Yes, but Hamas instigated this by attacking civilians and the PLO—and only the Palestinians and its silent backers—threw away a dual-nation solution during the Clinton era.
So when we include decisions, it’s important to be impartial here.
So when we include decisions, it’s important to be impartial here.
Like many of my generation—Gen X—I was closely following the on-goings because it seemed so close (Berlin wall, Russia seemed like an ally; more peace in our time); but in the end Arafat scuttled the deal because he did not want to compromise and give-up any part of Jerusalem.
“Arafat rejected Barak's offer and refused to make an immediate counter-offer.[100] He told President Clinton that, "the Arab leader who would surrender Jerusalem is not born yet.”
[1]
> There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive, but official statements from Washington and Jerusalem were succesful in placing the entire onus for the failure on Yasir Arafat. Violence in the Holy Land continued.
In regards to the following talks at Taba, which perhaps the wiki is conflating with Camp David, Carter continues:
[2]
> A new round of talks was held at Taba in January 2001, during the last few days of the Clinton presidency, between President Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, and it was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a "generous offer" put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel keeping only 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is that no such offers were ever made.
[1]/[2] Jimmy Carter - Peace Not Apartheid (it's on Libgen, go look for yourself like I just did)