this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
30 points (75.9% liked)

World News

32317 readers
621 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's more than enough blame to go around on the failure of negotiations, depending on who you believe. For example:

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority. In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

Dennis Ross, the US Middle East envoy and a key negotiator at the summit, summarized his perspectives in his book The Missing Peace. During a lecture in Australia, Ross suggested that the reason for the failure was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal with Israel that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the right of return. Ross claimed that what Arafat really wanted was "a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of Historic Palestine". Ross also quoted Saudi Prince Bandar as saying while negotiations were taking place: "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy; it will be a crime."

In his book, The Oslo Syndrome, Harvard Medical School professor of psychiatry and historian Kenneth Levin summarized the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit in this manner: "despite the dimensions of the Israeli offer and intense pressure from President Clinton, Arafat demurred. He apparently was indeed unwilling, no matter what the Israeli concessions, to sign an agreement that declared itself final and forswore any further Palestinian claims."[38] Levin argues that both the Israelis and the Americans were naive in expecting that Arafat would agree to give up the idea of a literal "right of return" for all Palestinians into Israel proper no matter how many 1948 refugees or how much monetary compensation Israel offered to allow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry for the r*ddit link but here's a map of the camp David offer:

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/174j2vb/camp_david_peace_plan_proposal_2000/?depth=30

Clinton threw a hissy fit at Arafat because he didn't get this feather in his cap for his legacy. There has never been a serious offer from Israel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here's a later one:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fcamp-david-summit-2000-israeli-palestinian-peace-proposal-v0-bf0sjyatcel81.jpg%3Fs%3D12050f876bf8f3c65ff49c0e5fa3cbe81f6070df

Point being that, depending on who you ask, Arafat decided to stop negotiating. Something Prince Bandar labelled criminal.

Rightly or wrongly, many Israelis seem to have come to the conclusion that any proposal would never be enough. Maybe the Palestinians could have gotten more out of it, it was clear that the Israeli PM was desperate to sign a deal, because he knew his future was riding on it. Arafat gained in popularity for taking a hard line. Israeli PM Barak predictably lost popularity and the election, because many Israelis thought he had gone too far.