For this weeks blog, I decided to take a further look into the more recent peace talks and efforts that were made to resolve the issues of the Israeli-Palestinian Issue. Focusing in on the most recent talks held at Camp David in July 2000 by President Clinton, I found two articles that, unplanned, held the same viewpoint of the outcome. In this Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre release, a brief overview of the talks was followed by a quick note of failure in which the Palestinians were blamed. In this New York Times article, a very similar, albeit expanded, account of the talks is offered. According to this article, discussions were proceeding fairly well until the issue of Jerusalem was discussed. It is noted that while both parties entered seeking full control of the religiously important city, it was only Ehud Barak, Israeli Prime Minister, who eventually offered a token of negotiation with the prospect of a Palestinian East Jerusalem. At this point, negotiations reached an impasse and the talks were called off. Barak was praised, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was blamed for the failed talks. Tensions remained high as the parties retired to their respective countries due to the threat of Arafat unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state by September 13th.

Looking back at a point in history, and its associated news media publications, is highly intriguing as we know the outcome of events. In this case, no agreement was made by September 13th and, as we all know, tensions grew to the point of widespread violence. To this day, no peaceful solution is within sight. The more interesting points though, are the slivers of information found in quotes and soundbites that give us a glimmer of the inner workings of the various leaders, their people they represent, and the feelings at the time. In this case, Barak was ousted from office only a few short months later and Arafat, while holding his post longer, was also voted out. Both leaders were condemned for their lack of, and willingness to, negotiate.

As a last exercise, I’ve attempted to classify the two leaders according to their political perspective. I would venture to classify Arafat as a Political Realist. Realizing that strong states need to remain the key actors, I believe that Arafat’s mixed general assessment, and willingness to declare what he believes is his, pushes him to the realist side of politics. Barak, on the other hand, I would classify as a Political Liberal. His more liberal outlook on issues, as well as a broadened horizon of players, keeps him away from the realist side.