Should Arafat Have Accepted Barak's Offer at Camp David?

By The Coalition for Justice in Israel/Palestine
Stanford Daily
Wednesday, October 16, 2002

[Note: In connection with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's visit to campus, the Stanford Daily published "pro" and "con" op-ed pieces on the question, "Should Arafat have accepted Barak's offer at Camp David?" Below is the "con" article, written by CJIP. A map of Barak's proposal is available here. See also our PDF flyer on "The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer".]

The interpretation of Camp David II that has crystallized in U.S. and Israeli memory glorifies the supposed Israeli willingness to work for peace while casting the Palestinians as recalcitrant warmongers. Yet if the summit failed due to a lack of vision, the myopia was on the Israeli side. What former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered at Camp David fell woefully short of the minimum requirements for a just and viable resolution to the conflict. The Palestinians could not have accepted it as a final peace deal.

To understand this assessment, let's recall what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about. The conflict has its roots in the century-old Zionist movement, whose main goal was the establishment of a Jewish state in overwhelmingly non-Jewish Palestine. Allying itself with Britain, then the colonial power, the Zionist movement organized decades of Jewish immigration into Palestine, against Palestinian wishes.

The 1948 war drove 700,000 Palestinian refugees into exile in surrounding countries. Many were forced out by Zionist forces that attacked Palestinian towns and villages with the deliberate aim of ethnic cleansing. The State of Israel was established on 78 percent of historic Palestine. Israel then closed its borders to prevent the refugees' return, razed over 400 Palestinian villages, and confiscated refugee land and property for use by Jewish immigrants.

In 1967, Israel completed its conquest of the remaining 22 percent of Palestine, capturing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. These areas were placed under a brutal military occupation and subjected to a massive campaign to establish Jewish-only settlements. Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories is characterized by gross human rights abuses including torture, assassination, arbitrary detention, land confiscation, excessive use of force and collective punishment.

Palestinian political goals have been shaped by this historical context. Palestinians have sought a just solution for the 4 million Palestinian refugees which, if it does not undo all the damage inflicted by the 1948 war, at least compensates Palestinians for their losses. Palestinians have sought shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, the political, religious and cultural capital of Palestine. Above all, Palestinians have sought an independent state through which they can achieve self-determination and have their security and rights protected, instead of living under occupation or colonization or as second-class citizens in foreign countries.

In striving for these goals, the Palestinian movement has made major concessions to the Israeli side in recognition of current realities on the ground. The most significant is that the Palestinians have recognized Israel and abandoned any claim of sovereignty over the 78 percent of Palestine that lies within Israel's internationally-recognized borders. The Palestinians have, in effect, agreed that Palestinian self-determination will be exercised only on the 22 percent of Palestine that make up the occupied territories.

Consistent with this position, the Palestinians have adopted a flexible approach to the refugee issue, offering to solve the problem in a way that does not endanger the Jewish majority within Israel -- even though international law requires a total return of all refugees. The Palestinian formula for peace is thus a two-state solution with compensation for refugees and shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. This position has long been recognized as the most viable, achievable and fair solution to the conflict.

Unfortunately, the Israeli side has not reciprocated Palestinian concessions, and continues to adhere to maximalist positions in its approach to the conflict. Nowhere was this clearer than at Camp David.

First, Israel offered no solution to the refugee problem. This by itself would have been a deal-breaker, since it meant relinquishing the valid legal and political rights of over half the Palestinian population. In effect, Palestinians were being asked to sweep under the rug the principal historical injustice Israel had inflicted upon them.

Second, the Israeli-proposed Palestinian "state" would have been divided into four non-contiguous enclaves completely surrounded by Israeli-controlled areas. The "state" would have no control over the border with Jordan, the Gaza Strip sea border, or passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The "state" could thus be shut down at Israel's whim -- hardly an exercise in Palestinian sovereignty.

Third, the Israeli offer involved annexing 9 percent of the West Bank, including all major settlement blocs, which contain around 150,000 Jewish settlers outside Jerusalem. Israel, not content with the 78 percent of Palestine that Palestinians had already conceded, was demanding even more. The Israeli proposal also would have meant accepting the legitimacy of illegal settlements built for Jews only on confiscated Palestinian land during the 35-year military occupation.

Fourth, Israel did not offer Palestinians a real sharing of Jerusalem. Israel would keep all Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. Palestinians would get sovereignty over some outlying Palestinian neighborhoods, but not the old city of Jerusalem where the third holiest site in Islam, the Haram al-Sharif, is located. This meant Palestinian access to the old city and the Haram al-Sharif would remain subject to Israeli discretion.

For these reasons, Barak's "generous offer" at Camp David was anything but generous. Palestinian sovereignty? No. Palestinian security? No. Solution to the refugee problem? No. Sharing of Jerusalem? No. Dismantling of Israeli settlements? No. Barak's proposal amounted to nothing more than consolidation of the Israeli occupation, rejection of the minimum requirements for a just peace, and perpetuation of Israeli violations of international law. The Palestinians were right to turn it down -- accepting it would have been glorified surrender.