*

Key Objectives and Issues

The Camp David Summit focused on three issues: territory, refugees, and security. None of the objectives were achieved as no agreement was ever formalized.

 

Territory

-          Issues regarding the future of a Palestinian state and what it would physically consist of were the key focus of the talks

-          The issue of territory was multi-faceted, with solutions primarily sought for three issues:

o   Establish the territory and borders of a Palestinian state

•  It was clear for both Palestinians and Israelis that a Palestinian state would be created
•  This territory would be primarily made up of sections of the West Bank and Gaza, but the two delegations disagreed on what should all be included from these territories (particularly the division of the West Bank)

o   Evacuation of Israeli settlements

•  It was relatively clear that Israeli settlements would be evacuated from whatever territory would be handed over by Israel, but there was discussion about the timeline for this to occur

o   Sovereignty of Jerusalem

•  The most contentious issue of the talks and what ultimately ended the summit and chance for an agreement
•  Jerusalem would be divided, but boundaries of sovereignty were difficult to establish. Both parties defined the city limits and East Jerusalem differently
•  Discussions were expected to be heated due to the religious and historical value of sections of Jerusalem, such as the Old City and the Temple Mount

 

Refugees

-          The status of Palestinian refugees was a critical issue in the talks, even though it wasn’t seen as the top priority (especially for Israel).

-          The key ideas discussed in relation to the refugee situation were:

o   Palestine wanted Israel to express regret over the suffering of Palestinian refugees

•  Barak was willing for Israel to accept this and to release a statement

o   Israel to reabsorb some percentage of Palestinian refugees

•  Israel was willing to settle approximately 10,000 refugees under a family reunification plan
•  Palestine envisioned a much larger portion of the four million refugees returning to territories controlled by Israel

o   Funding, from Israel, for an international organization that focused on the rehabilitation and resettlement of Palestinian refugees outside of Israel

 

Security

-          Going into the summit, Israel had a worry that giving even some of the West Bank up would constitute a security threat, creating a gateway for an Arab attack. Thus, this aspect of the talks was primarily based on Israeli demands

-          Thus, certain assurances and related security topics were discussed, such as:

o   Ability for Israeli troops to enter Palestine in emergencies

o   Israeli access to Palestinian airspace

o   Timeframe for handing over military positions within future Palestine

o   Establishing Israeli warning stations within Palestine

o   Division of regional resources, such as water, between Israel and Palestine

o   The official end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

o   Some form of partial demilitarization for Palestine

o   International border security force

*

*

• Actors Formally Participating in Talks
  • Israel as an actor
    • PM Barak seemingly wanted to negotiate but he also had some issues back home, which brings up the question of whether any agreement would’ve been legitimate back in Israel.
    • On Land
      • 92% was the best offer, which included 91% of the West Bank, plus 1% land swap from pre-1967 Israel
        • Some areas of East Jerusalem included
        • However, that was according to the Israeli definition of the West Bank, in the Palestinian sense it would’ve been 86%
      • Barak hoped to have a presence in the Jordan Valley for 6-21 years
        • Had dropped that plan in September 2000 according to Ben-Ami
      • On Security
        • 3 early warning stations and a demilitarization of Palestine
          • As well as one to two thin stretches through Palestine, which would break the West Bank into two to three parts.
        • On Refugees
          • Had accepted a small number of refugees under the family reunification program
            • But refused the right of return since they were afraid of no longer being a Jewish state
            • Right of return “a euphemism for the elimination of Israel”
          • Important: The Israeli offer only meant autonomy for Palestine, not sovereignty in many parts of East Jerusalem
        • Palestine as an actor
          • Lack of leadership, lack of response, lack of commitment to the summit
          • Do not recognize Israel’s right to exist
            • No deal including the two states would not be accepted? (Visions in Collision)
          • Refugee Issue
            • Right of return
              • Around 4 million Palestinians according to them have the right of returning to their former homes
            • Put their focus away from the right of return issue during 2000-2001, instead they focused on a 5-part compromise:
              1. The Israelis should acknowledge the theoretical right of return (even to pre-1967 Israel), in return for significant limitations on the implementation on said issue.
              2. Accepted that the right of return should be implemented in a way to protect Israeli security and demographics
              3. That Israel would only be one of several locations for the refugees
              4. That a cap would be put on the Palestinians allowed to return to Israel
              5. That both parties would accept the creation of a multibillion-dollar fund
              6. the PA negotiators accepted that the agreement on refugees would satisfy the Palestinian right of return in toto.
    • Land Issue
      • The offer "would have carved Israeli-controlled cantons out of the West Bank and dashed any hopes for a viable, territorially contiguous Palestinian state” (Visions in Colision)
  • US as an actor
    • The Clinton Plan
      • Accepted by both Israel and Palestine but both actors had their reserves. However, only Palestine actually did anything about them. (Visions in Collision)
      • Later became the foundations for the Taba talks
      • Land issues:
        • called for 97%, including 94-6% of the West Bank plus a 1-3% landswap from pre-1967 Israel
        • 6 years of Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley (Visions in Collision)
        • The Israelis would give up East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, but their religious and cultural sites would be preserved
      • Security Issues:
        • Israeli forces should gradually withdraw over a period of three years. Meanwhile an international force would as well be introduced
        • Palestine, when founded, would “nonmilitarized”, but would make compromises to have an international security force as well making some security agreements with the Israelis.
      • Refugees
        • Palestine to be a renewed home for the refugees displaced in the 1948 war and onwards. A possibility would as well be that Israel would take some refugees. As well as an international compensation would be recommended by Clinton to help the refugees in many ways such as housing and hosting by other countries.
        • Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return

*

*

• Important Actors Not Formally Participating in Talks
  • Jordan
    • Not invited
      • Understandable in a way. They had stakes in the talks but could not really contribute much, only comment on any results after they had been accepted by the main parties, Palestine and Israel.
    • Arab unity
      • Recalled and did not renew its ambassador to Israel following bombing on Palestine in 2000
      • Maintained its role as mediator
    • Camp David and the Al-Aqsa Intifada: An Assessment of the…
  • Egypt
    • Not invited
      • Understandable in a way. They had stakes in the talks but could not really contribute much, only comment on any results after they had been accepted by the main parties, Palestine and Israel.
    • Palestine’s closest ally among Arab leaders
    • Arab unity
      • Recalled and did not renew its ambassador in 2000
      • Maintained its role as mediator
      • Camp David and the Al-Aqsa Intifada: An Assessment of the…
    • Acted as an advisor of sorts to Arafat and therefore Palestine
    • Agitator and possible spoiler?
      • However also promoted the Clinton plan and Mubarak said he would encourage Arafat to accept them
      • Palestine’s responsibility to protect Muslim religious assets (inevitable dead end of the arab-israeli conflict)

*

*

The Camp David Summit was initiated to solve one of the most complex questions in geo-politics and peace studies, how to create two states, which seem diametrically opposed, that live together in peace. In the end, it is apparent that the summit did not solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem at hand, and as of yet there has not been much progress in further peace negotiations. Yet, it is clear that the outcome of the talks at Camp David established parameters for peace and a framework for future dialogue,  enabling more constructive negotiations to take place. While no agreement was formalized, the existential question in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was answered, that both groups deserve legitimate states [3].

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one filled with bloody events and unsuccessful negotiations, and while this conflict continues to this day, the Camp David peace talks helped establish firm parameters for further negotiations. The main issue in this conflict centered on territory, and to help illuminate and build towards possible solutions the PLO removed its claim to partitioned Palestinian land that the Palestinians were given prior to 1967 [2]. This, alongside Israel’s removal of its citizens and troops from most of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, show that both sides were, and are, willing to give up land for peace [2]. This issue of land for peace became non-negotiable regarding Jerusalem, with both sides wanting the Old City and separately defining the borders of that Old City [3]. The reason both sides felt this was non-negotiable is that the Old City contains some of the holiest sites in all three monotheistic religions. In particular, the Palestinians rue the lack of control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is on the supposed temple mound of the temple of King David, while the western wall is also a hotspot for tension as one of the holiest sites in Judaism [3]. The religious feud over these two spots makes Jerusalem almost non-negotiable and highlights perhaps the most contentious point for any future peace talks..

Additionally, the refugee issue and the Palestinian ‘right of return’ was an issue that was a probable point of unavoidable conflict and continues to be a difficult barrier to overcome. Israelis often believed that a Palestinian ‘right of return’ would mean that Jews would be the minority in the Jewish state, with fears that this would lead to political discrimination from the Palestinians [2]. Consequently, Palestinians view the right of return as a non-negotiable issue because of their ancestral ties to the land, they want to return to cities and lands which were once their own [2]. While Israel attempted to compromise on this point of conflict by allowing a set number of refugees to be reunited with family in Israel, this was seen by the Palestinian delegation as a mere token gesture and not nearly extensive enough [6].

Thus, on the two most controversial and sensitive issues of contention, no clear solution was found at Camp David. What the talks did reveal was the willingness of both parties to discuss and compromise, within what they believed to be reasonable. The summit showed that noteworthy agreements, such as the establishment of a Palestinian state and the sovereignty over the Temple Mount, could be made [10]. While the breakdown occurred over the partition of Jerusalem [6], the deeper problem that may have caused the talks to fall apart might have been the timing. Prior to the talks, Palestinian officials warned that it was too early for peace talks as there had not been enough preparation and a lack of foundation [6], showing that the Palestinians neither seemed to be ready for a settlement nor able to make counter proposals [8][9]. The fact remains that neither side was or is able to reach a conclusion of the conflict without negotiations.

Thus, the promising outcome of the summit was the Trilateral Statement that came out even as the disappointing news of failure was released. It was an agreement between all parties that future discussions were necessary, and that they had to build off what had already been done. This dedication to further peace talks was seen through the Clinton Proposal and the Taba Summit, both of which occurred within six months of the meetings at Camp David [9]. While it may have just been an attempt at admitting total defeat, it provides a springboard for further action and a pledge to find a “just and lasting peace” [7].

At face value, the Camp David Summit was a failure. But even in its failure it was able to establish the basis of further negotiations, resolve the issue of whether to create a two-state system, and finally reveal the true stances of every party involved. As frustrating as the lack of agreement or peace was and continues to be, it confirmed Israel and Palestine’s desire for a long-lasting peace and offered hope for future negotiations. What continues to be perhaps the most complex geopolitical issue of our time will continue for the near future, but with sustained efforts and negotiations, these points of contention can hopefully be further whittled down and peace can be reached.

*

*

1. Trilateral Agreement: https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.htm
2. Israeli-Palestinian Background Info: https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro
3. Camp David Summit Information from Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-2000-camp-david-summit
4. Map of Israel’s Proposed Sovereignty Division of Jerusalem: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-proposed-division-of-jerusalem
5. Video of Pres. Bill Clinton announcing summit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op-uHx2hw8w
6. Video from the opening of the summit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cG9CL7dia8
7. New York Times article from July 26, 2000, a day after end of summit: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/26/world/impasse-at-camp-david-the-overview-clinton-ends-deadlocked-peace-talks.html
8. Government website for Camp David: https://whitehouse.gov1.info/camp-david/
9. Brief Biography of Yasser Arafat: https://www.biography.com/people/yasser-arafat-9187265
10. Brief Biography of Ehud Barak: https://www.biography.com/people/benjamin-netanyahu-9421908
11. Brief  Biography of Bill Clinton: https://www.biography.com/people/bill-clinton-9251236

*

*

Annotated Bibliography

 

Beinin, Joel, and Lisa Hajjar. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict A Primer.” MERIP, Feb. 2014, www.merip.org/sites/default/files/Primer_on_Palestine         Israel(MERIP_February2014)final.pdf.

 

The article “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict A primer” discusses the complex history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from its inception to the situation in 2014 when this article was published. The group that published this article is the Middle Eastern Research and Information Project which is a group of academic scholars and administrators that dedicate their time to researching middle eastern issues and informing the public on them. The information presented here included most of the critical moments in the Israeli Palestinian conflict regarding violence and diplomacy. This source is very reputable not just in the presentation of verified facts but its willingness to engage in both sides of the conflict without being normative or taking sides. This source is extremely relevant because it covers the entire timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to and past the Camp David Accord, which when considering that the assignment is a timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critically relevant to the assignment.  As it stands this source is comprehensive and informative in a descriptive way without accidentally becoming normative.

 

Hanieh, Akram. “The Camp David Papers.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, pp. 75–97.

 

The article “The Camp David Papers” by Akram Hanieh is one of the most fascinating sources on the Camp David Summit. A firsthand account of a Palestinian who attended the meetings in Maryland, it provides a much clearer and deeper image of the actions taken by the Palestinian delegation while also revealing the thought process behind such actions and how they interpreted the actions of the Americans and Israelis. As much of the published and reported firsthand accounts of the summit have come from non-Palestinian voices, this source provides an alternate view that balances out much of the popular western dialogue surrounding the meetings. This means that, despite its attempt at occasional academic analysis, the source is quite obviously biased towards the Palestinian plight. Regularly this would be a negative attribute, but within the context of the wider literature it ends up being beneficial for wider study of the Camp David Summit. Additionally, it provides comparatively detailed accounts of what happened in what were very secretive and opaque meetings. The aforementioned western perspectives do not get as specific and focused as this article, meaning it is one of the leading sources for seeing how discussions advanced or stumbled on a day-to-day basis.

 

Katirai, Negar. “HISTORY OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT.” Public Broadcasting Studio, Dec. 2001.

 

The article “History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” reports an overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up until 2001 when the article was published. This article was published and the information was compiled by Public Broadcasting Station which is the partially-publicly funded news organization of the U.S. PBS delivers consistent descriptive reporting without attempting to prescribe a normative assessment of the situation. This article goes over all major events in this conflict timeline which is relevant to this assignment because this assignment is to compile all major events in this conflict timeline. This article’s main strength is its range of events and situations which it views as major events, not restricting itself to military, political, or social events. This allows the article to articulate the viewpoints of both the Palestinians and the Israelis in addition to the physical events taking place. However, at the same time while the breadth of information is relevant and informative, the compilation of information is missing some key events, that had they focused on one or two types of events they probably could have accounted for. This article is informative and important to anyone studying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Lewin, Eyal. “The Inevitable End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Cogent Social Sciences, no. 2, 26 Aug. 2016.

 

The article by Eyal Lewin, titled “The Inevitable End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, focuses on the Camp David Summit and what Lewin sees as the six primary issues that were discussed. He aims for his analysis of the issues, the stances each delegation took, and the outcome to create a potential framework for future analysis of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. Lewin does an admirable job of looking at these six issues from both the Israeli and Palestinian perspective, breaking down each side’s platform, looking for why they took the stances they did and how each side saw the failure of the talks. He identifies how critical each side’s “national ethos” is critical to understanding the breakdown in talks, even using Nazi Germany to show how impactful such an ethos is. While this comparison appears somewhat crude considering the history of Israel, it may be effective to some degree for future analysis. Ultimately, the article serves to flesh out each of the six major issues for both parties and was helpful in highlighting the key objectives of the summit as well as the intentions of all those involved.

 

Myron J. Aronoff. ‘Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process’. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 143–67, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25655613.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A43265f3094ef99811ec5aa5d155016c1.

 

The article “Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process” gave a greater insight into the conflict within each country so to say. Each actor/country had its own team behind them. What this article manages to do is to dive deeper into each team and tell the story behind scenes in a way, the politics that hid behind each actor. That the Israeli offer to Palestine was not something that was a given, and certainly not something that had complete unity behind. It tells the reader of all the complications of being the negotiator the US was as well as politics that were ongoing in Palestine and Israel as the negotiations were ongoing. The conclusion reached is that while no agreement was reached there were significant agreements on some parts of the Israeli proposal from the Palestinians. However, the Palestinians failed to make any counter proposals. This article contributes to the assignment by providing a greater insight into the “daily life” of the negotiations, the human part of the mediation. It highlights how even within each delegation there was conflict and harmony couldn’t be found even among allies.

 

Pressman, Jeremy. ‘Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?’ International Security, vol. 28, no. 2, 2003, pp. 5–43, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4137467.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afb7e5a74f4d395f3e3f797c7d0c75bae.

 

The article “Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?” is a good general overview of the negotiation, mediation, as well as the Taba talks that followed the Camp David talks. The most important part of this essay is the different stories on how the talks went. Seeing as no official documents were released as part of the talks, what occured behind closed door is not clear. This article describes the statements of each actor involved and analyzes them, showing the reader what the different views tell us, what may be inaccurate about them and so on. The conclusion that is reached is that the main narrative, being the US/Israeli one, is inaccurate in many ways. However, the Palestinian narrative wasn’t entirely accurate either. What remains is that according to Pressman, the Palestinians were not ready to negotiate but the talks did manage to make some significant developments for future talks. As a whole the article was invaluable for the assignment, mainly because of its detailed descriptions and inclusion of both sides of the talks. In that way, it manages to remain quite neutral as well.

 

Schulze, Kirsten E. ‘Camp David and the Al-Aqsa Intifada : An Assessment of the State of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, July-December 2000’. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 24, no. 3, Taylor & Francis Group, May 2001, pp. 215–33, doi:10.1080/10576100151130298.

 

The article “Camp David and the Al-Aqsa Intifada : An Assessment of the State of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, July-December 2000” article offers a view of the Camp David from the perspective of the Intifada and its role around the mediation. Published in the fall of 2001 it also discusses the aftermath of the Camp David mediation in the end of 2000 as well as the possible future of discussions between Israel and Palestine. Its main strength, as well as possible weakness, is the focus on the Intifada which can be seen as too narrow. Its discussion on the role of other international actors is also something that was vital for the part on the important actors not involved in the peace talks seeing as that specific topic was extremely difficult to find. Moreover, the paper seems to be decently neutral in its discussion of the topic, which again was something fairly rare among academic papers in our research.

*

*

Endnotes

 

1. Beauchamp, Zack. “What Are Israel and Palestine? Why Are They Fighting?” Vox, Vox, 31 Mar. 2014, www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro.
2. Katirai, Negar. “History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Public Broadcasting Studio, Dec. 2001.
3. Beinin, Joel, and Lisa Hajjar. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict A Primer.” MERIP, Feb. 2014, www.merip.org/sites/default/files/Primer_on_PalestineIsrael(MERIP_February2014)final.pdf.
4. “Chronology of Summit Talks at Camp David.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 20 July 2000, abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=83118&page=1.
5. “Camp David Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 25 July 2000, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/848968.stm.
6. Hanieh, Akram. “The Camp David Papers.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, pp. 75–97.
7. “Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David.” U.S. Department of State, State.gov, July 2003, 2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.htm.
8. Myron J. Aronoff. ‘Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process’. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 143–67,
9. Pressman, Jeremy. ‘Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?’ International Security, vol. 28, no. 2, 2003, pp. 5–43, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4137467.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afb7e5a74f4d395f3e3f797c7d0c75bae.

 

Full Bibliography

 

Beinin, Joel, and Lisa Hajjar. “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict A Primer.” MERIP, Feb. 2014, www.merip.org/sites/default/files/Primer_on_Palestine         Israel(MERIP_February2014)final.pdf.

“Camp David Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 25 July 2000, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/848968.stm.

“Chronology of Summit Talks at Camp David.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 20 July 2000, abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=83118&page=1.

Hanieh, Akram. “The Camp David Papers.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, pp. 75–97.

Katirai, Negar. “History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Public Broadcasting Studio, Dec. 2001.

Lewin, Eyal. “The Inevitable End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Cogent Social Sciences, no. 2, 26 Aug. 2016.

Myron J. Aronoff. ‘Camp David Rashomon: Contested Interpretations of the Israel/Palestine Peace Process’. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 143–67, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25655613.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A43265f3094ef99811ec5aa5d155016c1.

‘President Clinton Reflects on 2000 Camp David Summit’. Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/president-clinton-reflects-on-2000-camp-david-summit. Accessed 19 Mar. 2018.

Pressman, Jeremy. ‘Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?’ International Security, vol. 28, no. 2, 2003, pp. 5–43, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4137467.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afb7e5a74f4d395f3e3f797c7d0c75bae.

Sachs, Susan. ‘IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE EGYPTIANS; The First Stop on the Way Home: A Visit With Mubarak - The New York Times’. The New York Times, 27 July 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/27/world/impasse-camp-david-egyptians-first-stop-way-home-visit-with-mubarak.html.

Schulze, Kirsten E. ‘Camp David and the Al-Aqsa Intifada : An Assessment of the State of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, July-December 2000’. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 24, no. 3, Taylor & Francis Group, May 2001, pp. 215–33, doi:10.1080/10576100151130298.

“Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David.” U.S. Department of State, State.gov, July 2003, 2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22698.htm.

*