In 2000, Arafat had a Palestinian state on the table.  Per Wikipedia: "91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital". 

He walked away; didn't think they were getting enough.  So, here we are, nine years later, with more Palestinians born as "refugees" and others dying never seeing an end to the conflict.

Yeah, I agree that Arafat fucked up and should have definitely accepted that offer.

Thats a major Palestinian screw up in the process.

Also to the rest of you who keep bringing the idea that Arafat missed it big here.

Your naive.

In order to give up any more land AND the Right of Return (RoR) for refugees, Arafat would need time to present it to the people otherwise it would blow up in his face. RoR is huge for the millions of refugees out there.

Arafat and zero time to prepare for any type of release of full 1967 borders and RoR. Same technically for Israel. Barak (Israeli PM) would have never been able to get those deals through the Knesset. Arafat knew this as did Barak.

They both needed time to go home and sell the ideas to their people as the best, and really only, possible solution. That is why Arafat walked. He couldn't possibly return home with anything less than 100% of what they were asking without being lynched.

That is why now is actually better than in 2000.

1. You have a much more unbiased US stance.

2. You have a far-right Isreali PM who can easily sell giving up more to the hardliners than Barak ever could.

3. You have an Palestinian president who once built up by Obama will have the position and clout to oppose anything Hamas says. Plus, Hamas has made comments that they would accept a peaceful solution, just not with open arms.

4. You have a 2002 Arab summit agreement that shows ALL arab nations would agree to full normal peace relations with Israel given a Palestinian state exists.

The only real problem with Arafat in 2000, which really still exists today, is both sides need to start preparing their populations for the necessary concesions to gain peace. Palestinians will lose some more land and will lose RoR. Israel will lose full control over E. Jerusalem.

These items need to be openly discussed and sold to the populace.

RoR isn't practical for Israel (because they simply won't allow themselves to be swamped) but in 2000 they did offer compensation to the Palestinians who were forced out.

I personally think Arafat should have taken the deal as it stood, as do many others. But he didn't and

Should he of accepted it, of course. It was the best deal. Could he of accepted it no. In fact, neither would have the Israelis. It was a waste of time without proper processes to get the populations of both sides to see the value before putting it on paper.

I'll disagree with you on this one, I believe implementation wouldn't have been easy but having something written and signed by both leaders would probably have allowed progress.

You're saying that the people of Israel & Palestine wouldn't have accepted the peace treaty had it been agreed to by Arafat.  It's possible you're right.

On the other hand, maybe enough people on both sides would've wanted peace so much as to have made it work.  Honestly, I don't think either one of us is smart enough to know what would have happened.

You also feel that things are somehow better today--that they're closer to peace.  I hope you're right, but I don't see any proof of it myself.  Both Israeli and Palestinian leadership seem further to the right now than they did then, which you take as a positive somehow... I don't know if that follows...  I think you're playing off of the idea that it's easier for someone on the right to make peace, which is sometimes true... but there's one catch: easier, but not necessarily more likely.

Whether Hamas would or wouldn't be open to a peaceful solution is anyone's guess, but if it were my guess, I would guess they're not.  And this very conversation is based on the Israeli govt's recent refusal to curb building that's upsetting to the Palestinians, right?  A far cry from offering an olive branch.

We'll only know whether we we're truly "closer" or not when something actually gives.  Sure, it might be "soon," within a year or so.  Or I could just as easily see it stretching on for a decade, two, or more, just as it has been doing.  It's possible that 2000 is the closest we'll have been for quite some time, as it continues to appear to me.

I think that, if Arafat really wanted peace and the Palestinian state, it was his obligation as "leader" to sign the goddamn treaty and then try to convince his people to follow it, just like Sadat did.  Sure, Sadat died for it, but the peace has held... and Arafat's dead now regardless, it's just that he died w/o accomplishing what he set out to do.

And anyways, if the Palestinians had been radicialized to the point where they were unable to accept a peace with compromise, to the point where they screwed away their chances at a fully-fledged state for at least another decade... well, isn't that another failure of leadership?  And doesn't it suggest that maybe this whole "peace thing" isn't likely to work out with the Palestinians on any level?  Isn't the political ascent of groups like Hamas proof that the Palestinians are, in fact, moving further away from accepting peace?  If the only peace the Palestinian people are willing to accept is one with zero compromise on their part, then I don't think they're going to get their way, ever.

The problem stems from the division between Hamas and Fatah, really. Hamas, the terrorist organization, is more popular with the Palestinian people. Fatah is more willing to deal, but they are internally unpopular.

The Palestinians need to show a united front, and it will be much easier for everyone to sympathize with them.

Probably the best way to achieve a peace between the two sides is to totally cut them off. Israel could not hold off making peace and they could not afford the status quo so they would be willing to negotiate. It was U.S. support of South Africa which in part made apartheid possible, and when that support ended so did that terrible regime. They simply do not have the money to spend if they had to provide it themselves to keep up with an arms race with Arab nations and internal security in a divided and hostile nation. In this case Israel has to make more concessions because a Palestinian state cannot function if its divided by Israeli settlements and roads.

Cut them both off completely, then Israel just does what it wants. Moves in, crushes Hamas, co-opts the Fatah military, then reaches an "agreement" re-legitimizing the settlements and so on.