A google search didn't turn up any document on 2000 accords.
It did turn up a lot of commentary:
Here is one side.
Perhaps you can post the other side(Israeli).
From Global Beat Syndicate
by Ahmad Faruqui
Danville, CA – As White House experts prepare for the Middle East peace conference to be held this summer, they need to free themselves from the myths surrounding the Clinton-Barak peace plan presented at the Camp David summit in 2000, and take major steps following the most recent crisis to restore the U.S. reputation as honest broker.
In 2000, Ehud Barak made an offer long described as the apex of Israeli generosity, giving more concessions than any previous Israeli leader. Washington policy wonks, editorial writers and leaders of the American Jewish community have said Arafat’s failure to accept Barak’s offer betrays an underlying rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
But how generous was the Clinton-Barak plan?
Contrary to characterizations in the media, Barak did not offer to give up 96 percent of the West Bank. Rather, with Clinton’s full knowledge, he offered Arafat a dysfunctional state. According to an Israeli peace group, Gush Shalom, the Palestinian State would have consisted of five cantons—four in the West Bank and one in the Gaza strip. The two million Palestinians living in 200 scattered areas around the West Bank would have been consolidated into three cantons. The Israeli army would have controlled the eastern border, the Jordan Valley. A fourth canton would have been created around East Jerusalem but the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest shrine in Islam, would also have remained under Israeli control. Robert Malley, who was on the American negotiating team at Camp David, says neither Arafat nor any other Palestinian leader could have justified a compromise of this magnitude to his people.
In the Clinton-Barak proposal, Israel would have annexed 69 of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, containing 85 percent of the 200,000 Israeli settlers still living in the West Bank-a violation of the Oslo Accords. The settlement blocs would have continued to intrude into the existing road network, severely disrupting Palestinian traffic in the West Bank. To compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land, representing about nine percent of the West Bank, Israel offered stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that it currently uses to dump toxic wastes.
The Clinton-Barak Palestinian state would have resembled the Bantustans of South Africa under apartheid. Arafat may be an inept administrator, but he signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, accepting Israel’s right to exist and conceding to Israel 78 percent of historic Palestine. In February, Arafat wrote in the New York Times that Palestinians are ready to end the conflict, and to sit with the Israelis to discuss peace. "But we will only sit down as equals," he said, "not as supplicants; as partners, not as subjects; not as a defeated nation grateful for whatever scraps are thrown our way."
The Clinton-Barak plan was one such scrap, and no Palestinian leader—even a Noble Peace Prize recipient—could accept it.
Meantime, during the most recent crisis, the Bush administration badly damaged any U.S. reputation for even-handedness in the view of Muslims everywhere.
During Ariel Sharon’s recent White House visit, with violence rapidly escalating, President Bush called Sharon a "man of peace." With Sharon at his side, Bush blamed the violence on Yasser Arafat, saying he "had let his people down," ignoring Israel’s failure to comply with U.S. demands to withdraw immediately from the West Bank, and to allow UN inspectors into the battle-ravaged refugee camp of Jenin.
Congress does no better. After Sharon’s chief political rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the Capitol, where he told members Israel was being unfairly pressured to cut short its campaign against Palestinian terror, Congress overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting Israel, further rousing Arabs and Muslims against the United States.
When the Saudi Arabians presented their peace plan at the Arab League Summit in March, Israel first responded by threatening to exile Yasser Arafat. And despite the Saudi plan, Israel continues to insist it will not retreat to its pre-1967 boundaries, which is the indispensable central element of the Saudi plan and the core of UN Resolution 242 passed in 1967. Israelis now say they will only attend a peace conference if Arafat is excluded.
If the Bush administration wants to succeed in the Middle East, it will have to do far better than the previous administration in coming up with a plan at the peace conference this summer—one that is realistic and even-handed, and which pressures both sides equally to end the violence and make peace.
----------
Ahmad Faruqui is a Fellow with the American Institute of International Studies near San Francisco who has written widely on Middle East security issues. |
