Reasons for the Failure of Camp David of 2000 - Essay Example

Task Reasons for the Failure of Camp David of 2000 Introduction The Camp David summit was an assembly that involved the United States, Israel and Palestine. It involved the leaders of those countries coming together to discuss the way forward and work on the conflicts that faced the countries. It was aimed to eradicate the conflict involving Israel and Palestine. These two countries have been in conflict for an incredibly long time. Israel is composed of both Muslims and Christians while Palestine is an Arab only state. The summit was a continuation of the peace development that had been started by former United States president Carter. This paper will expand on the issues that led to the failure of Camp David in 2000 and what had caused the conflicts. Nature of the Failure of Camp David The summit meant to discuss many issues that hindered the development of the peace procedure and included territory, Jerusalem, refugees and security worries by Israel. In relation to territory, the Palestinian authorities demanded that they should be awarded with full power over some areas such as the Gaza strip, which was being controlled by Israel1. Israel disputed that the area belonged to them, and rejected their proposals. The prime minister of Israel instead offered them the access to the areas under conflict but insisted that they were still under the government of Israel. He additionally explained that the roads to be used were still under Israel and the Palestinians would be deprived of their use in case there was an emergency. The Palestinian leader rejected Israel’s whole idea since they had wanted complete ownership of the land2. This is one issue why they never solved their conflict on territorial borders. They further discussed on the territorial conflict that concerned Jerusalem. Palestinians claimed complete ownership of the east of Jerusalem and the holy cities that were nearby including Temple Mount. Amusingly, both Israel and Palestine referred to temple mount as holy grounds, considering that Judaism and Islam are involved. Palestine claimed that the land on the east of Jerusalem was ‘stolen’ by Israel and that they should return it to the rightful owner. The Israeli leader argued that if the land belonged to Palestine, they would still be having it since countries should always protect their possessions. In an attempt to solve this problem, Israel suggested that Palestine be granted with custodianship and not complete ownership of the area in conflict (Temple Mount)3. Israel however claimed that the ancient wall on the temple mount would belong to them since it was very an important icon in Judaism. Israel also suggested that some Muslim environs in the east of Jerusalem would be part of Palestine while others would still be under the control of Israel. It happens that Palestinians had wanted full control of all the Muslim neighborhoods and sought for an explanation why Israel would no grant them full sovereignty. They did not desire Israel to have power over the holy Arab cities in any manner and therefore could not come into a viable conclusion. Another reason for the summit was the issue of refugees. These refugees came to being because of war that made some Palestinians to escape from Israel into the neighboring Palestine. Palestine wanted the refugees to go back to their original homes in Israel without being asked and that they should be granted with land. Israel rejected because they were millions of them and they would make the country be overpopulated and limit the resources. Large populations have high demand for resources and lead to their degradation since they can never be enough. Israel stated that they would only permit the immigrants who had families left in Israel after the war period was over. This amounted to about 100,000 refugees4. This did not favor the Palestinians, as they wanted the refugees to decide where they wanted to be, Israel or Palestine. It was evident that a large number would prefer to relocate to Israel. It was also decided that immigrants would be supported from the country they were staying in and others would be moved to other countries and be supported from there. An international fund was also established in which specific countries would give to support the refugees and Israel would make a payment to the funding program. The other issue was that of the security concerns raised by Israel whereby Israel claimed that they were facing attacks by the Palestinians. They wanted to be permitted to put up satellite stations inside Palestine to monitor any violent activities that would affect their national security. Israel also wanted to have their troops inside Palestine in case there were security concerns in the region. Israel wanted the other party to get rid of terrorist groups that not just had threatened the security of Israel but also other countries5. Another demand by Israel was for the state to get over the conflicts they had. It happened that some Israel embassies were affected because of this conflict. Palestine did not yearn to agree to their demands because they probably had nothing to gain. Before the commencement of Camp David 2000, several gatherings had been held in the previous years. They were all intended at reaching a solution that would have Palestine recapturing their rights. One of the meetings was held in 1988 whereby the Palestinian National Council had met to discuss the issues concerning the conflict. This meeting required the Israeli forces to withdraw from their land that they had acquired during the war. They agreed that the Palestinians have the right to ownership of their land and especially in Gaza strip and West Bank6. This is where it all began and opened avenues for more meetings and in 1991, another conference was convened. It was called the Madrid conference and these opened the path for the development of the Oslo agreement. The Oslo agreement created the basis of what was required by the two groups in conflict7. Everyone thought with the laid down agreements, the two countries would be in peace finally. In short, none of the countries under conflict agreed to one another despite of the numerous offers they had offered each other. Palestine was offered with ideas and proposals by their counterparts Israel but agreed to none of them. It seems that they had wanted complete control of Israel without stating it directly. They had reacted greedily and if they had agreed to what they were offered, the conflict could have at least ended at that time. It seemed that there was no means any country could stop with the Palestinian leader Arafat. This is why most of the people associated the failure of the talks to Arafat who did not make any positive response. The whole process of negotiations ignored the fact that they should have established the history of the conflict. In order to resolve any conflict or problem, it is always important to establish first how it started and the factors that led to it. A problem is better attacked from its roots. They should have also established the relations between the three states that had met to negotiate. Some people termed the Israeli leader as a pretender who only wanted the media to have a view of his generosity that was ignored. They thought that Barak would have done nothing to meet those proposals he had made, the reason for rejection by Arafat. The Palestinians happened not to understand the importance of some of the areas they claimed ownership to Israel. For example on the issue of temple mount, the Palestinians should have tried to understand that the place was very sacred to the Israelites. What pains the Palestinians is that they cannot access the holy city and some areas of west bank. The aspect of misunderstandings was the chief reason for the failure of the talks. Both countries seemed not to identify with one another and could therefore not solve anything. Palestinians behavior at Camp David was not proper according to the Israelites8. It is believed that they had been forced to the summit hence they did not have anything to lose and this explains their behavior and negativity in the summit. The failure of Camp David is largely attributed to Arafat who all along had thought that a trap had been set on him by the Israel and United States governments. If they had taken everything serious and negotiated, they would have out an end to the conflict and both countries would be living in peace. The United States did not play a considerable role as expected of any third party. Actually, the president was quiet for most of the time listening to Arafat disagreeing to everything. The end role of United States was to make a decision that had to be agreed upon by all the parties, but it did nothing about it9. The president would make a final decision which neither Arafat nor Barak could refuse. He however could not make a valid decision because of the political part Israel played on America. Therefore, the American government happened to support all the moves that Israel had made in the meeting. America did not want to destroy the relations it shared with Israel and this reduced the effectiveness of the whole process of mediation. It is assumed that Clinton could possibly have played a big role in ending the conflict if he had played his part properly10. Another reason for the collapse of the Camp David summit concerned Israel that did not want to come into terms with what history had affected them. If they had come into terms with their historical reality, the issue of refugees would have been reconciled. Israel also was no willing to accept that both of them deserved an equal right to some part of the land. The Palestinians for a very long time had their land taken by Israelites and therefore had not benefitted in any way from the Oslo process. There were errors in the Oslo process; both Clinton and Barak blamed Arafat for the failure of the talks. Clinton’s decisions depended largely on what Barak would propose, this made the whole process to be biased11. It seems that Clinton supported Israel and every decision they were bound to make. Palestinians had not therefore at any point benefitted from the Oslo process. If there was to be a Palestinian controlled zone and another one under the leadership of Israel, there would have been great economic consequences and the region would be affected politically. The east Jerusalem stirred a lot of controversy and therefore made it hard for them to make viable decisions. Palestinians expressed their fears that Israel was using force to facilitate the process; Palestine therefore thought they needed an international body to take control over things and not the United States. Palestine had no confidence or trust on Israel that is why they could not move forward with the negotiations. It also explains for the reason of passivity by the Palestinian leader. The Palestinians also declined the offer by Israel on territories because it would split their territory into many parts some of which would be divided from other Arab states12. Another reason for the failure of the talks was the way both parties negotiated. Palestinians were difficult to deal with because they just waited for Israel to make better offers instead making their own demands. The Israelites found this annoying that they are the only ones who made offers to the other parties. This aspect indeed dragged the whole process of dialogue. Israel understood that they were being manipulated by the Palestinians. There is no way those talks could have worked with the attitude that both parties had on each other. They could not stand on a common ground. All along, the Palestinians had wanted to have some power over the Temple Mount and when Israel did not want to share the holy place with the Palestinians, they wanted to start the negotiations afresh, A move which was rejected by both the Israelites and the United States. Clinton had earlier met with Barak to discuss what he had decided over the whole matter13. He later met with Arafat to discuss with him what was required of him but he refused all the offers made by Israel. After all, Arafat is largely to hold responsible for the collapse of the talks. Arafat had refused the best offer he could forever obtain on west bank and Gaza strip and the divisions were not meant to divide the land into cantons as described by Palestinians. Some schools of thought believe that nothing was to be expected from the talks since there was no expected future of the negotiations. Since the beginning, nothing productive has been anticipated to come from Israel and Palestine and the Oslo process did not make it any better. They have never lived in peace and therefore not anything was expected from them. The whole process was predictable. Other schools of thought considered that all the three parties played a very big role in the failure of the project. Whenever Arafat made a proposal to Barak, Barak would refuse and whenever Barak made a proposal to Arafat, Arafat would in turn refuse. This made the whole process of negotiations complicated. Every team of negotiators had some sense of pride that falsified the negotiations. Arafat had many compromises. Palestinians made their chief compromises in the beginning of the Oslo process and had agreed to stop attacking Israel and know that they shared a common land. They had therefore expected to live in harmony with the Israelites devoid of any territorial conflicts but Israel proved them wrong when they had claimed that Gaza strip belonged to them14. They wanted the fertile land, left the unfertile part to Palestine, and were not ready to divide those areas between themselves. Israel became ignorant on all these factors and claimed complete ownership of the areas. Israel knew all along that it had the support of the United States of America and therefore did not act accordingly despite the fact that they had agreed upon it in the Oslo agreement15. They started constructing roads and railways that were meant to separate Israel from Palestine. While in the camp, the Israeli leader decided to change and make decisions of his own other than those he and his team has agreed on. He started making short-term decisions that angered his team of negotiators. This was done in an attempt to save himself politically. Instead, they killed his political ambitions as the people of Israel demonstrated against his actions. The aftermath of Camp David was not conclusive. This led for more talks after Camp David that involved talks between the Palestinians and Israelites. Those talks resulted in bitter relations and violence amid the two groups. The president of America therefore decided to meet with Arafat in an effort of making things right. Arafat in turn declined all the offers made to him even after being granted almost 96 percent sovereignty over west bank area16. It was mentioned that all the Arabs in east of Jerusalem would be termed as Palestinians. Concerning the immigrants, the Palestinians were granted the right to go back to their homeland and settle back there. Still Arafat rejected all these changes and it was unclear what he wanted. Conclusion The two countries could live in peace again if the resolved to more talks but probably not following the Oslo process. Since Israel made proposals which they never signed, Palestinians wanted the intervention by an international body which would help facilitate the process and ensure that they signed accords and that they were put in effect immediately. One may wonder why the Palestinians rejected Israel proposal and they were given a lot more land. However, the reality is that Israel wanted to control a lot more of Palestinian territories than they had offered them. Israel also sought to control some of the territories that had been taken by the Palestinians17. It happens that Palestinians were treated like a nondependent country under the rule of colonizers. Palestinians had been prepared to accept any fair deal that was based on the international law and in which the share would in the ratio of one is to one. Israelites proved them wrong with their ‘greed’ and wanted more land. Palestinians had expected that the negotiations would create improvements in their lives and that a concrete agreement would be implemented18. It however did not commit any of these expectations. Israel should also realize that the immigrants who fled during the war period have the right to return to their nation of origin. Palestinians would want to live in peace with the Israelites but they want the peace to be achieved by fairness, and not inequality. Bibliography Abraham, Daniel, 2006. Peace is possible: conversations with Arab and Israeli leaders from 1988 to the present, New market Press. Pp 131-139 Bar, Daniel and Eldar, Akiva. Why Israel Does Not Want to Negotiate: Illuminating the intentions, goals and policies of the Israeli government, Palestine-Israel Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, 2006. Blonay, 2000. The Failure of Camp David Part Three: Possibilities and Pitfalls for Further Negotiations, Blonay no. 8. Retrieved from: December, 02 2011 Bregman, Ahron, 2003. A history of Israel. Palgrave Macmillan, pp, 183-189 Eur, 2002.The Middle East and North Africa 2003, Routledge. Pp 534 Finkelstein Norman. The Camp David II Negotiations: How Dennis Ross Proved the Palestinians Aborted the Peace Process, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 36, no. 2. Winter 2007, p. 39 Malley, Robert and Agha, Hussein. 2001. Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors. Retrieved from: December, 02 2011 Ouandt, William. "Clinton and the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2. Winter 2001: Pp. 26-40 Pressman, Jeremy. Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba? International Security 28, No. 2. Fall 2003: Pp. 5-43 Shamir, Shimon & Maddy, Bruce. 2005. The Camp David summit--what went wrong?: Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians analyze the failure of the boldest attempt ever to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Sussex Academic Press. Pp 11-41   Read More