Nick Kristof tries a little revisionist history:
It is clear that in July 2000 at Camp David, Mr. Barak and President Clinton suggested a courageous, path-breaking peace plan permitting a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem. But, equally clearly, it still would have left the Palestinian state shorn of at least 9 percent of the West Bank, crippled by the loss of water and good land, and (even in the best version) nearly divided by an Israeli annexation running east from Jerusalem. It is reasonable to question whether it would have created a viable state.
As currently constituted, the only thing that makes Israel a viable state is the qualitative edge the IDF has over its Arab enemies. And after the Passover Seder Massacre, anything — I mean goddamn anything — the Palestinians get better than a boot to the teeth is pure gravy.
And if the boot fits, eat it.
We know the simple truth: Arafat was offered 97% of the West Bank, all of East Jerusalem, and billions and billions of US tax dollars. If he didn’t take it, it can only be for one (or all) of three reasons:
1) He thought he could get a better deal by rejecting the current one.
2) He thought he could take, by war, from Israel more than they offered in peace.
3) He has no interest in peace, coexistence, or negotiation.
If anyone can think of a fourth, please let me know.
Scratch that — let Kristof know.