From Camp David to Taba, 2000-01: Narratives, Red Lines, Justice, and Mythology
What would the contours of an acceptable deal look like to Palestinians? During the Camp David summit, Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi said on PBS television, "It very much depends on what Barak is offering. You say 90 percent of the West Bank. If that includes sovereign access to the West Bank...real sovereignty in almost all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, some implementation of the right of return or compensation, then Palestinians will say, yes, this was an historic moment, and Arafat should have seized it."[35] If Khalidi represented Palestinian aspirations, they should have accepted either the Camp David proposals or the Clinton Parameters. Regardless, Arafat turned down all Camp David offers and received a hero's welcome on the Palestinian street upon his return home. At the time, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were not saying, "Arafat should have seized it." Yasser Arafat's Palestinian mythology and slogans in 2000 made it impossible to sell compromise to his people - if compromise was something he sought to sell. This was not uniform among his negotiators, some of whom genuinely thought peace and reconciliation was within reach. However, the stark contrast remained: When Barak's coalition disintegrated before he arrived at Camp David, he proclaimed that any arrangement reached would be put to a national referendum. For Palestinians, as Abu Mazen explained: "The Palestinians are President Arafat, and he is the one who makes decisions...Only President Arafat represents the Palestinian position."[36]
Further complicating this power structure, the Palestinian team had locked antlers in a battle for Arafat's succession. Martin Indyk recalled the long brewing Palestinian dynamic between what he called "the 'Abus' and the 'Muhammads.' The 'Abus,' Abu Mazen and Abu Ala, considered themselves the rightful heirs to the throne, while the 'Muhammads,' Muhammad Dahlan and Muhammad Rashid, were maneuvering to take power."[37] Ross explained that during their negotiations, the succession battle kept everyone "looking over their shoulder and fearful they would be charged with giving away too much."[38]
A contest developed among the Palestinian participants to see who could raise the Palestinian rhetorical and mythological banner the highest in order to gain favor in Arafat's eyes and discredit their competitor. This was a battle over who could best represent the secular Palestinian cause, whose reins were held by those who compromised the least. It was not a soul-searching endeavor to re-examine and deconstruct mythology; it was an attempt to cling to slogans and fasten red lines with permanent ink.
Israel came to Camp David seeking an EOC agreement based on their perception of a reasonable compromise. The Palestinian delegation sought justice. What each side deserves based on their interpretation of history will not likely be solved by the weight of one's political argument. A Palestinian perspective on justice greatly differs from an Israeli perspective on what is fair. Camp David thus became a Palestinian exercise in systematically refuting Israel's legitimacy on all levels.
Akram Hanieh recalls Arafat's discussion with Albright during the summit: "If they, Israelis, use the argument of history, we have our ancient history that refutes their allegations and confirms our rights...Arafat tirelessly fought the Israeli myths with historical facts and specific references to international law."[39] He further recalled: "While at Camp David they [the Israelis and Americans] were sitting like freshmen listening to lectures by Yasser Arafat in politics, history, and peacemaking."[40] Indeed, "Yasser Arafat felt the necessity for practical negotiations on one hand, and political and historical negotiations on the other hand to affirm the Palestinian position."[41]
Part of the Palestinian attempt to refute Israel's legitimacy was expressed in their repeated claim that there was never a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif - or if such a temple existed, it was in Nablus/Shekhem.[42] Arafat went so far as to tell Clinton, "The Temple Mount is not sacred to the Jews; see the ruling of the Chief Rabbi, who said that Jews are not allowed on the Mount, proving that for the Jews the Mount is defiled, not holy."[43]
Arafat's desire to undercut any Jewish or Israeli claim to Jerusalem and the Biblical land of Israel was so strong that it led him to set aside fundamental tenets of Islam.[44] Arafat didn't raise this claim about the Jewish Temple(s) once in passing; he raised it frequently both during and after the Camp David summit and he did so in front of President Clinton. From the Palestinian perspective, Israel should be happy with any foothold left in Jerusalem. Saeb Erekat told Clinton on 16 July, "We had given up our justified demand for the western part of the city [West Jerusalem]."[45] This kind of argument coupled with the Palestinian refusal to characterize Israel as a Jewish state led most Israeli and American participants to conclude that Palestinians were simply not moving forward while Israel continued to offer concrete territory and religious sites. "The Palestinians had not moved a centimeter,"[46] Albright explained.
Questioning the core of one side's faith is not an indication that one is seeking to end the conflict. This was not merely misunderstanding an opponent's red lines. It served to highlight that the Palestinian leadership in 2000 did not accept any Jewish claim to Biblical Israel or Mandate Palestine. In Israel's desire to retain sovereignty in all of the Old City, they did not cast doubts over Muhammad's Night Journey to Jerusalem or raise the fact that the word "Jerusalem" (or any of its derivatives) appears nowhere in the Qur'an. Israel didn't mention that the original 1964 PLO Charter doesn't mention Jerusalem or al-Quds, and Israel did not question the basic tenets of Islam. The Camp David summit went from an impossible mixture of justice, rights, and divergent historical narratives, to a debate over religious narratives.
[35] "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". 17 July 2000. Transcript. Path to Peace. Interview with Rashid Khalidi, David Makovsky, Ehud Sprinzak, and Mohammed Wahby. PBS. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec00/peace_7-17.html Accessed 18 November 2005.
[36] "Abu Mazen Interview: 28-29 July 2001." Palestinian National Authority: The Official Web Site, 2001. Available at: http://www.pna.gov.ps/subject_details2.asp?DocId=245 Accessed: 19 November 2005.
[37] Indyk, Martin. "Sins of Omission, Sins of Commission." The Camp David Summit - What Went Wrong?. pp. 101-102.
[38] Ross. The Missing Peace. p. 606.
[39] Hanieh, Akram. "The Camp David Papers." Ed. PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, 2000 of Negotiations & the Peace Process. p. 19.
[40] Hanieh, "The Camp David Papers." p. 13.
[41] Ibid. p. 21.
[42] Ibid. p. 19; Lipkin-Shahak, Amnon. "The Roles of Barak, Arafat and Clinton." The Camp David Summit - What Went Wrong? p. 46; Ross. The Missing Peace. p. 694.
[43] Yatom, Danny. "Background, Process and failure." The Camp David Summit - What Went Wrong? p. 40. The reason religious Jews do not walk on the Tempe Mount is that they do not know the precise location of the holiest of holies from the two Jewish Temples. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter that room. It was thus thought that avoiding the Temple Mount altogether would ensure that this room was not entered.
[44] The primary reason for Jerusalem's importance in early Islam is based on one line in the Qur'an, Sura 17:1. It is the story of Muhammad's night journey in 620 CE from the "Holy mosque to the furthest mosque" (al-masjidi al-Ωarami ila al-masjidi al-aqsa). By the 9th century, Islamic Hadith canonized "the furthest mosque" as meaning Jerusalem. However, it wasn't until 71 years after Muhammad's night journey that the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra) was completed in 691 CE. Likewise the al-Aqsa mosque wasn't completed until 711 CE or 91 years after the night journey. The Islamic reasoning behind Muhammad's journey to al-Haram al-Sharif is that he was visiting the place where the Jewish Temple(s) stood, where he then ascended to heaven, preached to Jesus, Moses, and Abraham (all of whom are considered prophets in Islam) and received one of the five pillars of Islam - Salat or Prayer. Since no Islamic structure existed on the Temple Mount at the time of Muhammad's journey, the Qu'ran can only be referring to the ruins of the Jewish Temple(s) as "the furthest mosque." See: Brodsky, Matthew RJ. "The Importance of Jerusalem in Early Islam." Seminar Paper. Tel Aviv University, 2005.
[45] Sher. Within Reach. p. 71.
[46] Albright, Madeleine Korbel. Madam Secretary. New York: Miramax Books, 2003. pp. 631-632.