Some funny stuff here:
Q: The way you talk about the failure of Oslo suggests that it was doomed from the start, that the Palestinians just weren't willing now to accept peace. Does Israel also share the blame for ensuring that Oslo failed -- for example, because of the steady increase in Jewish settlements in the territories?
A: I don't know if Israel did more than the Palestinians, or less. I think there probably were some Palestinians who were sincere during the 1990s, that they were willing to agree to a two-state solution, towards which Oslo was supposed to lead. I don't think this is the case in the leadership, which means basically Arafat. Let's be quite frank -- Arafat kills or jails or distances anybody who objects to his policies on major issues. Arafat, the fount of power there, he was playing us along. I am certain of this. And I think what he set out to do in Oslo was to gain a state without actually accepting Israel alongside it. Not to give the imprimatur to that settlement. And that's what happened when Barak said to him in 2000, "OK, this is the moment of decision, now you have to affix your signature to this and comply with the two-state solution." Arafat basically said no. He rejected it.
Q: Yet you're arguing that the whole idea of creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank was merely a steppingstone to conquering the whole territory of Israel. So why didn't he sign?
A: That poses a dilemma. Because if this is true, why didn't Arafat in 2000 take what was being offered by Barak and Clinton -- take the West Bank and Gaza state? And then, once he had it, establish power in whatever way he could, and from there use it as a base against Israel for the next stage? One could ask that. It's a legitimate question.
But the most important thing is that he would have had to put his signature, internationally, in front of everybody, to an agreement of this sort, accepting Israel's existence. And no further claims. That was part of Barak's demands. They could not claim anything -- not refugees, nothing -- after they signed the agreement. That was to be the end of the conflict. I think simply, constitutionally, he could not put his name to it, even though tactically he probably should have.
(Yeah, that resolves it, Benny--but wait, I thought Arafat (like all Arabs) was a congenital liar--wouldn't it be easy for someone with such a constitution to sign the agreement without ever planning to be bound by it?)