The prime example that is often raised is the 2000 Camp David Summit between the late Chairman of the PLO Yasser Arafat and the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, where Palestinians turned down what was often reported as a “generous” or “unprecedented offer.”
The question is whether those who defend Israel’s generosity have even read Barak’s offer? Barak never presented a plan in writing to the Palestinians who were skeptical of an oral, not documented, commitment. Palestinians were blamed, not the Israelis even though the latter is both the occupier and at the time Barak had failed to implement in full the agreements Israel had already signed onto during the Oslo Accords.
So, what was that offer?
Palestinians perceived Camp David as an ambush. They were presented with a deal that was more favorable to Israel, than to Palestinians. Barak’s package would have given Palestinians a non-sovereign, truncated and demilitarized “state” in the West Bank and Gaza, and would terminate all future claims in historical Palestine, including the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Barak refused to accept that Israel has any political, legal, or moral responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians. He dealt with the refugees on “humanitarian” grounds, within the framework of individual cases of family reunification. This clearly illustrates Israel’s attempt to relinquish all responsibility for the forceful emigration of Palestinian refugees and the destruction of Palestinian villages. Barak proposed allowing 100,000 out of then 5 million refugees to return and creating a fund of $30 billion to resettle refugees elsewhere.
On settlements, Barak demanded to annex 3 percent of the West Bank, which would allow all of the major settlement blocs, and around 80 percent of settlers, to remain. They would be supported by a complex Israeli road network in the West Bank that would constitute a drastic division of the land into four isolated cantons, with Israel able to sever territorial continuity at will. The settlements are connected by bypass roads that are not only under complete Israeli control but also swallowing scores of acres of Palestinian lands. In addition, many of the settlements are built over a water aquifer, thus depriving Palestinians of its access to water resources.
Jerusalem became an issue that hastened the unraveling of the negotiations. Either Palestinians give up sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian holy places in Jerusalem, relinquish parts of the Old City to Israel, and accept the role of “administrator” in East Jerusalem, or reject the whole offer outright, which they did.
Arafat was then panned for a “missed opportunity.” By scrutinizing the deal and trying to understand why Palestinians reject it, we can see Palestinian negotiators had deep concerns over massive losses of territory and an end to the statehood project rather than a start.
When Israelis spoke of “95 percent of the West Bank and Gaza,” becoming part of a future state of Palestine, this excluded Jerusalem, the Latroun area and the Dead Sea, which translates into approximately 65 percent of the total area of the occupied Palestinian territory (excluding Gaza).
Moreover, one cannot dissociate the concept of “generous proposals” from the national rights of the Palestinian people. At the time of Camp David, Palestinian leaders had already accepted a political settlement based on international resolutions. In the year that the British Mandate began in 1922, the Palestinian people comprised around 90 percent of the population.
International resolutions allow building a state on 22 percent of historic Palestine. At the end of the 1967 war, UN resolution 242 established the framework for ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem so that Palestinians can assert sovereignty, which was backed up by UN resolution 338 in the 1970s.
In addition, there are other UN resolutions, including resolution 465 which declared settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and, as such, should be removed. Resolutions 478 and 252 have declared that the Israeli annexation of Jerusalem is illegitimate. Each one of these resolutions has been approved by the security council, including the US as a permanent member well before Trump’s administration decided to change those positions.
Further, both Barak and the Trump administration made the assumption that the settlements in Jerusalem and the surrounding area are legal. While Donald Trump recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Barak divided the geographic and demographic unity of the city within the framework of complete Israeli control, including Palestinian self-rule areas in the so-called “Arab Districts.”
Barak’s “generous offer” also included the stipulation that Israel keep three early-warning stations in the West Bank, even though it already has satellite and other means of surveillance. In addition to various military positions that are to be maintained in order to store military equipment, it was stipulated that five military positions on the Jordanian border be kept under complete Israeli control for a period of six to 12 years. Israel insists on participating in the “observation” of Palestinian passage to Jordan and Egypt, and Israel’s warplanes would have the right to launch training flights over Palestinian air space.
Though not released, leaked documents on the contents of the Trump administration’s deal is even worse in its total denial of most precepts guaranteed to Palestinians under international law. Of course, Palestinian acceptance of these conditions would be nothing less than legitimizing Israeli occupation. Would Palestinians have the same rights as Israel? Of course not. The new deal of the century reportedly would not remove any Israeli settlements.
So, are they really “missed opportunities,” as some claim? Are they serious Israeli or American attempts to find lasting solutions? The answer might be yes only if natives are expected to appreciate any offer regardless of what is in it.
Of course, the possibility of peace still exists if Israel is willing to comply with international law and convention which specify Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory to the borders of 1967, the recognition of the right of refugees to return, and the end of Israel’s apartheid laws against its Palestinian citizens. This is the real opportunity Israel keeps missing.