Re: he's a total arse, who poisoned any remaining hope
The total arse who poisoned the Oslo peace process was not a Jew. He was a Palestinian. His name was Yasser Arafat. He was handed the two state solution as he proposed it with one small exception: The PLO was required to change its charter to admit Israel had the right to exist. Yasser Arafat rejected that deal.
He did what now? Are you pulling random crap out of your arse or reading too much of the fascist sheets that call themselves "Israeli newspapers" these days?
What was rejected was the statement that Israel shall be a "Jewish State". That was around 2008 or so. The "right to exist" question had been put to rest around 1988.
And also, by a guy who was actually around:
Yasser Arafat said about Oslo: "This is the best agreement that could be achieved in the worst situation." He meant the balance of power, with Israel’s huge advantage over the Palestinians.
For the sake of fair disclosure: I may have contributed in a small way to the shaping of his attitude. At my meetings with him in Tunis, I advocated again and again a pragmatic approach. Learn from the Zionists, I told him. They never said "No." At every stage they agreed to accept what was offered to them, and immediately went on to strive for more. The Palestinians, on the contrary, always said "No" and lost.
The Oslo Agreement (officially the Declaration of Principles) was based, from the Palestinian point of view, on this assumption. It was supposed to give the Palestinians a minimal state-like basis, which would evolve gradually until the sovereign state of Palestine would be established.
The trouble was that this final aim was not spelled out in the agreement. That was its fatal defect.
The long term Palestinian aim was perfectly clear. It had been fixed by Arafat long before: the state of Palestine in all the occupied territories, a return to the borders existing before the 1967 war (with the possibility of minor swaps of territory here and there), East Jerusalem (including the Islamic and Christian shrines) becoming the capital of Palestine, dismantling of the settlements on Palestinian territory, a solution of the refugee problem in agreement with Israel. This aim has not been and will not be changed. Any Palestinian leader who accepted less would be branded by his people as a traitor.
But the Israeli aim was not fixed at all, and has remained open to this day. That is why the implementation of practically every part of the agreement has aroused such controversy, always resolved by the immense Israeli superiority of power. Gradually, the agreement gave up its soul, leaving behind only dead letters.