Australia and the World Past and Present

Calls for a Palestinian state and a two-state solution are not new.

One attempt to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict took place in 2000 at the Camp David Summit. It brought together representatives from Israel, Palestine and the United States. Ehud Barak, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton.

From Bill Clinton’s perspective, Yasser Arafat turned down a lasting solution.

There were multiple issues discussed at Camp David. But among the proposals, Clinton said that Arafat was offered:

• All of Gaza
• 96-97 percent of the West Bank and
• Compensating land in Israel

The Palestinian negotiators and Arafat himself may have placed responsibility for the breakdown of talks elsewhere.

Nevertheless, it is natural to ask how history may have been different if a settlement had been reached at Camp David and a Palestinian state had have come into existence at that time.

Recently, Hillary Clinton has noted that if it had, the Palestinians would have had their own state now for 23 years.

23 years as a state. 23 years of the Palestinians having a greater say in running their own affairs. 23 years of having a territory with settled borders in which they could pursue greater economic development.

A big difference between 2000 and now is the governing body in Gaza.

The Palestinian Territories include both the West Bank and Gaza. Back in 2000, both areas were dominated by Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The PLO had taken violence against Israel out of its Charter.

In 2006 elections were held in Gaza. The outcome was that Hamas became the new governing body there.

The PLO and Hamas are different. The PLO recognises the right for the state of Israel to exist. Hamas does not.

The Palestinians still do not have their own state. Whatever Arafat’s shortcomings, at least he engaged in the negotiations of 2000. One wonders at what could have been at Camp David and whether it was a lost opportunity.