palestinians. Bandar understood as well as anyone why Bush did not want to get involved. It was a mess, and Bush made it clear that he had no prestige to waste. Bandar was particularly angry with Arafat because if he publicly defended Barak's account it would make him sound like an apologist for Barak and Israel. "I was there. I was a witness. I cannot lie," he said privately.
Ariel Sharon was elected in February of 2001, and, according to a Saudi source, Arafat later said that Sharon had sent his son to say that Barak's deal was off the table; Sharon, however, could envision a process whereby the Palestinians might end up with forty-five per-cent of the occupied territories, but not Jerusalem. Isn't that a great starting point? Arafat reportedly said. Bandar, when he heard that, was incredulous.
...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Siro, I don't understand... that crucial meeting with Clinton isn't covered in detail. Arafat claims that what he was offered wasn't all that was promised... I don't see anyone contesting that.
If he had gone to Washington and been told "well, we said $30 billion but we meant $3 billion, and yes, 97% oh dear, we meant 9%" I for one can see why he didn't accept.
I'm not saying the figures or reasons I've given are accurate - but if he was betrayed at the last minute, his actions make some kind of sense. Are there records of that meeting?
If not, WHY NOT?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Cruddy, The text speaks of one deal, which has been shown to Bandar and does not specify another deal.
If such was the case and there were serious discrepancies, this would ultimately have come up in discussions and in this article.
The assumption, that Clinton had a set of papers with exaggurated figures to show to the Saudis, and another real one to show to Arafat, is rather bold and unrealistic in my view. Not only would such a thing not pass with Arab leaders (as they no doubt would have been informed eventually on what Arafat had signed), it would have been the cause of a major fall in American's international status.
Furthermore, Clinton with softer words, and Denis Ross with blunter language, all blamed Arafat.
Ben-Ami, Israeli's Foreign Minister at the time wrote in his diaries of the talks, that days after the last summit, he phoned Arafat's aids and suggested that the current deal ("The Clinton Paper" as it was called) be formally accepted as a binding paper for both sides, for the start of new negociations in the future (Meaning: Israel commits to everything written there as a starting point in future negociations).
According to Ben Ami's diaries, the Palestinian chief delegate replied: "I'm sorry. The boss doesn't want to cut the deal.".
Ben Ami is a very decent person, a known dove and hardly a revisionist.
Also, take note of this:
quote:
Arafat later said that Sharon had sent his son to say that Barak's deal was off the table; Sharon, however, could envision a process whereby the Palestinians might end up with forty-five per-cent of the occupied territories, but not Jerusalem. Isn't that a great starting point? Arafat reportedly said. Bandar, when he heard that, was incredulous.
|
There is no way that the Clinton Paper, issued after camp david, right before Israeli elections, with far more concessions, included a deal that would make Arafat happy, in comparison, with what he got from Sharon (45% !!! )
And of this:
quote:
Arafat said later that he had not been offered as much as had been described. When Bandar told all this to the Crown Prince, Abdullah was surprised, particularly about the offer on Jerusalem. A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandars description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. |
It is hard for me to envision, that Clinton who wanted to leave his office with a bang, would do anything less than the maximum he could, to please Arafat.
It is also hard for me to envision, that had he and his entire office taken the position of lying, even after the occassion, and blaming arafat, that the Saudis would sooner believe them rather than Arafat.
Also notice the contrast Bandar draws between Arafat, and Arafat's delegation all of whom seem to comprehend what their leader had just rejected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The assumption, that Clinton had a set of papers with exaggurated figures to show to the Saudis, and another real one to show to Arafat, is rather bold and unrealistic in my view. Not only would such a thing not pass with Arab leaders (as they no doubt would have been informed eventually on what Arafat had signed), it would have been the cause of a major fall in American's international status.
|
Without going into further detail, that's what I'm saying COULD have happened... Clinton wanted a signed deal with a few changes but Arafat didn't want to sign a deal with those changes and so refused to sign.
It's an alternative explanation for what happened... and all the Clinton admin had to do to prove it (and discredit Arafat) was release a transcript of the meeting.
They didn't. Why didn't they? Why hasn't the following govt done so?
What are they hiding? Or maybe there ISN'T a record... Which makes it even more doubtful that Clinton wasn't backstabbing Arafat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
Then in such case the judgement comes down to character judgement.
If Saudi officials, pro-Palestinians, Israeli's staunch enemies, automatically believe Clinton, and discredit Arafat as a liar - who would you believe?
Let me put it this way.
If two people are arguing over who lied, and the best friend of one person says that though he is sympathetic, he is convinced that his friend is a liar - would you still assume he was telling the truth?
The reason why such protocols weren't released could be many. Either there are no written down protocols (I don't know how often thigns are recorded in such sensitive subjects) or it would be politically incorrect for the Americans to release such evidence.
Israel for instance, had plenty of evidence of Arafat directly participating in terror and controlling the flames, but have chose not to use them, and infact hide them, until 2001. Why? Because it wasn't politically wise to weaken and throw serious mud at who seemed to be their only partner for peace talks.
Had the americans taken the tough stand at that stage, they would have undoubtedly caused a serious resentment against themselves and would have lowered the chances for success in future talks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Whoah! Calm down Siro...
The reason I am INTENSELY interested in this is because, at the time, I was a media monitor - I was paid to transcribe TV and radio reports (for commercial purposes).
I was INTENSELY disappointed that the whole peace process ended so suddenly - after months of buildup, suddenly everyone was saying "it's all off".
With NO REASONS given... I would really love to see that transcript, it would answer so many questions for me.
So you can understand why I'm sceptical of just about everyone involved with that process. Everyone blamed everyone else.
As for "Arafat directly participating in terror" I'm pretty sure some of Israel's leaders were no angels prior to 1948. Menachem (?) Begin, for sure... maybe others. OK, Arafat is no angel now - compare and contrast with how he (and the PLO as a whole) were like back in the 70s.
Best wishes Siro - like you said, it's down to which view you want to take... One day there will be a Palestinian leader who isn't Arafat. Who knows, they could even be better.
Time will tell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Whoah! Calm down Siro...
|
What made you thin I werent?
If I made some comments appear angry - I appologize. I'm very tired. I even confused Asher with Edan and asked him to come speak some sense into you.
quote:
As for "Arafat directly participating in terror" I'm pretty sure some of Israel's leaders were no angels prior to 1948. Menachem (?) Begin, for sure... maybe others. OK, Arafat is no angel now - compare and contrast with how he (and the PLO as a whole) were like back in the 70s.
|
2 things.
1. Israeli leaders never denied their part in military campaigns.
2. Jewish armed groups never ever employed terror.
Terror is a descrpition of a method - targetting innocent civilians.
The most hard edge group - Lehi, only attacke Brittish military and Diplomat targets.
As for the Lehi and Etzel actions against Arab population of Palestine prior to 1948, I'm largely ignorant of this, and the few cases that I do know about are not clearly tied to any of the Jewish groups (though I suspect they are behind it) and were usually local small scale retributions in response to Arab terrorist attacks on Jews.
I call the Jewish actions responses, since the first violent events were perpetrated by Arabs in 1920, and 1929 and 1935~1937, with no violence or provocation from the Jewish side.
Such examples include for instance, the day after an arab raid on jews, a grenade was thrown in an arab market and such cases.
This was ***-for-tat terrorist actions, that in my opinion were not very organized or supported by the majority of Jews or it's leaders.
Infact, in thier memoirs, the leaders of the Yishuv spoke alot about the sorrow it brought to them, and how much it complicated the situation for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
You forget "Saudi Arabians are a corrupt bunch who will say anything if you buy their oil."
Last edited by Cruddy on 30-06-2003 at 09:33
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|