Myths – Barak's Generous Offer

Israeli propaganda

“In 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians what they had long claimed to have desired, an independent Palestinian state. They rejected the offer and have conducted a premeditated war of terror that has taken the lives of more than 600 Israelis and maimed hundreds more, mostly civilians.

“Had Yasser Arafat said yes to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip instead of holding out for a Palestinian state in place of Israel, it is likely the Palestinians would be enjoying full independence today.

“Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians dramatic and previously unthinkable concessions. By eschewing the piecemeal approach of Oslo, Barak hoped to bring the conflict to an end, but Arafat was unwilling to make peace. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ambassador Dennis Ross [1], the chief negotiator for the U.S.”

– Jewish Virtual Library

Background

In the Camp David Summit of July 2000, Barak made his "generous offer".

Excerpt 1

Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

– Camp David Peace Proposal of July, 2000 and the so-called Barak's Generous Offer from the The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Excerpt 2

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured in 1967, comprise 22% of pre-1948 Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept only these 22% and recognize Israel within the Green Line borders. Conceding 78% of the land was a historical Palestinian compromise but not "generous" enough for Barak.

– Shockwave presentation from Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace organization.

Excerpt 3

Israel meeting its obligations under international law (such as Security Council Resolution 242, which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," and specifically called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the" 1967 war) is no more "generous" than anyone who refrains from breaking the law. Indeed, that is the least expected of a civilized individual or nation.

– The Only Thing "Generous" is the Propaganda by Tom Gorman.

Excerpt 4

At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans that he could not accept Palestinian sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem other than a purely symbolic "foothold." Earlier, he had claimed that if Arafat asked for 95 percent of the West Bank, there would be no deal. Yet, at the same time, he gave clear hints that Israel was willing to show more flexibility if Arafat was prepared to "contemplate" the endgame. Bottom lines and false bottoms: the tension, and the ambiguity, were always there. …

The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record.

– Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors by Hussein Agha, Robert Malley [2].

Notes

1. “Two good examples of misrepresentation are those of Martin Indyk and, more especially Dennis Ross, both former US diplomats whom the BBC regularly trundles out to pontificate from apparently Olympian, though expert, detached heights about the Israel-Palestine crisis. It is never pointed out that both men are Zionists and former members of the powerful American Jewish lobby organisation, AIPAC.”
– Why the BBC Ducks the Palestinian Story by Tim Llewellyn.

2. Mr. Malley, as Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, was a member of the US peace team and participated in the Camp David summit. Mr. Agha has been involved in Palestinian affairs for more than thirty years and during this period has had an active part in Israeli-Palestinian relations.