NationStates Jolt Archive

Lots of people have many misconceptions about what Camp David was.

At Camp David in 2000, the Israelis and Americans offered President Arafat not a state but slavery.

For example, the West Bank would be divided into "A", "B", and "C" zones. In A zones, the Palestinian Authority would have civil and military control. B would be Palestinian civil control but Israeli military control, and in the C zones it would be entirely in Israeli control. "A" zones would be surrounded by "B" and "C" zones, making travel difficult to impossible.

On top of this, Israeli settlements would remain, Israeli troops could move at will throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel would control the electricity, water, and borders. Their bypass roads (roads leading from Israel going directly to the settlements) would remain.

Some of the best agricultural land in the West Bank would be taken by Israel and in return worthless desert land would be given to the Palestinians. East Jerusalem, which is mainly Arab, would also remain under the control of Israel.

I believe that if *any* leader had accepted such outrageous terms they would be committing treason and would be a traitor to their country.

http://www.nad-plo.org/images/maps/jpeg/campdavid.jpg

this link is to a map showing the proposed boarders.

http://www.nad-plo.org/images/maps/jpeg/campdavid.jpg

this link is to a map showing the proposed boarders.

Exactly. Look at that - West Bank would have been made into three parts, with the borders controlled by Israel, and settlements. :rolleyes:

I think the US and the Civilized world(The Western Culture) should go to war against these countries who call themselves holy but it is just an excuse for torturing the shit out of people. i say down with the middle east!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:

Thats a lie and a mantipulation of the truth, the peace accords were to be taken in stages
first stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_campdavid.jpg
second stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_taba.jpg
third stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_geneva.jpg
The security buffer near jordan is to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorists while the treaty takes place, also u cant dismentle all settlements in one time as u cant deliever all territories in one time

evantually the westbank should've looked like this - http://www.israel-wat.com/map2.jpg

sorry for the foreign languages but thats all i can find in a short notice before going to work!

p.s. and you know? even if u dont like something in the negotiations its called negotiations, u offer stuff and get another offer in return.. arafat offered nothing, he simply refused to negotiate.

Thats a lie and a mantipulation of the truth, the peace accords were to be taken in stages
first stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_campdavid.jpg
second stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_taba.jpg
third stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_geneva.jpg
The security buffer near jordan is to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorists while the treaty takes place, also u cant dismentle all settlements in one time as u cant deliever all territories in one time

evantually the westbank should've looked like this - http://www.israel-wat.com/map2.jpg

sorry for the foreign languages but thats all i can find in a short notice before going to work!

p.s. and you know? even if u dont like something in the negotiations its called negotiations, u offer stuff and get another offer in return.. arafat offered nothing, he simply refused to negotiate.
This is the truth. Arafat demanded 100%, got 98% and turned it down. You will hear on certain news channels about the horrid conditions of the refugee camps. Arafat could have ended this if he had agreed to the Camp David Agreement. This problem also could have been solved if the surrounding Arab countries had offered to absorb the Palestinians there, but that's not gonna happen. Real progress is against the wishes of the radical islamic governments in the region.

Lots of people have many misconceptions about what Camp David was.

At Camp David in 2000, the Israelis and Americans offered President Arafat not a state but slavery.

For example, the West Bank would be divided into "A", "B", and "C" zones. In A zones, the Palestinian Authority would have civil and military control. B would be Palestinian civil control but Israeli military control, and in the C zones it would be entirely in Israeli control. "A" zones would be surrounded by "B" and "C" zones, making travel difficult to impossible.

On top of this, Israeli settlements would remain, Israeli troops could move at will throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Israel would control the electricity, water, and borders. Their bypass roads (roads leading from Israel going directly to the settlements) would remain.

Some of the best agricultural land in the West Bank would be taken by Israel and in return worthless desert land would be given to the Palestinians. East Jerusalem, which is mainly Arab, would also remain under the control of Israel.

I believe that if *any* leader had accepted such outrageous terms they would be committing treason and would be a traitor to their country.
These are what Barak offered:
Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip.
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal.
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control.
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control.
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City.
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967.
Here was all Arafat had to do:
Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future.

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

Why would any leader reject that kind of offer, without negotiating is beyond me. He didn't say anything, didn't make a counter-offer, just walked out.

Thats a lie and a mantipulation of the truth, the peace accords were to be taken in stages
first stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_campdavid.jpg
second stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_taba.jpg
third stage - http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~apjme/map_geneva.jpg
The security buffer near jordan is to prevent weapons smuggling and terrorists while the treaty takes place, also u cant dismentle all settlements in one time as u cant deliever all territories in one time

evantually the westbank should've looked like this - http://www.israel-wat.com/map2.jpg

sorry for the foreign languages but thats all i can find in a short notice before going to work!

p.s. and you know? even if u dont like something in the negotiations its called negotiations, u offer stuff and get another offer in return.. arafat offered nothing, he simply refused to negotiate.

I think you are a little confused, the Geneva or Taba plans did not exist in the summer of 2000 when the Camp David negotiations were going on, and the geneva plan is unofficial and never been endorsed by Israel or the PLO. I don't know what you mean saying the peace plan was meant to be taken in stages-- The camp david plan would have required the Palestinians to permanently give up East Jeruselum and 9 percent of the occupied territories. An additional 10 percent of the territories would be under temporary lease to Israel for defense purposes.

The Geneva plan is largely fair and pragmatic. If I were the PM of Israel or the head of the PLO I would accept it. Unfortunately I don't think Sharon will. Likely Palestinian leaders like Abbas or Queria are pretty level headed guys and would probably accept a Taba or
geneva type plan, but would need an Israeli partner- perhaps a Barak or Peres.

When speaking about Camp David II, there is a tendency towards conflation, oversimplicity, and disengenuousness by both sides.

The truth is that the original offer, counter to Israeli claims, was not super-generous. However, it is also true that the Palestinians did not make any counter-offers, and instead withdrew from the negotiations, something which negated the entire POINT of the talks in the first place. It should also be noted that the Israeli offer changed several times during the several days Camp David lasted. The map usually shown by anti-Israeli people is the map that the negotiations STARTED with, not what they ended up with.

Something else which is also overlooked (or ignored) by anti-Israel folks is that there were FOLLOW-UPS to Camp David, most notably the Clinton Proposal and subsequent Taba talks, occuring in December 2000 and January 2001, respectively. These offers were much more generous, and also rejected- no one has been able to explain why, save that Arafat and the PLO were more interested in remaining mythical "freedom fighters" in the eyes of their people than in making practical deals in exchange for REAL results.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/clintplan.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/Taba.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story179.php

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#w

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and [/u]not a series of cantons[/u]. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.

http://www.fmep.org/documents/clinton_parameters12-23-00.html

Here are some later maps:

Israel's offer in December 2000:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/jaasherc2palstate.jpg

Clinton's Proposal (also December):

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/jaasherclinb2palstate.jpg

Not fantastic, but far from "Cantons".

And here is the map the Palestinians walked away from at Taba- this was the FINAL map of the negotiation process, NOT the Camp David one from months earlier:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/taba.jpg

95 percent of the West Bank. Turned down, by Arafat.

Just for a comparison, here's a map that has both Barak's and Sharon's planned Palestinian states laid on top of each other. You tell me which would have been preferable.

http://www.fmep.org/maps/v11n4_Barak_Sharon_map.jpg

I'm no math whiz, but 94/95 percent is generally thought to be BETTER than 43 percent.

Face facts, people. The initial Israeli offer wasn't great, but the final one was pretty damn good, compared to what they're likely to get under Sharon, if anything.

Arafat fucked his people over. Again. Thanks, Yasser.