it’s letting us know that we have to deal with Mr. Arafat, that he must be a hard negotiator. The article discussed how Mr. Arafat did not accept or totally agree with President Clintons peace plan. The Times made it clear that President Clinton’s plan was detailed and accepted by both the United States and the Israelis. The newspaper on several occasion said that, “Mr. Arafat seemed unwilling to cooperate with the United States and Israel.” The first question that comes in to mind is why was there not a representative from Israel at the deliberations? How did the United States know what the Israelis exactly want? The answer is that before the peace plan was presented to Arafat, the Israelis first approved of it. Therefore there was no need for the Israelis to come and become involved on a personal level with Arafat. The pre-dealings with Israel also helped make Arafat look like he was the one who slowed down the peace process, even though he had a right to disagree, because the deal was in Israel’s favor rather than being fair to both sides. The newspaper indeed state that the talks ended without an answer but that Mr. Arafat will try to end the violence. When reading Clinton’s proposal many items seemed vague and unclear. There were three points that were not agreed by Arafat: independent Palestine, control of East Jerusalem, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The newspaper tried to persuade that Israel is the innocent one and that all theproblems seem to be just with one man. The Seattle Times did not go into detail about the second and third points, they just said that Arafat did not agree with the terms. The newspaper tries to mask or hide away the real facts that the Arabs or Arafat are trying to create peace. The common belief is still that the Arabs/Palestinians are the ones who are actually retaliating. With these common beliefs in place the moment the issue of Israel and Mid...
