Tactical shortcomings were by not,of course, a Palestinian monopoly.Barak and his team were full of them.For example, the Prime minister was too slow to grasp the centrality of the issue of Jerusalem at this conference and was therefore unprepared for the far reaching concessions that were required.Nor were Barak,s bargaining positions on the territorial issue reasonable enough to be seen by the Palestinians as credible.To start as he did, with a proposal of a Palestinian State on 66 per cent of the West Bank in order to offer later at Camp David 87 per cent and not reject out of hand Clinton,s proposals at the summit of 91 per cent Was an indication to the Palestinians that he did not really have red lines.Baraks negotiating tactics were a standing invitation to the Palestinians to keep the pressure on the Israelis and never say yes to what Barak liked to call his "Generous Proposals". The question of Israel,s unreasonable point of departure for negotiations with potential Arab interlocaturs, whether Palestinians,Syrians or Egyptians, is of far reaching significance.Israel,s unrealistic bargaining positions failed to convince the Arabs of the seriousness of her professed quest for peace and only invited them to never accept an Israeli offer as final The Israeli internal discourse on the price of peace has therefore always been an excerise in wishful thinking and self deceipt, not least of course with regard to the Palestinian question. Schlomo Ben Ami---Baraks FM from his book,"Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" pages 250/251.
Shaffir to Herzog: Opposition failed to show leadership in political battles against PM (Haaretz)
from the article: Clinton: U.S. plans new push on Israeli-Palestinian peace