Researching the 2000 Camp David summit. It's very interesting, and I was wondering if there was any possible way for it to have succeeded. The main points of contention were as follows:
Territory:
Arafat wanted the 1967 borders, which he said was itself was a compromise. A palestinian negotiator famously remarked that "There can be no compromise on the compromise". Another issue was that Palestine didn't want their West Bank territory divided non-contiguous enclaves within Israel.
Barak (PM of Israel), on the other hand, offered to initially give 73% of the West Bank, which would expand to 92% over time (this is using the Israeli definition of the West Bank, which doesn't include East Jerusalem. From the Palestinian POV, this is a maximum of 86% of the West Bank. Israel was ok with expelling some of its settlers (about 63 settlements), but not all of them as Arafat demanded.
Compromise on this issue is difficult, though perhaps Arafat can be persuaded to compromise a little.
East Jerusalem:
Probably the most difficult issue to compromise on. The two sides essentially held opposite views. Arafat wanted all of East Jerusalem, which he would turn into Al-Quds, the Capitol of Palestine. He was willing to compromise by giving Israel control over Jewish holy sites (incl. Western Wall) and the Jewish+Armenian quarters of the Old City.
Barak refused to give Arafat anything other than symbolic authority over East Jerusalem. Like Arafat, he was willing to give Palestine control over Muslim holy sites, like the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa.
This is clearly the toughest issue. I have no clue over how there could be a compromise here. This alone might make the prospect of a deal being struck impossible.
Right of Return:
A difficult issue, but not as bad as East Jerusalem.
Arafat wanted Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, numbering some 4 million. However, he is willing to compromise on this point, and is willing to create some mechanism that will try to redirect Palestinian refugees to settling in the new Palestinian state, not Israel. Under his proposal, 150,000 refugees will return per year, so it can be a gradual transition. As the negotiations degenerated further, he gave some signs of being willing to put some sort of limit on how many can return.
Barak is opposed to Right of Return. However, he is willing to accept 100,000 Palestinian refugees for family reunification and humanitarian purposes. The newly-created state of Palestine can of course accept as many refugees as they want-- they'll be a sovereign country. Barak also offered to set up an international fund worth 30 billion as compensation. Israel would contribute to such a fund.
National Security:
A minor but important issue.
Palestine wanted complete control over their internal security and border crossings, though they were willing to make some concessions. They wanted the option to negotiate in the future.
Israel wanted the right to deploy on Palestinian territory in times of national emergency, but were willing to concede to Palestinian control over border crossings, with Israeli "observation". Israel also wanted to have a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border, and they wanted a permanent international force in the Jordan valley. Palestine would be mostly demilitarized, and couldn't make alliances without Israeli approval. The most extreme proposal was that Arafat declare the conflict "over" and agree to make no further demands.
So? What do you think? Is a deal being struck ASB because of the East Jerusalem issue? Or is there some way a compromise can be reached on that issue? Let me know what you think. Another thing to consider: most Palestinians agreed with Arafat's positions, but most Israelis thought Barak compromised too much (except on national security).
Map of Palestinian proposal (1967 borders/green line)
Map of Israeli proposal (Gaza not shown, Palestine gets all of it immediately.)
Further reading:
Detailed breakdown of Barak/Clinton proposal -- http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm
Jewish Virtual Library, various resources -- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-2000-camp-david-summit
Territory:
Arafat wanted the 1967 borders, which he said was itself was a compromise. A palestinian negotiator famously remarked that "There can be no compromise on the compromise". Another issue was that Palestine didn't want their West Bank territory divided non-contiguous enclaves within Israel.
Barak (PM of Israel), on the other hand, offered to initially give 73% of the West Bank, which would expand to 92% over time (this is using the Israeli definition of the West Bank, which doesn't include East Jerusalem. From the Palestinian POV, this is a maximum of 86% of the West Bank. Israel was ok with expelling some of its settlers (about 63 settlements), but not all of them as Arafat demanded.
Compromise on this issue is difficult, though perhaps Arafat can be persuaded to compromise a little.
East Jerusalem:
Probably the most difficult issue to compromise on. The two sides essentially held opposite views. Arafat wanted all of East Jerusalem, which he would turn into Al-Quds, the Capitol of Palestine. He was willing to compromise by giving Israel control over Jewish holy sites (incl. Western Wall) and the Jewish+Armenian quarters of the Old City.
Barak refused to give Arafat anything other than symbolic authority over East Jerusalem. Like Arafat, he was willing to give Palestine control over Muslim holy sites, like the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa.
This is clearly the toughest issue. I have no clue over how there could be a compromise here. This alone might make the prospect of a deal being struck impossible.
Right of Return:
A difficult issue, but not as bad as East Jerusalem.
Arafat wanted Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, numbering some 4 million. However, he is willing to compromise on this point, and is willing to create some mechanism that will try to redirect Palestinian refugees to settling in the new Palestinian state, not Israel. Under his proposal, 150,000 refugees will return per year, so it can be a gradual transition. As the negotiations degenerated further, he gave some signs of being willing to put some sort of limit on how many can return.
Barak is opposed to Right of Return. However, he is willing to accept 100,000 Palestinian refugees for family reunification and humanitarian purposes. The newly-created state of Palestine can of course accept as many refugees as they want-- they'll be a sovereign country. Barak also offered to set up an international fund worth 30 billion as compensation. Israel would contribute to such a fund.
National Security:
A minor but important issue.
Palestine wanted complete control over their internal security and border crossings, though they were willing to make some concessions. They wanted the option to negotiate in the future.
Israel wanted the right to deploy on Palestinian territory in times of national emergency, but were willing to concede to Palestinian control over border crossings, with Israeli "observation". Israel also wanted to have a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border, and they wanted a permanent international force in the Jordan valley. Palestine would be mostly demilitarized, and couldn't make alliances without Israeli approval. The most extreme proposal was that Arafat declare the conflict "over" and agree to make no further demands.
So? What do you think? Is a deal being struck ASB because of the East Jerusalem issue? Or is there some way a compromise can be reached on that issue? Let me know what you think. Another thing to consider: most Palestinians agreed with Arafat's positions, but most Israelis thought Barak compromised too much (except on national security).
Map of Palestinian proposal (1967 borders/green line)
Map of Israeli proposal (Gaza not shown, Palestine gets all of it immediately.)
Further reading:
Detailed breakdown of Barak/Clinton proposal -- http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm
Jewish Virtual Library, various resources -- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-2000-camp-david-summit
Last edited: