Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, President Bill Clinton and Palestinian Authority chair Yasser Arafat at Camp David.
The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly,
Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (
Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne,
Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel's "generous peace terms" (
L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (
Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (
Time, 12/25/00).
But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (
L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman,
U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (
Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer,
Seattle Times, 10/16/00).
This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army's increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.
Comment: See also: