MERIP
Middle East Research and Information Project
Middle East Report
Middle East Report Online
Newspaper Op-Eds

MiddleEastDesk.org
Press Room
Background
Contact Info
Subscribe
Back Issues
Internships
Giving
Search
Subscribe Online to
Middle East Report

Order a subscription and back issues to the award-winning magazine Middle East Report.

Click here for the order page.

SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Click here (PDF)

[Click here for HTML version]

 

 

 

Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
A Primer

Back to Table of Contents

Camp David II

In July 2000, President Clinton invited Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat to Camp David to conclude negotiations on the long-overdue final status agreement. Barak proclaimed his "red lines": Israel would not return to its pre-1967 borders; East Jerusalem with its 175,000 Jewish settlers would remain under Israeli sovereignty; Israel would annex settlement blocs in the West Bank containing some 80 percent of the 180,000 Jewish settlers; and Israel would accept no legal or moral responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. The Palestinians, in accord with UN Security Council resolution 242 and their understanding of the spirit of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, sought Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, and recognition of an independent state in those territories.

The distance between the two parties, especially on the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, made it impossible to reach an agreement at the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000. Although Barak offered a far more extensive Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank than any other Israeli leader had publicly considered, he insisted on maintaining Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Palestinians and to most of the Muslim world. Arafat left Camp David with enhanced stature among his constituents because he did not yield to American and Israeli pressure. Barak returned home to face political crisis within his own government, including the abandonment of coalition partners who felt he had offered the Palestinians too much. However, the Israeli taboo on discussing the future of Jerusalem was broken. Many Israelis began to realize for the first time that they might never achieve peace if they insisted on imposing their terms on the Palestinians.

Page 14 | The Fall 2000 Uprising

Back to Table of Contents

DonateNow

Search MERIP

MERIP OP-EDS
Exiting Iraq Is Easier Than They Say
 The Nation (web-only)
 July 16, 2008
Chris Toensing

The debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters cry “Havoc!” True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable, adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he, like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain that withdrawal is simply “cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full Story>>

Presidential Pandering on Palestine
 Asheville Citizen-Times
July 4, 2008
Bayann Hamid

At the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable, at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is the candidate for peace? Full Story>>

The Next President's Iran Dilemma
 In These Times
 February 6, 2008
Chris Toensing

Quick: Who is the strategic victor, to date, of the war in Iraq? Nearly everyone outside the Bush administration (and perhaps some within it) would answer: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The catastrophe of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has bolstered the clerical regime in Tehran, while souring ordinary Iranians on the prospect of U.S.-delivered “democracy.” The occupation has done so by emplacing Iranian-backed Shiite Islamists in power in Baghdad and cooling the jets of those in Washington hoping to “shock and awe” Iran's mullahs. Full Story>>

Libya's Fat Cat
 The Topeka Capital-Journal
 Januwary 11, 2008
Chris Toensing

Few dictators in the world are sitting prettier in 2008 than Col. Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. In a region full of potentates and presidents-for-life, his reign is supreme. Having seized power in a 1969 coup, he has ruled his country for longer than any other Arab head of state. And now, as wintry January begins, the colonel has quietly completed his journey back in from the cold. Full Story>>
  Home | Contact/Intern | Background Info | Middle East Report | MER Online | Newspaper Op-Eds | Giving
Copyright © MERIP. All rights reserved.