Well, predicatably, Arafat rejected the offer saying: ""The Palestinian people will never give up the goal of achieving freedom and independence and a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." See link below.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/15/mideast.arafat/index.html

No counter-offer was proposed.

President Bush said: "These are historic and courageous actions. If all parties choose to embrace this moment, they can open the door to progress and put an end to one of the world's longest-running conflicts."

Frankly, and I may be cynical, but I think that Sharon outplayed Arafat. In view of on-going Arab terrorism, including the reported threats against Europe made by Bin Laden earlier, I would be very surprised if world opinion did not turn against Arafat. His time as leader of Palestine has come and gone.

Larry: as far as i understand it, it was not an offer by Sharon. what could Arafat do if Isreal would withdraw military and settlers from the Gaza strip? close to borders?
on world opinion: keep i mind this is still nothing more than a plan by Sharon. he still does not have support from his own party and will never get support from the religious fundamentalists in his coalition.
these countries really need a new generation of leaders. Isreal needs to give up all settlements and the Palestinians need to give up the right to return to Isreal. that was at least the opinion of two young Isrealis who just finished their military service i met on vacation. (they did not have much sympathy for the settlers) sounds so easy

Sharon's plan is certainly a step in the right direction for the Palestinians and they need to consider it further. It does need changing to be acceptable to them. If it offered a withdrawal from the areas mentioned and an acceptance of the Palestinian claim to the remianing areas with an agreement to eventually return them to Palestinian control then it would be a good agreement. A final situation with the Palestinians controlling the territory but many Israelis still living on it may be the only viable alternative.

If Sharon's plan refuses to acknowledge that the remianing land beliongs to Palestine (even if control take many decades to transfere) then it will be unacceptable. Imagine the reaction if Iraq had moved thousands of it's citizens into areas of Kuwait was condemned by the international community and then refused to return them because it's citizens were living there.

Paul.

If Sharon's plan refuses to acknowledge that the remianing land beliongs to Palestine (even if control take many decades to transfere) then it will be unacceptable. Imagine the reaction if Iraq had moved thousands of it's citizens into areas of Kuwait was condemned by the international community and then refused to return them because it's citizens were living there.

It would only be similar if Iraq never attacked Kuwait, but was being threatened into oblivion by Kuwait and the other countries surrounding Iraq, which then lead to a war where Iraq had to singlehandedly go against over eight other countries (when you include the ones that were supporting Egypt and the gang), and lead to Iraq winning the war and keeping some of the land from the countries that were doing all it could to destroy it. If that happened, I would completely support Iraq's right to keep the land.

We're not talking similar. We're talking the reaction to the concept of occupation of land and then staking a claim to that land by moving your population onto it. It's completely illegal under international law and even the US voted against Israel in UN resolutions on this issue. Now 50 years later Israel may be going for a fait accompli. Alternatively they may be opening an interesting negotiating position. No one is sure, but there is huge anger at the perception that the US no longer cares about previous UN resolutions or International law.

Paul.

As long as it is acknowledged that Israel taking land from those who were trying to destroy it is very different from Iraq invading Kuwait despite the lack of threat Kuwait posed, even if both actions are illegal.

happily acknowledged.

Paul.