I've never seen much persuasive value in the claim that Camp David means the PA, or the Palestinians generally, would never accept a two-state solution--or, indeed, anything short of the disappearance of Israel.

But a less expansive claim has also circulated, and that one I think is harder to dismiss out of hand. That's that the rejection of the Camp David offer without making a counter-offer or at least promising to come back with a response after mulling it over precipitated the collapse of that round of negotiations and had much to do with the beginning of the new intifada.

Maybe Barak's offer was "piss-poor," but it was clearly something new from the Israeli side and, as Taba later showed, could be the basis for a reasonable counter-offer. Arafat's immediate response undermined Barak, and what happened next--Sharon's photo-op at the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa and the outbreak of the intifada--meant that by the time of the Taba talks, the conditions for an agreement had disappeared for the time being.

Maybe we're getting back to the point at which an agreement can be reached, now that the intifada, the new settlements, the fence, the destruction of the Palestinian economy, and so on have altered the immediate political context. Maybe Geneva is a sign that an intergovernmental agreement could be near, if Sharon can be prevented from scuttling it (i.e., if he can be removed from office).

But I do think the Palestinian side bears a significant share of the responsibility for the breakdown of talks last time around and the initiation of a new period of violence. This is a far cry from saying the Palestians never wanted a two-state solution, let alone that they'll never come to accept one; it's more about a short-term blunder than an instrinsically problematic set of long-term objectives.

To say that Arafat made a bad negotiating move at Camp David (and walking away from the table is standard hard-ball negotiating) is a quite reasonable criticism of the Palestinians.

The Israelis electing Netayanu back in the mid-90s and defacto derailing Oslo negotiations until Barak was elected was a similarly bad move that undermined what could have been a better and earlier peace deal.

All of those criticisms are true-- Arafat deserves all sorts of insults for his mode of negotiating at times, but that is a far different thing from the general blanket claims that the Palestinians are so against peace that only violence is an option for the Israelis-- which is what the usual Camp David story-telling usually is about.

Agreed.

Excellent post. Let's remember that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute only 22% of Palestine under the British Mandate (and less than half of what the UN originally designated it in 1947). In other words, the Palestinians conceded 78% of their original homeland when they entered into peace talks with the Israelis. Looking at things from a historical perspective helps you understand why Palestinians were not overwhelmed with gratitude by either Barak or Clinton's "generous" (a term that itself reveals much, BTW) offers.

Also, it should be pointed out that when Barak offered Palestinians 92% of the West Bank, that means he was trying to annex the remaining 8% to Israel. That was a major violation of international law, which explicitly prohibits the annexation of territory by war. That doesn't mean there can't adjustments to the 1967 ceasefire lines, but the adjustments have to be equal in size and value (as is the case with the Geneva Accords). So the Palestinians were perfectly within their rights to reject both Barak's and Clinton's offers.

Peter,

"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth..." Why start this way? Rashi, writing a thousand years age, said it is to establish ownership. According to Rashi, some day, people will come and say to the Jews, what is your claim to the Land of Israel? It is because it is God owned it and gave it to us," we can say. Now you may or may not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, I certainly don't, but if your going to go back over 55 years to establish ownership, why stop there? Either deal with facts as they exist now or go back all the way to the beginning. At least go back to the Balfour Declaration of 1948, which gave more land to the Jews than Israel has now, and gave much more to the Arabs. The Arabs got all of Transjordan. Actually, all that land belonged to the Ottoman Empire and fell into British hands after its collapse following WWI.

Joe

Hold on now. As I recall, Barak made an offer to Arafat, but he presented no maps, no borders, etc. When the Palestinians drew the lines proposed by Israel, the West Bank was still carved up into islands, with "security zones" or buffers splitting apart Palestinian enclaves. Not to mention complete Israeli control of access to the Jordan River. The Palestinians had a tiny sliver of access to the river in the south, IIRC. No counteroffer to a crap deal like that? No surprise.

I am no fan of Arafat, but he and the Palestinians are getting a bum rap for rejecting Camp David. The shock to me was, and continues to be, that Clinton thought it was a good offer by Barak. Nuts to that.

So what's your take on the Judt-Said view that the expansion of the settlements has made the two-state solution impossible, the remaining options being one state of all its citizens, or "transfer"?

Joe:

At least go back to the Balfour Declaration of 1948 . . .

or the revolt of the Maccabees of 1922, or the return from the Babylonian exile of 1917 . . .

There are strong elements in Arafat's coalition that will never accept the legitimacy of Israel as a state, no matter how much land it cedes to the Palestinians. And those elements know very well that terrorism turns Israelis against the idea of fair negotiations.

> "It's as reasonable to say that the Israelis refusal to accept the Palestinians last offer at Taba shows their etc. etc....."

What "Palestinian offer at Taba"?!?!? There was no such animal. So Israel couldn't have rejected it.

This just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about

"So what's your take on the Judt-Said view that the expansion of the settlements has made the two-state solution impossible, the remaining options being one state of all its citizens, or "transfer"?"

I think that is the only solution that will resolve the conflict, although it won't happen in the near future. One state, highly decentralized, will ensure equal rights for everyone and render moot dismantling the settlements and barring return of the refugees.

The Arabs got all of Transjordan.

The Palestinians, however, got nothing. To call Arabs one big, amorphous mass is just, well, racist. Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Arabia -- these places are not interchangeable to their inhabitants.

I don't think most of you think about it, but the American Indians used to live in the modern United States. All over the place; they're *American* Indians for a reason. Since the European takeover of the continent, they have been dispersed and live in the inner cities or set-off reservations.

Let's right this wrong. Let's give them Illinois.

What about those folks who already live in Illinois? Well, they can move to Indiana. They can move to Missouri. They can move to Wisconsin. They have no course to complain, since there are already 49 other states where non-Indian Americans can live. An American of European or African origin can go live in one of those states. They all speak English.

Pardon me for saying so, but isn't that appalling and insane? Were I living in Illinois, I'd be pretty pissed off. And that's the Palestinian situation -- you're just like those guys over there. Move along. You'd be sooo much happier among your own kind.

Also, the League of Nations did not say "Transjordan, for the Arabs, Palestine, for the Jews" or anything like that at all. The League specifically excluded Jewish settlement in Transjordan from its mandate because it estimated the number of Jewish settlers living there at two or three people. Even in the Balfour Declaration (of 1917, but I'm sure you knew that) there is explicit mention of nothing therein trampling on any rights of those Gentiles already living there. Let's go back that far.

I think that is the only solution that will resolve the conflict, although it won't happen in the near future. One state, highly decentralized, will ensure equal rights for everyone and render moot dismantling the settlements and barring return of the refugees.

Right on the money. Nobody there is ready to accept this yet, and that's sad. The problem isn't that a bunch of Jewish settlers moved into the neighborhood. The problem is that they do this and knock down trees and houses and take the water and tell the Palestinians to move if they don't like this.

If you visit israpundit.com regularly you will understand that the Right is right. Rather than get into the argument of whether the Arabs are prepared to accept a two state solution, one which I would win hands down, I rather raise another thought here. The lands are disputed lands, not Palestinian lands. Both sides are making claims on it. Why should Geneva be the deal or Taba for that matter. The Israelis are within their rights to settle there and to claim the land as their own. The rest shoupd be open to negotiation but the world wants to sacrifice Israel to curry favour with the Arabs. Israel has other ideas.

Ted- The lands are NOT disputed. Every UN resolution has declared the occupation illegal. Only a US veto has prevented an internationally-imposed resolution, but there is no dispute under international law of whether the Palestinians have the right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There is actually still minor dispute over the lands seized by Israel in the 1948 war, but resolutions since then have de facto recognized Israel's sovereignty over pre-1967 Israel.

But here's the basic point-- Israel either sticks to pre-1967 borders or it becomes a non-democratic state ruling over in apartheid-manner over Palestinians who outnumber them. I support a democratic Israel's right to exist. I ultimately would support the destruction of an Israel that claimed the racist right to rule another people undemocratically.

If Israel chooses the latter course, it will be choosing national suicide ultimately. Look at the demographics in the US-- as Islamic and Arab votes become a larger and larger factor each year in elections, the US veto may no longer be guaranteed.

It is a pragmatic decision for Israel to choose peace and survival. And that means Geneva and Taba.

"If you visit israpundit.com regularly you will understand that the Right is right."

Impossible. The right is never right.

"The lands are disputed lands, not Palestinian lands. Both sides are making claims on it."

If that's true, then everything within the green line is disputed as well.

I hope the Geneva agreement actually leads to peace, but there is one obstacle on the Palestinian side alluded to above--the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948 and as individuals they have the right to return.

Now it's probably unreasonable to expect the Israelis and Palestinians to live in the same country in peace, and the Israelis don't want them back. This sort of thing can't be forced (though apparently we think we can force our own preferences on Iraq). So I hope the Palestinians can be persuaded to give up their right of return. But as others have pointed out upthread, if they do this they will be the ones making the truly generous concession for peace, and not the Israelis as it is always portrayed in the US.

Nathan "The lands are NOT disputed. Every UN resolution has declared the occupation illegal." Not so. You must be more specific. First of all The UN does not establish international law. Secondly there has never been a binding resolution of the security council declaring the occupation illegal. Res 242 actually was an endorsement by the security Council for Israel to remain in occupation until they had agreed and secure borders. There has never been such an agreement so the occupation remains and is legal according to the Security Council. I could go on and on to support that there is absolutely no basis in international law to call the occupation illegal.

As for the question of whose land it is., make your case In law these lands were subject to the British Mandate and nothing has superceded it. Res 181 provided for two states to be created on the whole of the remaining madate and only Israel declared a state. The Palestinians were not a recognized entity at that time. The arabs rejected the resolution and never declared a state. So it never became theirs. The British Mandate provided that Jews could settle anywhere within the mandate. Thus the settlements are not illegal. I could go on and on but prefer to do it in a different forum. So I challenge you to make your case on any issue as to fact or law and I will publish it on Israundit with my rebuttal. editor@israpundit.com.

Nathan "The lands are NOT disputed. Every UN resolution has declared the occupation illegal." Not so. You must be more specific. First of all The UN does not establish international law. Secondly there has never been a binding resolution of the security council declaring the occupation illegal. Res 242 actually was an endorsement by the security Council for Israel to remain in occupation until they had agreed and secure borders. There has never been such an agreement so the occupation remains and is legal according to the Security Council. I could go on and on to support that there is absolutely no basis in international law to call the occupation illegal.

As for the question of whose land it is., make your case In law these lands were subject to the British Mandate and nothing has superceded it. Res 181 provided for two states to be created on the whole of the remaining madate and only Israel declared a state. The Palestinians were not a recognized entity at that time. The arabs rejected the resolution and never declared a state. So it never became theirs. The British Mandate provided that Jews could settle anywhere within the mandate. Thus the settlements are not illegal. I could go on and on but prefer to do it in a different forum. So I challenge you to make your case on any issue as to fact or law and I will publish it on Israpundit with my rebuttal. editor@israpundit.com.

If you want a more detailed argument which makes the point that the settlements are legal to here
http://israpundit.com/archives/003401.html

Here's another ne on the legality of the settlements.
http://israpundit.com/archives/003144.html

And here
http://israpundit.com/archives/003214.html

Ted- You can quote British Mandate documents from the 1920s, but why should anyone take seriously the right of a colonial power to bestow Palestinian land in any way-- anything that Britain might have decided was superseded by the 1948 division of the land, which gave Israel LESS land than the 1967 borders.

As for followup resolutions, let's be serious. The overwhelming-- as in all but the US and a few of its smallest client states-- support Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders. Even the United States does not recognize the Occupied Territories as properly under Israeli sovereignty.

You can scholastically try to interpret past resolutions, but the global interpretation of them was that Israel did not have legal occupation. They might not demand that Israel withdraw immediately because of security concerns, but the settlements are unquestionably illegal.

Well as per my easy prediciton, they'll be no more movement towards 'peace' since the PA and Hamas etc. can not even agree on a 'cease fire'. Or even what that 'means'. War after all is all too important to them to relinquish their heroic fantasy of 'driving Israel into the sea.' It is ever thus.

Another generation guys. If when we're 80 and we are having the same argument, you'll know it wasn't as hopeless as we all feared, just nearly so. If the PA tomorrow just declared all out war on the state of Israel, they might even come out ahead in the long run. This 30-40 years of war, cold war, phoney war, 'uprisings' etc. is getting a bit tiresome for all concerned. It's all too hard to follow without detailed notes. Come back and talk when you can agree on a serious plan, ANY plan. An attack, a war, a peace. Just do it. It's the generations on both sides that have been crushed under this slow motion disaster that have been suffering the most. This is the saddest parody for war yet derived by the twisted hearts of men. It's got to end. Or begin. One or the other.

Again heart breaking, and tragically funny at the same time. We need much more humor to view this from too. I propose and immediate grant to any budding comics coming from the PA for the next decade or so. I firmly believe it'll do more good than all of the chairman's minions talking endlessly about things they know they dare truly not dream about.