Larry2:

... so it's hardly surprising that Rosner regurgitates it.

"Arafat balked at not having sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount." That's former President Bill Clinton's version of the defining moment of the failed Camp David summit of 2000. "He turned the offer down." Clinton "called Arab leaders for support," but "most wouldn't say much." Not one of them was brave enough—or stupid enough—to take the credit and the blame for helping Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat give up, even if only symbolically, on Muslim control of the Temple Mount.

So, the problem of Jerusalem was not solved.

This is, of course, complete rubbish. Israel never made an offer; nothing was put in writing; what was provided to Arafat, through the Americans (because Barak refused to meet with Arafat, despite saying he would negotiate with Arafat before going to Camp David), were so-called "bases of negotiation." On Jerusalem, this was, specifically, sovereignty over the Christian and Muslim quarters of the Old City, and some sort of "custodianship" over the Haram al-Sharif. This was tied in with the Israelis seizing 10% of the West Bank, in exchange for a 1% West Bank equivalent of pre-1967 Israel (so net 91% of the West Bank). This represented a 50% retention by Israel of its intrusions onto the West Bank, just one more step in the steady historic process of Zionists/Israel taking land from Palestinians. And of course the offer also resulted in the West Bank being, essentially, a Bantustan puppet state, with no borders with any nation by Israel and intersected by strategic highways controlled by Israel and impassible to Palestinians in their own country without Israeli consent.

And what did this verbal offer or "bases for negotiation" really represent for Arafat? Considering that, at that time, Barak had promised to turn over three villages on the eastern side of the Old City, and had then failed to do it? Arafat feared that what had happened before would happen again -- the Israelis would ignore their end of the bargain yet compel the Palestinians to holdup their own side.

Israelis do not necessarily like the idea of diaspora Jews meddling in the affairs of the state.

At least, unless the disapora Jews are using their political muscle in the US to bend the American polity to their will. That's fine.

I'm sorry; did I miss Arafat's written offer to the Israelis, somewhere along the line?