For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian
peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living
as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David
proposal, which was never set forth in
writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and
independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four
separate cantons entirely surrounded, and
therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp
David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own
borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and
expanding illegal Israeli colonies in
Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David
proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end
to military occupation.
Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the
territories occupied by Israel in 1967?
No. Israel sought to annex almost 9% of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories and in exchange offered only 1% of Israel's own
territory. In addition, Israel sought
control over an additional 10% of the
Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease".
However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one
of viability and independence. In a prison
for example, 95% of the prison compound is
ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and
medical facilities - but the remaining 5% is all that is needed
for the prison guards to maintain control
over the prisoner population.
Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making
Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to
end Israeli control over the Palestinian
population.
Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?
The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any
idea that is consistent with a fair peace
based on international law and equality of the
Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the
idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be
based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of
equal value and in areas adjacent to the
border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be
annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a
nine-to- one land swap (in Israel's favor) was
viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine
belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial
compromise.
How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian
state?
Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate
cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern
West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern
West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another
would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and
consequently subject movement of Palestinians
within their own country to Israeli control.
Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of
people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting
the Palestinian economy to Israeli control.
Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have
left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby
allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people
and goods but international movement as well.
Such a Palestinian state would have had less
sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans
created by the South African apartheid government.
How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?
The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up
any claim to the occupied portion of
Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced
recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks
after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow
Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods
in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such
neighborhoods would remain surrounded by
illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each
other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect,
such a proposal would create Palestinian
ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.
Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent
settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?
The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied
in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as
was accepted by both sides at the Madrid
Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The
purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions
(which call for an Israeli withdrawal from
land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and
reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of
occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the
Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the
resolution of the key permanent status issues.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that
Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated.
Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it
wants to annex Palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to
Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military
locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees'
their right of return. Israel has not offered
a single concession involving its own
territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek
to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to
provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and
colonies (which are universally recognized as
illegal), and to secure the right of
Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee
in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to
accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context,
particularly with respect to security and
refugees, it is up to Israel to define these
needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing
them.
Why did the peace process fall
apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?
Palestinians entered the peace process on the
understanding that (1) it would deliver
concrete improvements to their lives during the interim
period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in
duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement
would implement United Nations Resolutions 242
and 338. But the peace process delivered none
of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more
burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline
in their economic situation. Israeli colonies
expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West
Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the
construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of
Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in
the implementation of agreements. In sum,
Palestinians simply did not experience any
"progress" in terms of their daily lives.
However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support
for the peace process was the way Israel
presented its proposal. Prior to entering into
the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister
Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his
"offer" would be Israel's best and final offer
and if not accepted, Israel would seriously
consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for
imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians
felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who
had committed itself at the beginning of the
Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian
lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338.
Doesn't the violence which erupted
following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live
in peace with Israel?
Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988
and re-iterated this recognition on several
occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the
Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to
explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The
Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference
in 1991 for their freedom and independence
despite Israel's incessant policy of creating
facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory
(Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not
including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the signing of
the Oslo Accords and the settler population,
including those in East Jerusalem, more than
doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to
live at peace with Israel but peace with
Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair
peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.
Doesn't the failure of Camp David
prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?
The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo
Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli
sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine
(23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN
partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be
able to exercise sovereignty over the
remaining 22%. The overwhelming majority of
Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely
generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the
Palestinians were asked to "compromise the
compromise" and make further concessions in
favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make
compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental
rights or the viability of their state.
Have the Palestinians abandoned the
two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?
The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions
on both sides, with extremists in both Israel
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence
that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the
two- state solution. The two-state solution
however is most seriously threatened by the
on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass
roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories
into Israel. Without a halt to such
construction, a two-state solution may simply
be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of
Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will
never allow the Palestinians to have a viable
state and Palestinians should instead focus
their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli
citizens.
Isn't it unreasonable for the
Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all
Palestinian refugees?
The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp
David because Prime Minister Barak declared
that Israel bore no responsibility for the
refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no
comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
without resolving one of its key components:
the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There
is a clearly recognized right under international law
that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to
return after the conflict is over. But an
Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right
of return does not mean that all refugees will
exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is
the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement
in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a
newly independent Palestine (though they
originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel)
or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country
where they currently reside. In addition, the
right of return may be implemented in phases
so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.
Related
Links:
