How to read Palestinian Rhetoric?
Prepared by the Israeli Consulate in SF - July 26, 2001

The Palestinians have recently launched a series of efforts aimed at justifying the failure of the Camp David talks one year ago. So as to shed light on the arguments put forward by the Palestinians and provide the answers they require, we have prepared the following analysis.

1. The Palestinians claim that Israel's Camp David proposal presented a `re-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

This assertion could not be further from the truth. It simply ignores a few basic historical facts: Since the very beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, Israel has proceeded to progressively transfer territorial and functional sovereignty over to the Palestinian Authority. With every new agreement signed throughout the 1990's, additional autonomy and responsibilities were handed over to the Palestinian leadership. Today the PA controls the entire Arab population of the Gaza Strip and 90% of that of the West Bank.
Israel's far-reaching proposal at Camp David was intended at laying the foundations for the establishment of a Palestinian State. The future State, according to Ehud Barak's plan, would have been completely independent from Israel. If the West Bank and Gaza territories are not contiguous, very concrete plans to build and further develop freeways between the two entities were and are still underway. Israel cannot be asked to sacrifice its existence for the sake of establishing contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza.

For obvious reasons of security, Israel has requested that the movement of people in and out of the future Palestinian State be carefully overseen - This requirement appears all the more necessary today as the Palestinians engage in large-scale violence and terror. It must be born in mind that it is in the spirit of the Oslo process to develop joint Palestinian and Israeli security operations. Insofar as measures to insure the security of both Israel and the future Palestinian State were needed, they would have been enforced jointly and would have evolved according to common agreements.

2. The Palestinians assert that, at Camp David, Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Palestinian Territories and in exchange were offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory.

The figures advanced by the Palestinians are simply not accurate. Former Israeli Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he was willing to evacuate 95 to 96% of the West Bank. While annexing 4 to 5% of the territory - thus absorbing a series of Israeli communities located close the Green Line and responding to security needs- he offered the Palestinians a land swap in an amount that represented a compensation for the land annexed. The exact amount of "swap land" was never negotiated. The gist of Israel's proposal is not about annexation but about giving the Palestinians sovereignty for the first time in their history.

3. The Palestinians interpreted the Camp David Proposal as a renunciation to their claim to portions of Jerusalem.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's proposal stated that he was willing to give the Palestinians control over the Arab and Armenian quarters in the Old City of Jerusalem. On the issue of temple Mount, he agreed to an international supervision of the site where both Israeli and Palestinians would share sovereignty.
Ehud Barak's unprecedented offers do not deny any Palestinian claim on Jerusalem - they do just the opposite by allowing Palestinian rule over parts of East Jerusalem where there is an Arab majority.
Yasser Arafat at Camp David turned down Israel's far-reaching proposals. In an answer that he knew would be unacceptable to Israel, he requested exclusive Palestinian sovereignty over Jewish holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. In that they explicitly reject Jewish rights in Jerusalem, stances such as this have put into question Palestinian willingness to really reach a peace accord with Israel. Former US President Bill Clinton, who oversaw and thus witnessed the Camp David talks, had very critical words towards Arafat's inflexible negotiating policies.

4. The Palestinians argue that the refugee issue was never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution.

Israel has expressed its readiness to absorb 100, 000 Palestinian refugees within its pre-1967 territory. It has also given its accord for a future Palestinian State to absorb the rest of the refugees. Sources from inside the Camp David compound have reported that former Prime Minister Barak was willing to verbally express Israel's understanding for the suffering of displaced people. There goes the argument that Israel was not serious in its discussions about the refugee issue. Once again, the plight of Palestinian refugees is being manipulated by Arab and Palestinian leaders.

Everything has already been written regarding the Palestinian demand that all refugees return to Israel. One thing stands out as unequivocal: For Israel to accept this condition would mean for the country to disappear as a Jewish State. No nation can be expected to sign up for its own destruction. The Palestinian know it and their insistence to hammer the necessity of a "right of return" just raise doubts about the good faith with which they conduct negotiations with Israel.

5. The Palestinian explain that a two-state solution is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and bypass roads aimed at incorporating the Palestinian Territories into Israel.

It is needless to say that Israel has no claim whatsoever on Palestinian territories. Israel has no intention to take back the land that has been transferred to the Palestinian Authority since 1993. The very nature of the Oslo process is to hand over sovereignty to the Palestinians - not to take it away from them. Israel expects them to exert sovereignty and learn how to handle the responsibilities of a State in making.
The unity government platform is precise in that it formally provides that no new settlements would be built in Palestinian territories. This policy has been strictly applied. If constructions have taken place since Prime Minister Sharon's Government took office, it is only for responding to local natural needs and further developing infrastructure within existing communities.
In their revision of the Camp David events, the Palestinians fail to mention that an agreement had been found on the issue of settlements between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. According to their reported discussions, 80% of the settlers would be incorporated within Israel - thanks mainly to the annexation by Israel of the communities located near the Green Line. The very aim of the land swap was to compensate the Palestinians for this territorial loss. The rest of the settlements would either have been dismantled or incorporated within the Palestinian entity.

6. The Palestinians claim that Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights.

By making such claim, do the Palestinians hint that Israel should start making concessions regarding Tel Aviv or Haifa? The enforcement of the Oslo process over the last 8 years is a perfect counter-example to their assertion. During the period, Israel has handed large amounts of territories and responsibilities over to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians militarily and administratively control widespread territories. The very aim of the Camp David talks was to polish off this process of transfer. In exchange, Israel has only asked for recognition and security.

7. The Palestinians explain that they have compromised in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine.

Once again the figures advanced by the Palestinians are fallacious. International law simply does not refer to any entity called "historic Palestine". However it does refer to a 1947 partition plan (refused then by the Arabs) and does recognize the delimitations of Israel's borders to the lines established following the war of independence in 1948. By hinting that they accept Israeli sovereignty over 78% of "historic Palestine", the Palestinians just join the rest of the International community in their acceptance of international law and recognition of the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
The real compromise that the Palestinian are requested to make does not concern Israel's existence but the future of the lands taken in the 1967 war: the West Bank and Gaza. In that respect, we already demonstrated above that the territorial concessions contained in the Camp David proposal concerned only 4 to 5% of the West Bank.

8. The Palestinians say they wish to live at peace with Israel but it should not be an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.

Israel would like to believe in the Palestinians' craving for peace. However, how can one explain their decision to initiate the current wave of violence just weeks after they were offered the most generous offer for a final peace settlement from their Israeli partner? How can one explain that multiple attempts to bring an end to Palestinian attacks have so far been fruitless? If the Palestinian leadership truly wants peace, it is incumbent upon them to take the necessary actions to return to the negotiating table. Taking control over Palestinian streets, ending incitement and reining in terrorist activities are unavoidable conditions to the resumption of dialogue.
The Palestinians' decision to resort to terror and launch a campaign of incitement and hate against Israel raise serious suspicions regarding their commitment to peace. Their vision of compromise and their interpretation of life side by side with their Israeli neighbor are worrying. Statements such as the ones made recently by Marwan Barghouti, the Fatah leader of the uprising in the West Bank, will not reassure us. When asked what the Palestinians would settle for, he answered: "We need one hundred per cent of Gaza, one hundred per cent of the West Bank, one hundred per cent of East Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees. Nothing less than a hundred per cent is acceptable. Then we could talk about bigger things. I've always thought that a good idea would be one state for all the peoples. We don't have to call it Palestine. We can call it something else."