Camp David of the year 2000 refers to a summit held in the place whose name is borne by it and whereby both Israël and Palestine seemed to be heading for a way out from the conflict. It has been conducted upon an invitation from former president Bill Clinton. A proposal was advanced by Israel but never materialized. Indeed, the Israeli proposal was rejected by the palestinian representative, Yaser Arafat. The failure to agree with it has stirred debate on whose fault it is; whether it is the israelis who did not provide a convenient plan or whether it is the palestinians who failed to seize the olive branch.
On one end of the spectrum, some analysts and politicians believe that the Palestinians should have accepted the proposal. Benny Morris and Ehud Barak exemplify this stream of thought. They argue that the plan embodies an unprecedented attempt at compromising. The stakes were a total control of the Gaza Strip, a quasi-total control of the West Bank, and an end of occupation. On the other end of the spectrum, other analysts argue that the failure of the Summit is to be shared by both parties. Among them we find, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley who maintain that the proposal was not as generous as it has often been portrayed.
As a matter of fact, it is true that Camp David was the first tangible attempt to find a solution. However, its seems that the concern of Israel about the security of its people and territory made it over stipulate provisions that literally stripped Palestinians from any real power over their territory. Moreover, the issue of Jerusalem was poorly attended to. It offered no authority to palestinians over it, knowing that the palestinian population beholds the city as a holy place, just like the Israelis.
The provisions of the proposal gave the Israelis the right to control the air space and the frontiers of the two states. This means that it would have held the power to police both territories and the Palestinians would have been dependent on it. It is a milder form of colonization because Palestine would not enjoy total sovereignty.
It is understandable that Israel has a major security concern, as the history of Palestine/Israel has long been that of mutual attacks on respective populations and territories. It is furthermore complicated on the Israeli side because Israel does not face an official palestinian army but rather various factions- that do not stop fomenting- who do not necessarily abide by the position of their national authority. This is clearly reflected in the proposed division of Palestine into cantons and the imposition of a substantial Israeli surveillance on them. On the other hand, such provisions meant that Palestine would not be fully independent.
The other major issue is that of Jerusalem. It is a place which is holy to both populations, the Israelis and the palestinians. Asking to give up on East Jerusalem would have propbably stirred violence on the part of the palestinian population, even if Arafat would have accepted it. It disregards religious sensitivities. This particular issue seems to be exaggerated on the part of Israel. It totally diregards and rejects the religious and historical Palestinian claim onto Jerusalem and upholds only one religious/historical version of it- theirs.
The palestinians’ mistake is in the end not that of rejecting the proposal rather that of not offering an alternative. Conflicts like the palestinian-israeli one can only be solved through negotiations. The Palestinians should have negotiated more and probably appeased the security concerns that the israeli counterpart has been operating from. On the other hand, the issue of Jerusalem deserves a more compromising proposal on the part of Israel.