Maybe It Depends On What Your Definition of "Nation" Is

How many times over the past 4 years have you heard some media personality or politician claim that Yasser Arafat torpedoed the last best hope for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by refusing to accept the incredibly generous offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David in July of 2000? Now, that honest broker, Bill Clinton informs us of his deep regret that Arafat "missed the opportunity" to bring the Palestinian nation into being. Since the death of Arafat has become an occasion for reflection, might we consider, for just a moment, the seldom heard view of the Palestinians about what happened at Camp David?

The San Francisco based human rights organization, Global Exchange is an excellent source for the Palestinian perspective on the conflict with Israel. In particular, there is a frequently asked questions section dealing directly with the Camp David Peace Proposal http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/palestine/campDavidFAQ.html.pf . In response to the question of why the Palestinians rejected the Camp David proposal you will learn that it was never set forth in writing and denied the viability of the nascent Palestinian state by dividing their territory into 4 separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli settlements in their territory.

Many Americans have been led to believe that Israel's proposal would have given the Palestinians back almost all of the territories occupied during the 6 Day War of 1967. According to Global Exchange, Israel actually sought to annex almost 9% of the occupied territories and offered only 1% of Israeli territory in return. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the occupied Palestinian territories in the form of a "long term lease." However, as Global Exchange points out, the central issue is not about percentages, it is about the viability and independence of the Palestinian state. The point is brought home by using the example of of a prison compound where 95% of the facilities - cells, cafeteria, gym, infirmary - are ostensibly for the prisoners but the remaining 5% is all that is required to maintain control over the prison population.

The Camp David Proposal also 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 Arab East Jerusalem.

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 which call for an Israeli withdrawal from the land occupied in 1967 and agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David, the Palestinians have presented their concept for the resolution of key permanent status issues but it is important to recognize that the Israelis have a very different and more limited view of what would constitute Palestinian sovereignty.

While the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this at Madrid Summit in 1991 and Oslo conference of 1993, the Israelis have yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently from the conclusion of the Madrid talks for their freedom and independence despite Israel's continued construction of settlements in the occupied territory (a 52% increase, excluding East Jerusalem, since 1993).

Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Israeli Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened the Palestinians that his "offer" would be one that they could not refuse and that if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation." This is in effect what is going on now with the construction of the wall and other prison-like attributes of the "nation" Arafat "missed the opportunity" to bring into being.