It seems as though the entire issue reduces to whether we're more incline to trust (1) Barak, Clinton, and Ross, or (2) Pundak and Arieli. You say that Ross' account ought to be given greater weight since "Ross was in the room—Pundak and Arieli were not." But this is seems mistaken to me: the fact that Ross was involved in the negotiations on the US-Israeli side surely ought to make us *more* skeptical of his account, not less. The same applies to Barak and Clinton. If it seems as though I'm being unduly harsh, consider the matter from the other side: suppose somebody were to cite Arafat's account as evidence for the Israelis being at fault for the failure of Camp David. Would you take that seriously? If not, why take Barak, Clinton, and Ross seriously, especially when the best Israeli scholarship contradicts them? At the very least, this seems like a flimsy ground for stating authoritatively that "No, the Camp David proposal didn't cantonize the West Bank."
You also say that "the Israelis, unlike the Palestinians, were quick to accept the Clinton Parameters." But this seems inaccurate: Israel accepted the parameters with reservations on December 28, while Arafat accepted them with reservations on January 2. This was confirmed on January 3, when the White House stated that "both sides have now accepted the president's ideas with some reservations." The later claim that Arafat rejected the parameters (made in the "Honest Reporting" article that you cite) seems to be false, at least based on the other source that you cite (Wikipedia's article on the Clinton Parameters).
//But this is seems mistaken to me: the fact that Ross was involved in the negotiations on the US-Israeli side surely ought to make us *more* skeptical of his account, not less.//
I don't think it makes sense to think of there as being one unified U.S. Israeli side. There's the U.S. side and the Israeli side--I'd trust the U.S. side more because they are more impartial. Ross has no incentive to lie and it's hard to believe Ross and Clinton would totally bullshit some false claim about the proposals, that matches up with the claims of Ben-Ami and Barak and what one would expect based purely on incentives.
Re Clinton parameters, there was a ten day window--during that time the Israelis accepted them, the Palestinians didn't. Then, Arafat said he accepted them with reservations, but the reservations were outside the scope of the parameters.
I don't understand the claim that Barak had a strong incentive to make a viable offer. A majority of Israelis at the time thought that he had conceded too much, with only 25% saying that they agreed with the Camp David offer. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110609124155/http://truman.huji.ac.il/upload/truman_site_poll01_July2000.pdf) So if anything, it seems that Barak's political incentives would have been pushing him in the other direction: to compromise less, not more.
My read of the situation is this: the Palestinian negotiators claim that it was the fault of the US-Israeli side, while the US-Israeli side claims it was the fault of the Palestinians. That's a he-said-she-said situation. (I don't agree that the US negotiators are impartial; they were directly involved in the negotiations, and the US is obviously very strongly supportive of Israel, with Dennis Ross in particular being somewhat notorious for his pro-Israel bias.) If we want a more serious perspective, we ought to look at the independent scholarship. But when we do that, we find that most of it (e.g. Pundak and Arieli) seems to broadly support the Palestinian claim.
Also, I'd like to read more about the Clinton Parameters. Do you have a source that mentions a ten-day window? I can't find that.
Oh oops I think I was wrong about the ten day details.
Barak's career was riding on peace. After peace failed, he effectively became a political non-entity. I think the Saudi prince said, for that reason, that Arafat was electing Sharon.
I think that it's a wash between the Israeli and Palestinian side, and so the fact that the negotiators from the U.S. and incentives both favor the Israeli side gives a reason to think that side is right. Pundak and Arieli got their sources from the Palestinian side presumably--all of this comes from firsthand negotiators' reports.
Right, but the Israeli public already thought he was compromising *too much*. So even if he wanted a peace deal, which is no doubt why his government accepted the Clinton parameters (as did Arafat), he still had a powerful incentive to try and withhold as much of the occupied territory as possible.
Pundak and Arieli base their accounts on Israeli and Palestinian sources from the negotiations. They were both intimately involved in the peace process for years on the Israeli side (Arieli was an IDF commander, Pundak was a diplomat), so I find it hard to believe that they simply took Arafat's word for it.
It seems as though the entire issue reduces to whether we're more incline to trust (1) Barak, Clinton, and Ross, or (2) Pundak and Arieli. You say that Ross' account ought to be given greater weight since "Ross was in the room—Pundak and Arieli were not." But this is seems mistaken to me: the fact that Ross was involved in the negotiations on the US-Israeli side surely ought to make us *more* skeptical of his account, not less. The same applies to Barak and Clinton. If it seems as though I'm being unduly harsh, consider the matter from the other side: suppose somebody were to cite Arafat's account as evidence for the Israelis being at fault for the failure of Camp David. Would you take that seriously? If not, why take Barak, Clinton, and Ross seriously, especially when the best Israeli scholarship contradicts them? At the very least, this seems like a flimsy ground for stating authoritatively that "No, the Camp David proposal didn't cantonize the West Bank."
You also say that "the Israelis, unlike the Palestinians, were quick to accept the Clinton Parameters." But this seems inaccurate: Israel accepted the parameters with reservations on December 28, while Arafat accepted them with reservations on January 2. This was confirmed on January 3, when the White House stated that "both sides have now accepted the president's ideas with some reservations." The later claim that Arafat rejected the parameters (made in the "Honest Reporting" article that you cite) seems to be false, at least based on the other source that you cite (Wikipedia's article on the Clinton Parameters).
//But this is seems mistaken to me: the fact that Ross was involved in the negotiations on the US-Israeli side surely ought to make us *more* skeptical of his account, not less.//
I don't think it makes sense to think of there as being one unified U.S. Israeli side. There's the U.S. side and the Israeli side--I'd trust the U.S. side more because they are more impartial. Ross has no incentive to lie and it's hard to believe Ross and Clinton would totally bullshit some false claim about the proposals, that matches up with the claims of Ben-Ami and Barak and what one would expect based purely on incentives.
Re Clinton parameters, there was a ten day window--during that time the Israelis accepted them, the Palestinians didn't. Then, Arafat said he accepted them with reservations, but the reservations were outside the scope of the parameters.
I don't understand the claim that Barak had a strong incentive to make a viable offer. A majority of Israelis at the time thought that he had conceded too much, with only 25% saying that they agreed with the Camp David offer. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110609124155/http://truman.huji.ac.il/upload/truman_site_poll01_July2000.pdf) So if anything, it seems that Barak's political incentives would have been pushing him in the other direction: to compromise less, not more.
My read of the situation is this: the Palestinian negotiators claim that it was the fault of the US-Israeli side, while the US-Israeli side claims it was the fault of the Palestinians. That's a he-said-she-said situation. (I don't agree that the US negotiators are impartial; they were directly involved in the negotiations, and the US is obviously very strongly supportive of Israel, with Dennis Ross in particular being somewhat notorious for his pro-Israel bias.) If we want a more serious perspective, we ought to look at the independent scholarship. But when we do that, we find that most of it (e.g. Pundak and Arieli) seems to broadly support the Palestinian claim.
Also, I'd like to read more about the Clinton Parameters. Do you have a source that mentions a ten-day window? I can't find that.
Oh oops I think I was wrong about the ten day details.
Barak's career was riding on peace. After peace failed, he effectively became a political non-entity. I think the Saudi prince said, for that reason, that Arafat was electing Sharon.
I think that it's a wash between the Israeli and Palestinian side, and so the fact that the negotiators from the U.S. and incentives both favor the Israeli side gives a reason to think that side is right. Pundak and Arieli got their sources from the Palestinian side presumably--all of this comes from firsthand negotiators' reports.
Right, but the Israeli public already thought he was compromising *too much*. So even if he wanted a peace deal, which is no doubt why his government accepted the Clinton parameters (as did Arafat), he still had a powerful incentive to try and withhold as much of the occupied territory as possible.
Pundak and Arieli base their accounts on Israeli and Palestinian sources from the negotiations. They were both intimately involved in the peace process for years on the Israeli side (Arieli was an IDF commander, Pundak was a diplomat), so I find it hard to believe that they simply took Arafat's word for it.