At a news conference on July 25, U.S. President Bill Clinton announced that after 15 days of negotiations the Camp David Summit would end without an agreement. The Summit was convened on July 11 by the United States with the intention of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on final status issues. Immediately, details of the negotiations began appearing in the media, providing insight into how the difficult issues were approached and the proposals put on the table. While the parties agreed that without a comprehensive agreement they would not be bound by any proposal presented during the Summit, these positions will no doubt reappear at future negotiations.

President Clinton acknowledged in his press conference and in subsequent comments that while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "showed particular courage and vision and an understanding of the historical importance of the moment," Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat failed to demonstrate a flexibility or willingness to compromise his maximalist positions, particularly on Jerusalem. On his return to Israel, Prime Minister Barak declared: "Today I return from Camp David, and can look into the millions of eyes and say with regret: We have not yet succeeded. We did not succeed because we did not find a partner prepared to make decisions on all issues. We did not succeed because our Palestinian neighbors have not yet internalized the fact that in order to achieve peace, each side has to give up some of their dreams; to give, not only to demand."

Instead of a comprehensive agreement, the White House released a "Trilateral Statement" outlining five principles of agreement by Prime Minister Barak, Chairman Yasir Arafat and President Clinton, including a commitment to "continue their efforts to conclude an agreement on all permanent status issues as soon as possible," to "undertake to create an environment for negotiations free from pressure, intimidation and threats of violence," and an acknowledgment of "the importance of avoiding unilateral actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations and that their differences will be resolved only by good faith negotiations." Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are expected to meet again in the coming days to continue talks and U.S. peace process envoy Dennis Ross is planning to visit the region in the next month to assess the status of the negotiations.

Back to top

The Push for a Final Status Agreement: As set out in the first Israeli-Palestinian agreement, the Declaration of Principles (DOP) of September 1993, the so-called Oslo peace process negotiations would be conducted in two phases. The first phase was to be a "transitional" or "interim" period during which time Israel would incrementally withdraw from Palestinian centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in return for Palestinian guarantees, particularly on preventing terrorist activity, the size of its police forces, and other security issues. The second phase, would be the conclusion of a "final status" or "permanent status" agreement, which would be a comprehensive peace agreement resolving all outstanding issues between the parties.

The logic behind the two-phased process was that Israel and the Palestinians would first agree on the relatively "easy" issues – such as redeployment from the Gaza Strip and Palestinian population centers in the West Bank – and save the "difficult" issues – such as Jerusalem, refugees, final borders – for last. The hope was that after building confidence and cooperation through the interim period, Israel and the Palestinians would be better able to tackle the most complex and divisive issues in the conflict.

Seven years into the interim period, a series of interim agreements have been concluded and implemented by the two sides. Israel has undertaken a series of redeployments from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To date, 99% of the Gaza Strip and 39.7% of the West Bank are under the control of the Palestinian Authority. 99% of the Palestinian population resides under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. Throughout the interim period there has been much criticism that while Israel has undertaken territorial sacrifices for peace, the Palestinians have not fully complied with their signed commitments in the interim agreements, particularly those in the realm of security and anti-Israel propaganda.

With the interim period now drawing to a close, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have both repeatedly declared that achieving a comprehensive final status agreement is a priority. The target date for such an agreement has been set for September 13, 2000, the 7^th anniversary of the signing of the DOP. Chairman Arafat has threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state whether or not a final status agreement is reached at that time. Although many Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. officials believed that political and social conditions were favorable for successful final status negotiations at this time, other factors made the timing of the Summit questionable. In the weeks leading up to the Summit, Chairman Arafat repeatedly stated that he saw Camp David as only the first in a series of summits to determine final status issues. Prime Minister Barak left Israel for the U.S. suffering from an extremely weak minority coalition government and a constant threat of non-confidence motions in the Knesset. President Clinton, nearing the end of his presidency, suffers from time pressures. Past the November elections, any further progress will have to await a new foreign policy team in a new Administration, thus slowing down the process for many months

Back to top

The Issues Discussed: Since the end of the Summit, negotiators on all sides have been briefing reporters on the discussions, the sources of agreement and disagreement. Though none of these reports can be considered definitive or official, they provide interesting insight into the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.

Jerusalem: Jerusalem is the most politically complex, religiously sensitive and emotionally loaded issue of the final status negotiations – and apparently was the issue which caused the breakdown of talks.

For the State of Israel, Jerusalem is its eternal and undivided capital and Israeli governments – Labor and Likud – have always declared that it will remain the undivided capital under Israeli sovereignty. Israeli leaders have suggested that there might be "creative" ways to maintain Israeli sovereignty while providing for Palestinian control over neighborhoods outside municipal Jerusalem and possible greater municipal autonomy for Arab residents of the city. The Israeli position on Jerusalem is based on Jewish religious, historical and political claims to the holy city. Since King David established the city as the capital of the Jewish state circa 1000 BCE, it has served as the symbol and most profound expression of the Jewish people’s identity as a nation. With the brief exception of the Crusader period, no other people or state has made Jerusalem its capital. Since King David’s time, Jews have maintained a continuous presence in Jerusalem, except for a few periods when they were forcibly barred from living in the city by foreign rulers. Jews have constituted a majority of the city’s inhabitants for the past 150 years, and today, Jews represent 72% of the city’s population. Pointing to violations against Jewish and Christian religious sites when the eastern part of the city was under Jordanian rule from 1948-1967, Israel claims that only the continued unity of the city under its sovereignty will guarantee freedom of religion in the holy city. The long-time Israeli position on Jerusalem is that the city will remain the undivided capital under Israeli sovereignty.

For the Palestinians, Jerusalem, or al-Quds, will be the capital of a Palestinian state, basing their claim on religion, history and their demographic presence in the city. The Palestinian leadership has repeatedly declared that it will only accept full sovereignty over the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City. Palestinians point to their long-time presence in the city and their large population – constituting 30% of the city’s population. Religiously, Palestinians lay claim to Muslim holy sites as well as those holy to Palestinian Christians.

At Camp David, the Palestinians clung to their maximalist position on sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the Old City, and refused to consider Israeli suggestions of limited sovereignty or jurisdiction over different areas of the city. According to various news reports in Israel, Prime Minister Barak proposed (or agreed to American proposals) expanding municipal Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty to include settlements just over the Green Line (the pre-1967 border) including Maaleh Adumim, Pisgat Zeev, and possibly other settlement blocs on the outskirts of the city. In return, the Palestinian Authority would get various levels of control over different regions of Jerusalem and its outskirts (possibly demarcated in three different zones). The PA would assume full sovereignty over Palestinians villages on the outskirts of the current municipal boundaries of Jerusalem and administrative control over other areas of the city with Arab populations. This area could be considered the capital of a Palestinian entity and called "Al Quds." As for the Old City of Jerusalem, Palestinians would have safe passage to the Temple Mount and have "religious sovereignty" over the area, including the right to fly a Palestinian flag. The PA would also have "quasi-territorial" status over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. According to these sources, Chairman Arafat refused to agree to any proposal that did not guarantee the Palestinians full sovereignty over the Old City excluding the Jewish Quarter. Chairman Arafat also reportedly rejected an American proposal that the issue of Jerusalem be put off for the future and that Israelis and Palestinians sign an agreement on all other final status issues.

In his press conference, President Clinton said of the negotiations on Jerusalem:

"It was the most difficult problem. And I must tell you that we tried a lot of different approaches to it and we have not yet found a solution. But the good news is that there is not a great deal of disagreement. And I want to emphasize this. It seemed to me, anyway, there was not a great deal of disagreement in many of these areas about what the facts on the ground would be after an agreement (is) made; that is, how people will live. You know, for example, everyone conceded that Jerusalem is a place that required everyone to have access to holy sites...In terms of how operationally the Israelis and Palestinians would work together, there was actually more agreement than I had thought there would be. Prime Minster Barak took some very bold decisions, but we were, in the end, unable to bridge the gaps. I think they will be bridged because I think the alternative is unthinkable."

Back to top

Borders, Settlements and Security Arrangements: According to sources, there was general Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the major principles on borders, security and settlements at Camp David. Israel went to the Summit with the position that it was prepared to make further significant territorial concessions in the West Bank, but it would not agree to a return to the pre-1967 borders or a militarized Palestinian entity. The Palestinians insisted on an Israeli redeployment to pre-1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state (either unilaterally or in coordination with Israel) within those borders, including East Jerusalem, the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip

Any border arrangements must include major provisions for Israeli settlements. Settlements are the Jewish communities established after the 1967 Six Day War in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There are approximately 144 settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with as many as 200,000 inhabitants. Some of the settlers have chosen their homes out of religious motivations, believing that Jews have a right and obligation to settle the biblical areas of Judea and Samaria. Others believe that their presence in the areas is important for Israeli security. Others have more prosaic reasons for living in settlements – seeking cheaper or more spacious living quarters than is commonly available within the Green Line (pre-1967 borders). While the Israeli leadership has publicly maintained that no settlements will be uprooted in a final status agreement, unofficially, there are strong indications that Israel will be willing to annex the majority of settlements into "blocs" thereby ensuring that most of the settlements and settlers remain under Israeli sovereignty. Palestinians have long seen settlements as a provocation, viewing the settlers as interlopers on their territory and insist that in any agreement all settlements must be dismantled.

At Camp David, Israel reportedly discussed redeploying from at least 88% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip (some reports cite as much as a 95% withdrawal from the West Bank). On settlements, media reports say that Israel proposed annexing 5% of the West Bank which includes the largest blocs of Israeli settlements (at least 80% of the settler population). The remaining settlements would be allowed to exist with special security arrangements under the Palestinian Authority. Reportedly, Israel agreed to the evacuation of the remaining Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. According to the Israeli media, the Palestinians agreed to the Israeli annexation of the large settlement blocs, as well as guarantees for the settlements that remained in Palestinian areas. The Palestinians also acceded to Israeli security proposals in the border area, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, early warning stations in the West Bank, and other emergency military rights.

Back to top

Refugees: There was reportedly progress made on the issue of Palestinian refugees. The term "refugee" is used to refer to those Palestinian Arabs who lived in British Mandate Palestine prior to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence or in the State of Israel or West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War, but during these wars fled to neighboring Arab nations, other countries or to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinian sources say the total number of refugees and their descendents are 3 million. Israel believes these numbers are exaggerated and distinguishes between the 1948 "refugees" and 1967 "displaced persons." Israel went into the Summit stating that it would not accept legal or moral responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem but would consider humanitarian efforts such as family reunification and financial assistance. The Palestinians have always demanded the "right of return" of all refugees and compensation for losses.

According to The New York Times, Israel agreed to accept a one-time "family-reunification" of as many as 100,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel also agreed to an international fund to compensate refugees. An international body would be established to oversee compensation and resettlement issues. Reportedly, Chairman Arafat refused to back off from his position that all Palestinian refugees have the "right of return" including to inside Israeli borders.

Back to top

Looking Forward: While President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak both expressed regret and frustration at the end of the Summit, negotiations are expected to continue. Reports in the Israeli media suggest that renewed intensive negotiations – possibly coordinated by the Americans – can be expected closer to September 13, the date of the threatened Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood. President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak have warned Chairman Arafat as to the dangers of a unilateral declaration. Already, U.S. lawmakers have introduced legislation that would cut off all U.S. non-humanitarian aid to the Palestinians if Chairman Arafat unilaterally declares an independent state outside the framework of a peace agreement with Israel. Citing such a declaration as "contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Oslo Accord," the legislation would also prohibit the expenditure of any funds to extend recognition to such a unilaterally declared Palestinian state and mandate that the President instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to oppose the admission to the U.N. of a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state. President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak have also publicly warned Chairman Arafat that he will be held responsible for any anti-Israel violence. Immediately after Prime Minister Barak’s arrival in Israel, Israel and Palestinian security personnel began consultations on maintaining calm in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In the immediate future, Prime Minister Barak will focus on pressing domestic political concerns, particularly in bolstering his weak minority coalition government either through adding new parties to the coalition or possibly through a national unity government with the Likud Party.

While post-mortems of the Camp David Summit will continue to be written, many of the negotiators insist that despite the disappointing conclusion, progress was made. In particular, the negotiators note that this was the first time that high-level official negotiations were held on final status issues. Thus, while a final status agreement is by no means assured, they insist that it was an important start, and that with favorable timing and conditions in the future, further progress can be made.

Back to top