Twenty-six years after Camp David, Israel needs a new security doctrine - opinion

Twenty-six years ago, the Camp David Summit convened with the aim of achieving a permanent-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Despite U.S. President Bill Clinton's mediation, Prime Minister Ehud Barak's far-reaching proposal, offering over 90% of Judea and Samaria, land swaps, and discussions on Jerusalem, was rejected by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

The article posits that this rejection exposed a fundamental truth: the Palestinian national movement's objective has never been to establish a state alongside Israel, but rather to control the entire Land of Israel. The author asserts that the summit's failure, followed by the Second Intifada, demonstrated that territorial concessions do not lead to reconciliation.

Furthermore, the piece argues that Israel's willingness to make such concessions created a dangerous precedent, leading the international community to view these offers as the standard starting point for negotiations. This precedent, the author contends, must be nullified.

The core lesson from Camp David, according to the article, is that the conflict's root cause is not the extent of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, but rather the Palestinian national movement's ultimate goal. The author calls for a new security doctrine that acknowledges this reality and moves away from the assumption that territorial concessions will bring peace.