The Camp David Accords (1978)

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain? There are several points in the brief history of Israel in which the government has agreed to the creation of a Palistinian state on the negotiating table, but then when they arrive back in Tel Aviv, it's as if they've forgotten about the whole thing and go back to what they were doing.


Why? Why is it so hard to:

1) have muslims and jews living in the same state?

2) keep your end of the bargain, and create a Palistinian state?

If Israel had done as it had promised to do many times before (and I don't mean just at Camp David, there are times both before and after that have addressed the same situation, and yielded similar results concerning Palestine), then many of the tensions in the Middle East would not be as problematic as they are now.

For example, I doubt that, if Israel had created a Palistinian state, and given back, say, the West Bank, then Ahmadinajad would probably not care too much about Israel, and, well, the whole arab world wouldn't hate the US AS MUCH.

So Israel, grow up, and be a man, and do what you said you would so many years ago.

 

[CaptainF]

I concur.

Its too bad that a lot of people associate palestinian independence with being anti-israel.

 

[GeneralZed]

The Camp David Accord just made peace between Egypt and Israel, by giving the Sinai region back to Egypt and by accepting Israel as an independent nation. Sadat, the Egyptian president at that time did whatever it cost to make peace, but he was later killed by extremists.

Now I ask you something: where's the Palestinian government? In the past few months they kept resigning and fighting amongst themselves. I believe that Israel, and should, let there be a Palestinian state only when they got over it and say, we have agreed and are ready to be a state!

Israel just doesnt want there to be some kind of anarchy with 100 warlords, disuniting the Palestinians.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Camp David Accord just made peace between Egypt and Israel, by giving the Sinai region back to Egypt and by accepting Israel as an independent nation. Sadat, the Egyptian president at that time did whatever it cost to make peace, but he was later killed by extremists.

Now I ask you something: where's the Palestinian government? In the past few months they kept resigning and fighting amongst themselves. I believe that Israel, and should, let there be a Palestinian state only when they got over it and say, we have agreed and are ready to be a state!

Israel just doesnt want there to be some kind of anarchy with 100 warlords, disuniting the Palestinians.

But more times than at Camp David, Israel has promised to create a Palestinian state, and has not. As I recall, it was even part of the Balfour Declaration; Israel has have fifty years to make good on this promise, and hasn't.

 

[bhsup]

Maybe because they kept getting invaded, had suicide bombers and rockets to tend with, and so forth and so on.

Behave, and the Palestinians would actually get their own State. Of course, they'll never accept a unified Jeruselum under Israeli control, which Israel captured in a war that they didn't even start. So they'll probably never get their own State because they'll hold out for the city that they have no legitimate claim to.

EDIT: Remember the deal they were offered in the last part of Clinton's Presidency? Israel offered up practically everything they wanted, except Jeruselum. They wouldn't even use it as the beginnings of a discussion. Arafat turned it down, so sucks to be them.

 

[nivi]

And whose fault is that?
Go back 59 years to the day.



Anyway,
The reason there isn't a pali state today, because there are fundamental diffrences between what Israel will accept and what they will accept, they (the one with power, mashal and haniya) want the right of return to make a de-facto pali state on all of Israel, for obviuos reasons, Israel will not accept this. There is no deffrence to them between the occupation of 67' and 48'.

 

[Verbose]

Maybe because they kept getting invaded, had suicide bombers and rockets to tend with, and so forth and so on.

Behave, and the Palestinians would actually get their own State. Of course, they'll never accept a unified Jeruselum under Israeli control, which Israel captured in a war that they didn't even start. So they'll probably never get their own State because they'll hold out for the city that they have no legitimate claim to.

EDIT: Remember the deal they were offered in the last part of Clinton's Presidency? Israel offered up practically everything they wanted, except Jeruselum. They wouldn't even use it as the beginnings of a discussion. Arafat turned it down, so sucks to be them.

The invansions stopped decades ago — not counting the Israeli ones — and the Plaestinians had little to do with them. The rockets and sucide-bombers are novelties.

For political PR-reasons both are better for Israel — if it wants to continue doing politics like it does at present (God alone would know why) — than the situation in the 1980's that led to the Oslo accord. Back then it was Plaestinian kids chucking stones, not rockets or suicide bombers.

And then the Oslo accord hit the rocks, the second Intifada started, and what did Israel do? Decide that massive force was the way to do it. Meaning the Palestinian activists decided that since Israel's default position is using disporoportionate lethal force, then Israel only understands force and dead bodies. (They could be right. Look into Shaul Mofaz, chief of staff, to see what they're up against.)
Obviously it's a bad choice to start a shooting war with someone that much more powerful. And it's been made worse once they stopped exlusively targetting military personell and went for any Israeli.

So they may not have been correct in their assesments, but that's where the suicide bombers and rockets started.

As for Barak's offer during Clinton, the common problem with Israeli offers is that they are presented to the Palestinians at the point where the Israelis can live with them. The expectation is that the Palestinians will take whatever they are offered, never mind what the situation in the other side of the fence is.

You can't disregard how politics work on the Palestinian side. Barak's offer couldn't be taken because the Palestinian leadership hadn't taken the internal conflict of telling the refugees outside Israel that there would be no returning, ever.

That still has to be done. But it should be no surprise why the Palestinian leadership was unable to accept. They were and are bad leaders, but it was only a surpsrise if you engaged in wishful thinking, like the now pretty moribund Israeli peace movement.

 

[Verbose]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain?

Fear.

Not at all unreasonable.

The inherent risks of doing this are great.

You know what you've got but not what you might get.

Except these days it's starting to become clear that Israel doesn't in fact hold the keys to their own long-term security.

Which they don't like one little bit.

Also very understandable.

There might be things that would be judicious to do regarding the creation of a Palestinian state, but which none of the current Israeli leaders can bring themselves to, and the Israeli public are loathe to accept, even if most of them one some level realise it could be necessary.

The risks involved are simply huge.

Maybe the US needs to force them to run them if they can't bring themselves to take the leap of their own accord?

It would let the politicians off the hook as they could then point to the US forcing their hand.

 

[HannibalBarka]

... So they'll probably never get their own State because they'll hold out for the city that they have no legitimate claim to.
....

Yep as long as people will exchange the "you don't have a legitimate claim to that land" to each other face, war between Israel and Palestine will continue and never end.
When they'll realise that they both have no where else to go, I'll start having some hope for them

 

[GeneralZed]

It seems like Israelis are 'giving up':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6187282.stm

Now it's up to the Palestinians to unite and bring it to an end.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain? There are several points in the brief history of Israel in which the government has agreed to the creation of a Palistinian state on the negotiating table, but then when they arrive back in Tel Aviv, it's as if they've forgotten about the whole thing and go back to what they were doing.

You don't present a very accurate picture of Camp David.

First of all, the agreement to establish a Palestinian state under Camp David was very vague. It didn't say exactly how it should be established and to whom its leadership should be placed.

Second, your memory is short, because Israel did work with the PLO from 1993-2000 to establish a Palestinian state. How do you think Palestine got to have its elections and establish its current government? The problem is that with this state came many factions, many of which refused to accept a coexistence of Israel with Palestine, and continued to launch terrorist attacks on Israel. Fatah, the former ruling party of Palestine, disavowed any connection to these groups (Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc), and refused to use its influence to curb them. It is clear that they had this influence, at least in the form of Arafat, because the period from 1993-2000 was virtually devoid of terrorism in Israel. In 2000, Arafat refused to agree to the final framework, even though Israel was ready to give in to nearly all of his demands. He also refused to make a counter-offer. Like a sly market merchant, the Palestinians are baiting the customer to hold out for an increasingly expensive deal. It is clear to me that only a select few Palestinian leaders want coexistence. The rest just want to remove Israel from the map.

The terrorist acts continue to sabotage any hope of continuing negotiation to firmly establish Palestine. Fatah, the most moderate of the Palestinian parties, is no longer even the ruling party of the state, although they were not very effective even when they were in power. Instead, that's been replaced by Hamas, which is a terrorist group. Now there is no pretense that negotiation with the Palestinian Authority will yield anything, because Hamas admits that it wants to destroy Israel.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You don't present a very accurate picture of Camp David.

First of all, the agreement to establish a Palestinian state under Camp David was very vague. It didn't say exactly how it should be established and to whom its leadership should be placed.

Second, your memory is short, because Israel did work with the PLO from 1993-2000 to establish a Palestinian state. How do you think Palestine got to have its elections and establish its current government? The problem is that with this state came many factions, many of which refused to accept a coexistence of Israel with Palestine, and continued to launch terrorist attacks on Israel. Fatah, the former ruling party of Palestine, disavowed any connection to these groups (Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc), and refused to use its influence to curb them. It is clear that they had this influence, at least in the form of Arafat, because the period from 1993-2000 was virtually devoid of terrorism in Israel. In 2000, Arafat refused to agree to the final framework, even though Israel was ready to give in to nearly all of his demands. He also refused to make a counter-offer. Like a sly market merchant, the Palestinians are baiting the customer to hold out for an increasingly expensive deal. It is clear to me that only a select few Palestinian leaders want coexistence. The rest just want to remove Israel from the map.

The terrorist acts continue to sabotage any hope of continuing negotiation to firmly establish Palestine. Fatah, the most moderate of the Palestinian parties, is no longer even the ruling party of the state, although they were not very effective even when they were in power. Instead, that's been replaced by Hamas, which is a terrorist group. Now there is no pretense that negotiation with the Palestinian Authority will yield anything, because Hamas admits that it wants to destroy Israel.

Actually I didn't know about the PLO negatotiations in the nineties, we haven't gotten that far in my Foreign Policy class, and when it was actually happening I was more concerned about mastering long division than I was world politics, so I just plain don't remember it.

So the problem was Jerusalem? It seems to me that Jerusalem, being important to three religions, ought to become a neutral city, or, perhaps, it own state ala San Marino or Vatican City. It should be constitutionally neutral, and all factions in the ME would sign a pact agreeing that they will in no way attack or occupy Jerusalem. Why, it's so simple how come no body's come up with this yet?

The new power of Hamas is troubling, to be sure, but if the Palestinians are now led by an admitted terrorist group, why are the Israelis tiptoeing around the issue; a known terrorist faction, one that exists in your own state, you have a duty to eliminate, for the safety of your own people. Is Israel worried that they cannot win another Israel vs. The Entire Arab World war?

 

[Little Raven]

There hasn't been a two-state solution because neither side really wants one. They each believe deep down that if they stick it out, they can eventually get it all. Why settle for half a loaf when you can get the whole thing?

And now, the picture is so muddled that I doubt a two state solution is possible even if both sides honestly desired it. (and no, they still don't)

 

[Winner]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain? There are several points in the brief history of Israel in which the government has agreed to the creation of a Palistinian state on the negotiating table, but then when they arrive back in Tel Aviv, it's as if they've forgotten about the whole thing and go back to what they were doing.

They keep their promises - there is a peace between Egypt and Israel, mainly because Egypt isn't that stupid to start another war.

Unfortunately, Palestinians show much less reason - they were offered with very, very generous deal that would create a Palestinian state. Arafat refused.

So, who is the stupid one here? They could have had their very own country now.

Why? Why is it so hard to:

1) have muslims and jews living in the same state?

It is generally hard to live in one state with people who want to wipe out your entire 'race' (drive Jews to the sea, as they say)

2) keep your end of the bargain, and create a Palistinian state?

Gods, this is so untrue. Israel did a lot of compromises, but the Palestinians, like Hitler, wanted more every time one of their demand was accepted. It is impossible to deal with them.

If Israel had done as it had promised to do many times before (and I don't mean just at Camp David, there are times both before and after that have addressed the same situation, and yielded similar results concerning Palestine), then many of the tensions in the Middle East would not be as problematic as they are now.

For example, I doubt that, if Israel had created a Palistinian state, and given back, say, the West Bank, then Ahmadinajad would probably not care too much about Israel, and, well, the whole arab world wouldn't hate the US AS MUCH.

So Israel, grow up, and be a man, and do what you said you would so many years ago.

Israel is very reasonable, it is defending itself from destruction. Be a man and accept it, finally

 

[Trajan12]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain? There are several points in the brief history of Israel in which the government has agreed to the creation of a Palistinian state on the negotiating table, but then when they arrive back in Tel Aviv, it's as if they've forgotten about the whole thing and go back to what they were doing.

Plenty of times Israel has made headway into an independant Palestine, going so far as to arm the PA so they can be recognized as the governing body of Palestine instead of terrorists. Ask yourself why Palestine refuses to stop the suicude bombings and you'll understand.

1) have muslims and jews living in the same state?

I don't like living in a country full of people who want me dead, I'm sure they don't want to accidentally invite wolves over for dinner.

2) keep your end of the bargain, and create a Palistinian state?

Because the corrupt governing body of Palestine refuses to recognize the Israeli claim to any land.

If Israel had done as it had promised to do many times before (and I don't mean just at Camp David, there are times both before and after that have addressed the same situation, and yielded similar results concerning Palestine), then many of the tensions in the Middle East would not be as problematic as they are now.

At one time Israel even began turining over terroritory but the terror only increased.

For example, I doubt that, if Israel had created a Palistinian state, and given back, say, the West Bank, then Ahmadinajad would probably not care too much about Israel, and, well, the whole arab world wouldn't hate the US AS MUCH.

Don't kid yourself, Ahmedinejad refuses to accept Israel in the ME at all. I'm sure enough people agree to hate Israel regardless of the Palestinian situation.

So Israel, grow up, and be a man, and do what you said you would so many years ago.

So Palestine, grow up, and be a man, and do what you said you would so many years ago.

 

[JohnRM]

Why is it that the Israeli government refuses to hold up their end of the bargain? There are several points in the brief history of Israel in which the government has agreed to the creation of a Palistinian state on the negotiating table, but then when they arrive back in Tel Aviv, it's as if they've forgotten about the whole thing and go back to what they were doing.


Why? Why is it so hard to:

1) have muslims and jews living in the same state?

2) keep your end of the bargain, and create a Palistinian state?

If Israel had done as it had promised to do many times before (and I don't mean just at Camp David, there are times both before and after that have addressed the same situation, and yielded similar results concerning Palestine), then many of the tensions in the Middle East would not be as problematic as they are now.

For example, I doubt that, if Israel had created a Palistinian state, and given back, say, the West Bank, then Ahmadinajad would probably not care too much about Israel, and, well, the whole arab world wouldn't hate the US AS MUCH.

So Israel, grow up, and be a man, and do what you said you would so many years ago.

A so-called Palestinian State has been offered to the Arabs many times over, but they keep refusing. The main sticking point seems to be Jerusalem. They will never get it, so tough luck.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Actually I didn't know about the PLO negatotiations in the nineties, we haven't gotten that far in my Foreign Policy class, and when it was actually happening I was more concerned about mastering long division than I was world politics, so I just plain don't remember it.

Then you really are in no position to argue.

 

[JohnRM]

So the problem was Jerusalem? It seems to me that Jerusalem, being important to three religions, ought to become a neutral city, or, perhaps, it own state ala San Marino or Vatican City. It should be constitutionally neutral, and all factions in the ME would sign a pact agreeing that they will in no way attack or occupy Jerusalem. Why, it's so simple how come no body's come up with this yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

Actually, somebody did think of it before. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 gave the Arabs more territory than Israel has ever offered them, before the State of Israel even existed, and suggested that Jerusalem be administered as a neutral international city. The Israelites accepted this plan, the Arabs did not. The almost sixty years since then has yielded similar results.

The new power of Hamas is troubling, to be sure, but if the Palestinians are now led by an admitted terrorist group, why are the Israelis tiptoeing around the issue; a known terrorist faction, one that exists in your own state, you have a duty to eliminate, for the safety of your own people. Is Israel worried that they cannot win another Israel vs. The Entire Arab World war?

The problem is not the rest of the Arab world. Israel has a far superior military compared the rest of the Arab world, Jordan and Egypt are non-hostile, Saudi Arabia cannot afford to go to war, and the rest are decrepit old has-beens.

The real issue is that although the radicals make up only a smaller percentage of the Muslim population, a large portion of the remainder are at least somewhat sympathetic and for every actual terrorist you kill, you create at least one more.

The other issue is that Israel, for a large part, is very open about its intentions, and does not want civilian casualties. When the Arabs know about a coming Israeli strike, they gather women and children around the target so that one of two things will happen. Either Israel will attack and it will look bad for them, as though they were commiting "masscres" and killing civilians purposely or Israel will call off the attack and therefor the Arab target survives and they can claim victory. There are Liberals throughout the Israel government that cannot yet stomach the elimination of terrorists and terrorist supporters in the form of women and youth.

 

[Nobody]

In the Sum of all Fear, they make peace by making palastein a independant county and turning juruselum into a neutral city ruled by a council of 3 leaders. (one muslim one jew and one christian) and having the swiss army police the city.

 

[Trajan12]

There is a Swiss Army? (J/K)