At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)

So to claim that:

"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"

is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".

All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:

• The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.
  
• To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.
  
• Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.
  
• Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?
  
• According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.
  
• It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.

Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

• The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,
  
• Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,
  
• Unemployment has tripled, and above all
  
• Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.

It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

Related Links

• 12 Conventional Lies By Uri Avnery
• Frequently Asked Questions Regarding The Camp David Peace Proposal by The Washington Report
• Buying Palestinian National Rights
• Listen to an interview with the former Israeli Foreign Minister (Shlomo Ben-Ami) admitting that Palestinians were correct to reject the Israeli and American "proposed" settlement for the conflict at Camp David in 2000 (starting from minute 49:20).
• Was Barak's offer generous or not, that's the question? A slide flash show prepared by Gush-Shalom
• What Barak finally offered in Taba, 2001
• What Daily Start: Israeli settlements provide a road map to failure By Jimmy Carter
• Ha'aretz Daily: B'Tselem report: settlers control 41.9% of West Bank
• Zionist FAQ: How could Palestinians send their kids to riot against Israeli soldiers?