I find it baffling that the Americans writing or talking about the
failed peace negotiations in 2001 between Palestinians and
Israel think that a)the treaty was good for the Palestinians and
b)it was their fault that there was no peace agreement then.
Like Francis Fukuyama - who made his reputation with being
once throughly wrong - in this interview by Al-Ahram Weekly:
Open-ended history

Christian Science Monitor continues the same theme with
Bush Out on a Limb With Sharon

It´s a typical American article, where the writer kicks Arafat
hard to justify mild criticism of Likud. In the mainstream
press of the United States this is the only way to criticize
Israel: You have to critizice the Palestinians first.

Neither seem to know the basic facts of the deal that failed;
like that the Palestinians would not have got sovereign state:
Israel would have controlled it´s borders, it´s airspace, it´s
natural resources and most of East Jerusalem. Fukuyama claims
that Palestinians would have got 95% of the West Bank; the
problem is that this is an issue, which there is no consensus:
The highest possibility, from Israeli negotiators, is 92%, but
even as low as 67% are cited by Israelis, one Palestinian source
estimate was 83%. A balanced article in New Left Review by
Baruch Kimmerling is here:FROM BARAK TO THE ROAD MAP

The estimates of Sharon´s landgrab run from 14,5% to 58%
of West Bank.