18-The Myth of Camp David

Intro

At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It’s worth taking a note that it’s the Palestinian people who were a majority , owned and operated at least 93% of Palestine’s land as of 1948.

(Check the 1947 land survey in this article)

In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with “a take it or leave it deal” either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would “gain” a non-contiguous state , fragmented into units on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

Evidence

One central fact, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the “generous” offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

“… I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn’t accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing.” (Iron Wall,p. 264)

So to claim that: “Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace” is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of “peace”.

In July 2000, at the invitation of President Bill Clinton, Israeli and Palestinian leaders met at Camp David to negotiate final status issues for a hoped-for final peace agreement between the parties. The summit took place nearly seven years after the signing of the first of the Oslo Accords, which were supposed to lead to a final deal within five years.

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat went to Camp David reluctantly. Arafat believed a leadership summit to be premature and mistrusted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who had failed to implement previously signed agreements and instead greatly expanded Jewish-only settlements on occupied Palestinian land, particularly in East Jerusalem, at a much more rapid rate than his predecessors, including Benjamin Netanyahu during his first term in office. However, Arafat was convinced to go by President Clinton, who assured him that the Palestinians would not be blamed if the meeting were to end without an agreement, promising that there would be “no finger-pointing.”

In contrast to the story of the “generous offer” allegedly made by Barak, in reality the Israelis never actually made a formal offer to the Palestinians at Camp David, and submitted no written proposals. The only proposals offered by the Israelis were made orally, mostly through US officials, and lacked detail. The Israelis and Americans pressured Arafat to accept these vague proposals as “bases for negotiations” before moving on to other, more serious negotiations. These oral proposals, which Barak was careful to make conditional on Palestinian concessions, included:

1- Concerning borders:

81% of the West Bank plus the whole of the Gaza Strip, to be enlarged by land exchanged for 1% of West Bank territory. To put it differently, Israel insisted on the annexation of 9% of the West Bank, in addition to a de facto annexation of another 10% of land in the Jordan Valley. It was prepared to exchange 1 % of West Bank land for an equivalent area adjacent to the Gaza Strip, to be added to it. In other words , Israeli withdrawal from 91% of what Israel defined as the West Bank ,which didn’t include large portions of the West Bank that were unilaterally annexed to occupied East Jerusalem post-1967 before East Jerusalem itself was annexed to Israel in a move not recognized by the international community, or areas like the Latrun Valley. Israel’s insistence on this definition of a much-reduced West Bank, rather than the internationally recognized pre-1967 boundaries of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, precluded agreement on a starting point for negotiations on borders.

The fertile and strategically important Jordan Valley along the border with neighboring Jordan would remain under Israeli control under the terms of an unspecified 99-year “lease.” Israel would retain control over Palestinian airspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. Palestine would be a non militarized state, sometimes referred to as “demilitarized,” with only a police force for internal security.

2-Concerning occupied East Jerusalem:

Palestinian sovereignty over the exterior Palestinian suburbs (like Beit Hanina) and over one or two of the Palestinian quarters in the so-called inner circle (like Wadi Joz or Sheikh Jarrah, for example), as well as a seat for the Palestinian government in the Old City. The Muslim, Christian and Armenian Quarters were to be put under a special regime. Palestinians were to be given custodianship over al Haram ash-Sharif, which would, however, remain under Israeli “residual” sovereignty. Palestinians were asked to give space to Jews for prayer in the al-Haram ash-Sharif area. Jerusalem as a whole was to remain under Israeli sovereignty. To put it differently, while conceding sovereignty over some Palestinian quarters in East Jerusalem, as well as a seat for the Palestinian government, Israel insisted on keeping sovereignty over Jerusalem as a whole including al-Haram ash Sharif. In a clear change of the accepted status quo, Israel demanded space for Jews to pray inside al-Haram area. Illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem were not up for negotiation.

3-Concerning Refugees:

There was nothing one could call an offer made by the Israeli side, except for the possibility to have a very limited number of refugees over a designated period of time allowed into Israel. The general response to the future of all refugees expelled from their homes during Israel’s creation, the Israelis said the solution to their plight should be found “elsewhere” than Israel.

Arafat in turn, insisted on the following positions:

1-Concerning borders:

recognition of the June 4, 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations. Readiness for territorial exchange on a 1:1 (Not the unfair 9:1 land swap Israelis offered ) basis for land Israel wanted to annex in order to keep as many settlers as possible in place. Readiness to accept some Israeli settlement blocs, however, only in the actual space they occupy, i.e. without the surrounding Palestinian communities.

2- Concerning occupied Jerusalem:

full Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, ceding, however, to Israel the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall. There was readiness to exchange the Israeli settlements built after 1967 in East Jerusalem for land to be given to the new Palestinian State elsewhere. There was no readiness to discuss giving up sovereignty over al-Haram or allowing Jews to pray there, i.e. changing the status quo in this area.

3-Concerning Refugees:

Israeli recognition of its responsibility for the problem, and recognition of the right of return according to UNR 194, coupled with readiness for a pragmatic solution of the application of this right, with a focus on solving the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Pragmatic for the Palestinians meant not to cause demographic problems for the State of Israel.

Based on the info presented above , it should be very clear why Arafat rejected the Zionist offer. All Israelis, Zionists and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. For further simplification of the reasons of why what was offered is unacceptable to many Palestinians? Read the points below:

1- The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

2- According to Barak’s ”generous offer“, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. The Palestinian areas would have been fragmented into four units, separated from each other and the outside world by Israeli settlements and their connecting roads, jeopardizing the contiguity and viability of any prospective Palestinian state. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security, interests, and future.

3- To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is Ludicrous. Keep in mind that it’s a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel’s interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historian (For further reading , check all of the info in the following article: https://wiki.handala.info/en/arabs_attack_myth)

4- Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims. It’s also very important for Palestinian Christians.

5- Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to free Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Zionist Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of freeing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where have been all the world Zionist Jews, when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusaders genocide!? Was Palestine a “Promised” or “non-Promised” Land, that is the question?

6- It’s not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas with control over its borders, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.

Not in Arafat’s defense, however, it’s worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat had little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

• The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever.
• Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped away day by day.
• Unemployment has tripled.

Later on ,at the start of the Taba negotiations in 2001, January 21 until January 27, Barak made his positions once again abundantly clear:

• No right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
• No relinquishing of sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound.
• Annexation of sufficient land from the West Bank so that “80% of the Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty”. 

When the Taba negotiations were suspended in the context of the Israeli elections, which Barak lost in a landslide to Ariel Sharon, all of the previous ideas that had been on the table, both Barak’s or Clinton’s, had become null and void.

A first full formulation of the by now widely accepted Myth of Camp David can be found in the articles written by Robert Malley and Husein Agha as well as by Deborah Sonntag, in the first international and specifically, American attempt to attack the myth head-on and present a revisionist version of Camp David. What did the myth have to say in its version of spring summer 2001? In Deborah Sonntag’s words in an article published in the New York Times on July 26, 2001, i.e. exactly one year after the end of Camp David in 2000:

“potent, simplistic narrative has taken hold in Israel and to some extent in the United States. It says: Mr. Barak offered Mr. Arafat the moon at Camp David last summer. Mr. Arafat turned it down, and then ‘pushed the button’ and chose the path of violence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is insoluble, at least for the foreseeable future”.

According to her, “many diplomats and officials believe that the dynamic was far more complex and that Mr. Arafat does not bear sole responsibility for the breakdown of the peace effort”. She continues quoting Terje Roed-Larsen, the United States special envoy in Jerusalem:

“It is a terrible myth that Arafat and only Arafat caused this catastrophic failure. All three parties made mistakes, and in such complex negotiations, everyone is bound to. But no one is solely to blame”.

Hanan Ashrawi’s Miftah website attacked Clinton’s July 27 interview on Israel TV in support of Barak head-on, though with a considerable delay, in terms of media time:

“With one full sweep, US President Bill Clinton succeeded in undermining American standing in the peace process and throughout the region as an “even-handed peace broker,” in provoking Arab and Islamic (as well as Christian) public opinion, and in undermining the chances for peace in the region. The notorious Clinton interview on Israeli television was seen, at best, as peevish and petty, and at worst as a cynical manipulation of the peace process for the sake of narrow self-interest and short-term gains. To the Palestinians it was nothing short of blatant political blackmail -a thinly-disguised attempt at coercion and arm twisting- to bring the Palestinians to their knees, in other words to compliance with the Israeli version of realities and of the outcome of the peace process”.

“Israel, so far and with a great deal of help from its American strategic ally, seems to have succeeded in creating an erroneous impression of Israeli “flexibility” as opposed to Palestinian “intractability” on the substantive issues-primarily Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugee question. To be “flexible” (as per the Israeli American definition), the Palestinians must accept a solution that incorporates and perpetuates multiple injustices”.

The Israelis had won in regards to propagating the myth of Barak’s ‘generous’ offer at Camp David, through convincing the world of their rightness of their stand, although this was basically a colonial one, characterized in every step by paternalistic and arrogant, sometimes outright racist attitudes. They succeeded in achieving this with a variety of different means:

First, they did not lose a minute in starting their media offensive, with Ehud Barak taking the lead already in the United States, just outside Camp David, not even waiting for the end of Bill Clinton’s press conference.

Back in Israel, a concerted effort was undertaken with a whole array of government statements, communications addressed to the United States as well as the world at large, articles in the Israeli press, research papers by pro-Israeli and Israeli think tanks and academia in Israel, all aiming at the same direction and providing the world with a seemingly unassailable “possession of the truth”. While all these activities were on the one hand, undertaken separately and to a degree independently, with independent effects, they were, on the other hand, assembled together on the official Israeli website, exerting an additional impact on this level.

Second, in terms of content and form, the Israeli media blitz was always on the offensive, never presenting itself in a defensive manner. This seemingly left no option for the Palestinians but to take a defensive stand, which they did for almost one whole year (to some degree with the exception of Akram Hanieh’s Camp David Papers, which did not make it, however, into the international press, and therefore did not leave any real impact).

Finally, Israel used a very simple, but all the more effective tactics: to repeat their stand again and again, irrespective of how credible it was, until everybody had become convinced that this was the truth and nothing but the truth. Turns out ,it was not.

It’s fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Palestinian and Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement’s fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure for Palestinians , if it won’t address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, natural sources allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

-OverDose

Lists and References

1- The Myth of Camp David Or The Distortion of the Palestinian Narrative by Helga Baumgarten

The Myth of Camp David Or The Distortion of the Palestinian Narrative

2- Debate between Dr.Norman Finkelstein & the former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami.Palestinians were correct to reject the Israeli and American “proposed” settlement for the conflict at Camp David in 2000 (starting from minute 49:20). Dr. Norman Finkelstein : On the record of house demolitions, Mr. Rabin used to boast that he had demolished many more homes than any Likud government. Even on the record of settlements, as Dr. Ben-Ami well knows, the record of Rabin was worse in terms of settlement expansion than the record of Yitzhak Shamir, and a fact he leaves out in the book, the record of Barak on housing startups in the Occupied Territories —

AMY GOODMAN: Building more houses? 

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Yeah — was worse than the record of Netanyahu. It’s a paradox for, I’m sure, American listeners, but the record on human rights, an abysmal record in general, an abysmal record in general, and in particular, the worst record is the record of Labour, not Likud. https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2006/2/14?autostart=true

3-Palestinian Right of Return – Norman Finkelstein:

What I will not accept , is anybody telling the Palestinians as a precondition for negotiations , that they have to give up the right , that’s their Right!

Nobody has the right to tell the Palestinians they have no right The official Israeli position of Ehud Barack in Camp David ,we will not accept any moral,legal or historical responsibility for what happened to the Palestinians … That’s a nonstarter