Our Incredible Generosity

Here's an oldie but an important goodie: A New York Review of Books article about Israel's supposed "generous offer" to Arafat at Camp David in 2000, which (the story goes) Araft rejected because he hates Jews. Basically, the real story is that a) there was never any real offer, b) Ehud Barak tried hard to conceal any real bargaining position he might actually have, and c) due to a number of events leading up to the summit, Arafat was ill-inclined to trust either Clinton or Barak. This probably sums up the whole article nicely:

Had there been, in hindsight, a generous Israeli offer? Ask a member of the American team, and an honest answer might be that there was a moving target of ideas, fluctuating impressions of the deal the US could sell to the two sides, a work in progress that reacted (and therefore was vulnerable) to the pressures and persuasion of both. Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table.

One other thing worth noting - the Camp David summit in 2000 followed Barak's failed attempt to negotiate a settlement with Syria. This was an incredible insult to the Palestinian negotiators. Syria had made - and to this day, has made - exactly zero concessions to Israel, not even a pro forma recognition of Israel's right to exist. Yet Barak was out there trying to get on Assad's good side. Meanwhile, the Palestinians had made a number of key concessions to Israel, and we constantly treated like dirt.

All told, the whole article is a useful reminder of a basic rule of diplomacy: Nothing exists in a vacuum, and we don't get to dictate how our enemies see us.