Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Taba Summit

The Taba Summit was a week-long series of bilateral negotiations between and the Palestinian Authority, held from 21 to 27 January 2001 in the Egyptian resort town of Taba, aimed at resolving core permanent status issues including territory, , settlements, refugees, and security as outlined in the framework. The Israeli delegation, headed by Prime Minister with senior negotiators such as Gilad Sher and , engaged Palestinian counterparts led by (Abu Ala'a) and , in talks that built on prior discussions but operated without formal U.S. mediation and amid the escalating violence of the Second Intifada. Both sides issued a joint statement at the summit's close, acknowledging "significant progress" across all issues and an improved atmosphere of trust after the acrimonious summit six months earlier, though substantial gaps persisted, particularly on refugee return mechanisms and Jerusalem's sovereignty. An summary by observer Moratinos noted potential frameworks for territorial swaps involving 3-5% land exchanges to incorporate major settlements into proper while compensating with equivalent territory, alongside understandings on limited family reunifications but rejection of mass returns that could demographically alter . No binding agreement emerged, as the talks were truncated by Barak's looming electoral defeat to on 6 February 2001, after which the incoming government declined to resume negotiations, citing unresolved fundamentals and the Intifada's ongoing attacks. The summit remains contentious in assessments of negotiability, with Palestinian accounts emphasizing near-closures on borders and holy sites while perspectives highlight tactical concessions lacking Arafat's endorsement and persistent demands incompatible with Israel's red lines, such as expansive refugee claims. Despite the absence of a deal, Taba demonstrated that structured dialogue could narrow differences when insulated from immediate political pressures, though causal factors like the Intifada's toll—over 300 deaths by January 2001—and mutual distrust precluded commitment.

Historical Context

Preceding Negotiations and Escalations

The Oslo Accords, formally the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed on September 13, 1993, between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, established the Palestinian Authority (PA) for limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip while postponing core issues like borders and refugees. Implementation faltered due to Palestinian non-compliance with key provisions, including the requirement to renounce violence, amend the PLO charter to eliminate calls for Israel's destruction, and prevent incitement. The PA permitted ongoing anti-Israel propaganda in official media and textbooks, failed to confiscate illegal arms, and oversaw smuggling operations that expanded its security forces beyond the agreed 18,000-30,000 police limit, amassing weapons caches in violation of interim agreements. On May 24, 2000, Israeli Prime Minister executed a unilateral withdrawal of from , adhering to UN Security Council Resolution 425 and ending an 18-year occupation initiated in 1982. The rapid collapse of Israel's ally, the , and Hezbollah's subsequent control of the vacated zone were interpreted by Palestinian factions as evidence that sustained militancy could compel Israeli retreat without , undermining deterrence and signaling vulnerability ahead of final-status talks. These unresolved tensions culminated in the Second Intifada, erupting on September 28, 2000, amid clashes following Ariel Sharon's visit to the /Haram al-Sharif, though fueled by the collapse of talks and accumulated grievances over security lapses. Palestinian groups escalated from stone-throwing and shootings to coordinated suicide bombings—30 such attacks occurred in 2001 alone—inflicting over 200 Israeli deaths that year and totaling around 1,000 Israeli fatalities by the Intifada's end in 2005, predominantly civilians. This surge in targeted terror eroded Israeli public support for territorial concessions, as empirical patterns of non-compliance and violence demonstrated the fragility of phased agreements reliant on goodwill.

Camp David Summit Outcomes

The Camp David Summit, held from July 11 to 25, 2000, between Israeli Prime Minister , Chairman , and U.S. President , concluded without agreement on a final-status deal. Barak presented proposals including Palestinian sovereignty over approximately 91-95% of the (excluding major settlement blocs), full Israeli withdrawal from , and equivalent land swaps from proper to compensate for annexed areas totaling 5-9% of the West Bank. On Jerusalem, the offer envisioned Israeli sovereignty over and shared or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in , with special international administration for the Holy Basin encompassing key holy sites like the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound. Regarding , Barak proposed limited humanitarian returns of no more than 100,000 individuals to proper, alongside financial compensation and resettlement options in the new Palestinian state or third countries for the remainder. Arafat rejected these terms outright, offering no formal counterproposal during the summit, according to accounts from U.S. negotiator and himself, who later described Arafat's stance as evasive and focused on maximalist demands like full for refugees that would alter 's demographic character. Israeli records and Barak's post-summit statements emphasized Arafat's insistence on sovereignty over the entire without reciprocity on security guarantees or recognition of as a , contributing to the impasse. , upon leaving office, attributed primary responsibility for the failure to , stating that the Palestinian leader "did not say yes" to any framework and failed to engage constructively, a view echoed in U.S. diplomatic cables and memoirs from participants. The summit's collapse precipitated a rapid escalation of violence, with the Second Intifada erupting on September 28, 2000, following Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount amid unresolved tensions from the failed talks. Incidents intensified within weeks, including widespread riots, shootings, and bombings; by mid-October, over 100 deaths had occurred on both sides. A stark emblem of this surge was the October 12, 2000, Ramallah lynching, where two Israeli reservists who entered the city by error were arrested by Palestinian police, then handed to a mob that beat, stabbed, and mutilated their bodies before throwing them from a police station window, with crowds celebrating in the streets below. This event, captured on video and broadcast widely, underscored the rejection of negotiated compromise in favor of confrontational tactics, linking the diplomatic breakdown directly to heightened hostilities that persisted into the Taba discussions.

Clinton Parameters and Immediate Aftermath

The , presented by U.S. President on December 23, 2000, served as a U.S. bridging proposal to resolve outstanding issues from the summit, aiming to facilitate a final-status agreement between and the . The plan envisioned a sovereign Palestinian state encompassing 94-96% of the and 100% of , with reciprocal land swaps equivalent to 1-3% of West Bank territory to allow to annex major settlement blocs housing the of settlers near the 1967 Green Line. It stipulated a demilitarized Palestinian entity, Israeli security control over borders and airspace for a transitional period, and limited refugee returns to —primarily through initially capped at around 100,000, with additional numbers subject to future negotiation—while rejecting a general that could alter Israel's Jewish . Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted the parameters on December 28, 2000, with reservations confined to clarifications on implementation, such as enhanced security guarantees and settlement evacuations, which U.S. officials including and envoy viewed as operating within the proposal's bounds. Declassified cabinet documents from the period affirm Barak's flexibility, including concessions on Palestinian over parts of Jerusalem's Old City and the /Haram al-Sharif compound. , however, responded on January 2, 2001, with extensive reservations—demanding full for refugees, additional territory beyond the proposed percentages, and rejection of demilitarization—that described as exceeding the parameters' framework, amounting to a qualified rejection that stalled progress. Arafat's position, as later critiqued by in his memoirs, prioritized maximalist demands over compromise, reflecting a pattern of avoiding definitive commitments amid domestic pressures. The parameters' collapse unfolded against the backdrop of intensifying violence in the Second Intifada, which had erupted in late September 2000 and rendered binding agreements infeasible by early 2001. Palestinian militant attacks, including suicide bombings and shootings, had claimed approximately 200 lives by mid-January, with civilians comprising the majority of fatalities and underscoring non-negotiable security prerequisites for any deal. This toll—escalating from sporadic clashes to systematic targeting of population centers—eroded public support in for concessions, particularly as Barak's government teetered ahead of elections, while Palestinian leadership's tacit endorsement of violence further diminished prospects for formal commitments, setting the stage for the exploratory Taba talks.

Participants and Setup

Key Negotiators and Leadership

The Israeli delegation was led by Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, with principal negotiators including Gilad Sher, Prime Minister Ehud Barak's chief of staff and senior adviser, and Justice Minister Yossi Beilin. Additional team members encompassed former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Education Minister Yossi Sarid, and others such as Israel Hassoun. However, the negotiators' mandate was severely limited by Barak's lame-duck status amid trailing polls ahead of the February 6, 2001, general election, which constrained their ability to offer binding concessions or override domestic political pressures. The Palestinian delegation was headed by (known as Abu Ala), Speaker of the Palestinian , alongside Yasser Abed Rabbo, a PLO Executive Committee member, and chief negotiator . These figures conducted talks subject to Yasser Arafat's centralized oversight, with Arafat retaining ultimate veto authority over any prospective agreements, reflecting the Palestinian Authority's hierarchical decision-making structure. Neither nor participated directly in the proceedings, relegating the summit to lower-level exploratory discussions without the executive presence needed for finality or enforceable commitments. This absence underscored the internal constraints on both sides, as Barak's electoral vulnerability and Arafat's insistence on personal control prevented negotiators from bridging gaps independently.

Venue, Timing, and Observers

The Taba Summit took place from January 21 to 27, 2001, in the Egyptian resort town of Taba, located on the northern near the borders with and . Egypt hosted the event as a neutral venue following the breakdown of talks at the previous summer, providing a secluded setting conducive to bilateral discussions away from domestic political pressures in and the Palestinian territories. The served as the primary third-party observer, represented by Miguel Ángel Moratinos, the EU Special Representative for the , who attended alongside a small team but lacked formal or enforcement mechanisms. Moratinos' role was limited to monitoring sessions and facilitating informal consultations, culminating in a non- "non-paper" summary document that outlined perceived areas of progress without imposing obligations on either side. This observational presence by the EU aimed to lend legitimacy to the process but exerted minimal influence on outcomes, as it did not include or external leverage. The did not participate directly in mediation at Taba, with President Bill Clinton's term concluding on January 20, 2001, just prior to the summit's start, and the incoming administration opting against involvement in the final-status negotiations. This absence of American facilitation, which had been central to prior efforts like , reduced opportunities for high-level pressure toward concessions and underscored the talks' bilateral character under constrained external oversight.

Political Pressures Influencing the Summit

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak entered the Taba Summit amid acute domestic political vulnerability, as his coalition government had effectively collapsed following the Camp David summit's failure and the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, reducing his administration to minority status reliant on ad hoc support. Barak had announced early elections for February 6, 2001, after failing to pass a confidence vote in December 2000, with opinion polls consistently showing him trailing Likud challenger Ariel Sharon by 16 to 20 percentage points, reflecting public frustration over escalating violence and perceived weakness in negotiations. These pressures incentivized Barak to pursue talks for potential electoral gains but constrained bold concessions, as voters prioritized security amid over 170 Israeli deaths in the preceding months of Intifada attacks, fostering a psychology of insecurity that undermined support for territorial compromises. On the Palestinian side, wielded dominant authority within the , suppressing internal dissent to maintain unified negotiating leverage, yet faced tensions from militant factions integrated into or tolerated by PA structures, including Fatah-affiliated groups drawn from security forces. Israeli intelligence assessments documented PA funding and direction of militant activities during the , such as payments to families of attackers and reluctance to dismantle terror infrastructure, which balanced against demands to appease hardliners and sustain his leadership amid factional pressures. This dynamic compelled to resist full concessions at Taba, prioritizing symbolic gains to counter domestic accusations of capitulation while the ongoing —exacerbated by PA inaction against militants—eroded trust and hardened positions on both sides. Internationally, the summit unfolded under the lame-duck administration's final push for legacy achievements, but with waning U.S. stamina after Camp David's exhaustion and the incoming team's signaled disinterest in intensive mediation. entities exhibited sympathy toward Palestinian narratives of grievance, as evidenced in contemporaneous reports critiquing Israeli responses to violence, though direct coercive pressure on participants remained limited absent unified leverage. These factors, combined with global fatigue over protracted talks, underscored a narrowing window for , amplifying the domestic imperatives that ultimately prioritized political survival over comprehensive resolution.

Negotiation Process

Timeline and Format of Discussions

The Taba Summit opened on January 21, 2001, in the Egyptian resort town of Taba, with initial plenary sessions focused on establishing a constructive atmosphere and rebuilding mutual trust following the breakdown of prior negotiations. These opening discussions involved statements from Israeli Prime Minister and President , emphasizing a commitment to intensive bilateral engagement without third-party . The format adopted a multitrack approach, alternating formal plenary sessions with private bilateral meetings between delegations, allowing for both high-level oversight and detailed working-group deliberations. Throughout the week, discussions progressed through parallel bilateral channels, with mid-week intensification in smaller working groups organized around procedural clusters to facilitate focused exchanges. This structure enabled simultaneous handling of multiple agenda items while maintaining separation from public scrutiny, though no formal observers or mediators were present beyond logistical support from hosts. The talks spanned six days, concluding abruptly on January 27, 2001, after a final issued a joint statement acknowledging procedural advances but halting further sessions. Efforts to extend the summit beyond were rejected by the side, citing the impending elections scheduled for February 6, 2001, which constrained Barak's political calendar and precluded additional commitments. This timeline reflected the urgency imposed by domestic dynamics, overriding Palestinian requests for more time to sustain momentum.

Informal Assessments and Documentation

The Moratinos non-paper, an unofficial summary drafted in early February 2001 by Miguel Moratinos, the European Union's Special Representative for the , served as the principal external record of the Taba discussions. Drawing from consultations with Israeli and Palestinian delegations, the document outlined areas of reported conceptual convergence—such as on territorial exchanges and refugee mechanisms—while explicitly noting unresolved gaps, including on security guarantees and Jerusalem's holy sites, that barred any comprehensive deal. However, as an informal EU assessment not endorsed or reviewed by the parties, it captured only selective insights from Moratinos's observations as the sole third-party presence, potentially emphasizing exploratory brainstorming over entrenched divergences. Israeli participants disputed the non-paper's portrayal, arguing it exaggerated Israel's willingness on core concessions like settlement evacuations and refugee returns, framing tentative ideas as near-agreements without reflecting internal reservations or Palestinian inflexibility. Leaked shortly after its preparation, the document fueled narratives of substantial progress amid the talks' collapse, yet assessments maintained that no binding positions had crystallized, with Palestinian demands on —such as over actions—prompting repeated impasses and delegation frustrations. The absence of any signed protocols or joint communiqués underscored the proceedings' provisional character, rendering all exchanged non-papers void post-talks and limiting their utility as precedents.

Shifts in Positions During Talks

During the Taba Summit from to 27, 2001, negotiators demonstrated tactical flexibility on territorial arrangements by adhering to a maximum of 3 percent land swaps aligned with , while proposing to incorporate equivalent "assets" such as safe passage corridors to offset annexed blocs encompassing approximately 80 percent of . This adjustment represented a shift from earlier emphases on direct of 6 percent of the , prioritizing security needs like early warning stations over rigid retention of areas such as the . Palestinian counterparts countered with proposals for 3.1 percent swaps but rejected non-territorial assets in exchanges, retracting prior tentative acceptance of certain blocs like Ma’ale Adumim due to concerns over contiguous sovereignty tracts. On the refugee issue, Palestinians maintained a firm insistence on affirming the under UN Resolution 194 as a symbolic prerequisite, showing limited tactical softening despite engaging in discussions on implementation mechanisms like an international compensation fund and "fast-track" payments for smaller claims. Israeli offers evolved to include informal proposals for up to 25,000 refugees returning to proper over three years (potentially scaling to 40,000 over five), alongside relocation options to the Palestinian state or swapped territories, though these were framed within broader absorption programs without conceding the principle of unlimited return. This Palestinian rigidity on the right's declarative status contrasted with incremental Israeli numerical concessions, as negotiators sought to balance humanitarian elements against demographic concerns. Concurrent violence influenced the talks' dynamics, with a roadside in on January 22 wounding an Israeli soldier just as the second round of discussions resumed, heightening Israeli security apprehensions and potentially constraining further resolve for concessions amid the ongoing al-Aqsa Intifada. Despite this, negotiations proceeded without immediate suspension, reflecting negotiators' efforts to insulate talks from external pressures, though the incident underscored the fragility of tactical adjustments under duress.

Core Issues and Proposals

Territorial Borders and Settlements

The territorial negotiations at the Taba Summit centered on dividing the along or near the pre-1967 lines, with land swaps to address retention and Palestinian territorial contiguity. Building on , which envisioned Palestinian control over 94-96% of the in exchange for Israeli annexation of 4-6% containing settlement blocs housing roughly 80% of settlers, compensated by 1-3% equivalent swaps from pre-1967 , the Israeli delegation presented two maps proposing up to 97% of the returned to Palestinian sovereignty plus additional swaps from Israeli territory to ensure viability. These proposals prioritized compact blocs adjacent to the Green Line, such as those around , , and , reflecting demographic concentrations of over 80% of the approximately 200,000 settlers in areas comprising less than 5% of the territory's land area. The Palestinian position demanded full withdrawal to the borders, with any swaps limited to equal land and value exchanges without permanent Israeli annexation of settlements, viewing deviations as violations of UN Security Council Resolution 242's . They engaged with the Israeli maps but rejected sovereignty over key blocs like and Givat Ze'ev, arguing these would fragment Palestinian statehood and exceed proportional compensation, despite the blocs' proximity to and minimal territorial footprint relative to the West Bank's 5,860 square kilometers. This stance overlooked the geographic reality of settlements established post- in response to security threats during the preceding , which had demonstrated the vulnerability of Israel's pre- nine-mile waistline to disruption. EU observer Miguel Moratinos recorded partial convergence on land swap principles and acceptance of Israeli retention of some post- Jerusalem-area settlements (excluding Har Homa and Ras al-Amud), but gaps persisted over the extent of annexations and , with insisting on defensible adjustments to the 1967 lines for amid ongoing violence. No final maps were agreed upon, as Palestinian counter-proposals emphasized maximalist territorial restoration without accommodating the empirical clustering of settlements near population centers, which housed the majority of settlers in under 6% of the land. ![Palestinian territorial proposal map at Taba][float-right]

Jerusalem Status and Holy Sites

The Israeli delegation at the Taba Summit insisted on sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of 's Old City, citing its exclusive Jewish historical and religious character, including synagogues and the , as non-negotiable red lines to preserve access and administrative control in areas of continuous Jewish presence dating back over 3,000 years. Archaeological evidence, including artifacts from the First and Second Temples on the adjacent , underscores Jewish civilizational primacy in these sites predating Islamic claims by over a . For the / al-Sharif, floated concepts of shared custodianship or a special international regime to ensure mutual access without ceding sovereignty, aiming to balance rights—denied since 1967 under Jordanian/ administration—with Muslim custodianship of surface structures like and the . , however, demanded undivided sovereignty over the entire compound as part of designated as their capital, rejecting compromises that implied Israeli residual rights and extending claims to adjacent areas like tunnels, which they equated with the . While Palestinians signaled potential acceptance of Israeli control in the Jewish Quarter—consistent with pre-Camp David understandings—their irredentist stance on holy sites reflected lingering maximalism akin to the original PLO Charter's (1968) denial of Jewish historical connections to , despite formal amendments in 1998 that nominally recognized such ties but did not translate into practical concessions. This position prioritized symbolic unity of over division schemes, contrasting with Israel's emphasis on ethnic-religious zoning informed by pre- Jordanian expulsion of from the Old City and post-reunification demographic engineering that boosted Arab residency through policies, shifting 's population from roughly 70% Jewish overall in to contested balances by 2001. Negotiators explored an framework encompassing the Old City and Holy Basin for free movement, but sovereignty gaps persisted, with no breakthrough on the , where Palestinian insistence on exclusive Muslim authority clashed with Israeli security and heritage imperatives rooted in empirical Jewish continuity versus post-1967 assertions of indigeneity. The Moratinos non-paper, summarizing observer notes, highlighted these as core impasses, underscoring how Palestinian rejection of hybrid regimes perpetuated deadlock despite incremental alignment on peripheral neighborhoods.

Palestinian Refugee Claims

The Palestinian delegation demanded implementation of a full "right of return" to Israel proper for refugees and their descendants, interpreting United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948, as mandating repatriation to original homes and properties for those displaced in the 1948 war, conditional only on living at peace with neighbors. This position encompassed approximately 3.9 million individuals registered as refugees with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) by 2001, a figure derived from the agency's unique definition conferring perpetual refugee status by right of descent to all progeny of the original ~711,000 Palestinians estimated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to have been displaced outside Israel's borders by war's end in 1949. UNRWA's policy, unlike the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' approach for other global displaced populations, sustains refugee counts across generations absent resettlement, amplifying claims far beyond first-generation displacements empirically tied to wartime flight and expulsions totaling 700,000–750,000. Israel firmly rejected mass repatriation to its sovereign territory, viewing it as incompatible with preserving the state's Jewish demographic majority and national character, as influxes of even hundreds of thousands would precipitate an plurality or majority, eroding the rationale for a separate Jewish under a two-state framework. Instead, Israeli proposals framed returns within a multi-track program—encompassing limited humanitarian absorption into , resettlement in a Palestinian state or swapped territories, and relocation to host or third countries—coupled with an international compensation fund based on a macro-economic assessment of losses, while advocating phase-out of over five years to end institutional perpetuation of refugee status. Specific absorption into was informally pegged at 25,000 over the first three years and 40,000 over five years via and exceptional cases, without conceding restitution of pre-1948 properties or a blanket under Resolution 194, which regarded as a non-binding recommendation rather than an absolute entitlement. The resultant deadlock stemmed from irreconcilable premises: Palestinian insistence on unrestricted choice of destination, prioritizing return to as vindication of historical claims, clashed with 's red line against demographic inundation that would nullify Jewish , rendering comprehensive agreement elusive despite concessions on compensation and symbolic returns. No joint historical narrative or mechanism for individual claims adjudication was bridged, with dismissing offers as insufficient to honor Resolution 194's intent and critiquing expansive tallies as politically engineered to pressure absorption. This underscored causal realities of competing national identities, where Palestinian maximalism on returns prioritized maximal territorial and demographic revision over viable partition, perpetuating stasis.

Security and Military Arrangements

Israeli security proposals at the Taba Summit emphasized a demilitarized Palestinian state, limited to internal forces without a conventional , , or heavy weaponry, reflecting concerns over past (PA) non-compliance with commitments to confiscate illegal arms and dismantle terrorist infrastructure. These demands were informed by documented Oslo-era violations, including PA security forces' smuggling of arms from via into and the discovery of unauthorized weapons caches among PA , which exceeded agreed limits and facilitated attacks. The proposals included three early-warning radar stations on Palestinian territory in the , to be operated by or an international force for monitoring threats from the east and north, alongside Israeli access to Palestinian airspace for training and emergency flights. also sought five emergency deployment sites in the for rapid response to border incursions, with a phased withdrawal timeline: 36 months from most areas, extended by another 36 months for the Valley under multinational supervision, to ensure defensible borders amid ongoing threats. This structure aimed to address vulnerabilities exposed by the Second , which erupted in September 2000 and had claimed over 250 Israeli lives through suicide bombings, shootings, and other assaults by January 2001, many linked to groups like that the PA failed to suppress despite Oslo obligations. Palestinian negotiators resisted these measures, framing prolonged Israeli presence as perpetuating and insisting on full , including a limited capability beyond forces, while proposing shorter 18-month withdrawals and substitution for IDF sites in the Valley. They conditionally accepted early-warning stations with staffing but rejected exclusive Israeli airspace rights, prioritizing neutrality over Israel's cited needs for veto power against rearmament, even as intelligence indicated PA tolerance of operations, including indirect support through non-enforcement against smuggling tunnels and joint militant activities. These divergences highlighted irreconcilable views on enforcement mechanisms, with Israel prioritizing verifiable controls to prevent repeats of post-Oslo terror escalations that had eroded trust.

Outcomes and Closing

Areas of Convergence

The delegations achieved notable understandings on territorial parameters, with both sides accepting the June 4, 1967 lines as the basis for borders per UN Security Council Resolution 242, alongside the principle of land swaps to address settlement blocs. indicated readiness to annex approximately 6% of the in exchange for equivalent territory elsewhere, while Palestinians proposed 3.1% annexation with equitable compensation, effectively converging toward Palestinian control over roughly 97% of the combined with full sovereignty over and its settlements' evacuation. A safe passage route linking and the was also agreed upon in concept, though sovereignty details remained pending. On , convergence emerged around former U.S. President Bill Clinton's parameters, granting Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and Israeli sovereignty over Jewish ones, with both capitals—Al-Quds for and Yerushalaim for —envisioned within an "" framework, albeit with differing views on its geographic extent. discussions yielded agreements on enhanced bilateral cooperation against , Palestinian acceptance of limited armaments, and Israeli acquiescence to eventual Palestinian sovereignty over airspace conditional on joint monitoring mechanisms. For refugees, both acknowledged a "just solution" aligned with UNSC Resolution 242 and UN Resolution 194, including an international compensation fund and commission, with provisions for expedited processing of smaller claims and a phased wind-down over five years. These points, documented in Special Representative Moratinos' non-paper following consultations with both parties, represented non-binding informal understandings rather than finalized accords, serving primarily to narrow gaps and foster procedural trust amid persistent violence, including Palestinian attacks during the talks. Israeli officials later contested the document's precision, characterizing it as Moratinos' impressions rather than verbatim positions.

Unresolved Gaps

The Taba negotiations concluded without resolution on the core issue of , where the Palestinian delegation insisted on the full implementation of the as outlined in 194, encompassing potentially millions of claimants to original homes and properties within Israel's pre-1967 borders. In contrast, the Israeli side proposed limited programs, informally suggesting absorption of 25,000 refugees over three years or up to 40,000 over five years, alongside resettlement options in a future Palestinian state or third countries, but explicitly rejected individual property restitution or broader returns that could alter Israel's demographic composition. Both parties agreed in principle to an international compensation fund, yet diverged on valuation methods, with Palestinians favoring United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine records adjusted by a multiplier and Israelis preferring a macroeconomic survey approach. Sovereignty over Jerusalem remained a fundamental impasse, particularly regarding the Old City and holy sites. The Palestinians sought undivided sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif, while rejecting Israeli claims to post-1967 settlements like Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev; they proposed an "open city" encompassing both East and West Jerusalem. Israel, however, demanded sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods and certain settlement blocs, limited the open city concept to the Old City and Holy Basin, and insisted on full control over the Western Wall area beyond the Palestinians' offer of only the Wailing Wall segment. Security arrangements exposed irreconcilable differences on military presence and capabilities. required a non-militarized Palestinian with overriding control of and a prolonged withdrawal timeline—36 months from the and 72 months from the —to maintain early warning stations and a residual force for threat monitoring. The Palestinian position rejected any permanent Israeli Defense Forces presence, proposed shorter timelines of 18 months for the and 10 for the , and demanded full sovereignty over and electromagnetic spectrum, though willing to accommodate limited Israeli needs. The talks failed to yield a Palestinian counterproposal or acceptance of from December 2000, which had formed a loose basis for discussions but were previously rejected by the despite acceptance with reservations. Negotiations ended on January 27, 2001, with a joint statement acknowledging progress yet highlighting persistent gaps across issues, but without establishing a concrete framework or timeline for resumption beyond a general intent to continue post- elections.

Final Statements and Declarations

The joint communiqué issued by and Palestinian negotiators on January 27, 2001, at the conclusion of the Taba talks described the discussions as "unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression of mutual willingness to meet the and existential needs of each side," while asserting that "the sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement" and that "substantial progress" had been achieved on core issues including refugees, , security arrangements, and borders. The document emphasized that these understandings provided "a basis for final settlement" if negotiations resumed promptly after the impending Israeli elections on February 6, 2001, with the parties expressing confidence that "the remaining gaps could be bridged" in a short additional period. Despite this optimistic framing, the communiqué resulted in no signed agreement or binding commitments, reflecting the exploratory nature of the talks rather than a finalized accord; Prime Minister had authorized participation with explicit disclaimers that positions remained non-binding and subject to cabinet approval, underscoring the absence of enforceable outcomes. The statement's portrayal of near-convergence contrasted with persistent empirical gaps on key concessions, such as Palestinian demands for full implementation of right-of-return claims and insistence on demilitarization and retention, which negotiators acknowledged required further bridging without resolution at Taba. European Union Special Representative Miguel Angel Moratinos endorsed the progress in his subsequent non-paper summary, noting the talks' constructive tone and advancements toward Clinton Parameters-based understandings, yet even he documented "serious gaps remain" on , refugees, and , with Israeli officials later disclaiming the document as merely Moratinos's personal impressions rather than an accurate bilateral record. This external validation, while highlighting mutual willingness, did not translate into tangible mechanisms for continuation, as the Israeli electoral calendar explicitly halted any immediate resumption, leaving the declarations aspirational amid unresolved divergences.

Reasons for Failure

Palestinian Intransigence and Demands

The Palestinian delegation at the Taba Summit, held from January 21 to 27, 2001, maintained maximalist positions on the refugee issue, insisting on the full implementation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which they interpreted as granting an unconditional for over 4 million registered to areas within Israel's pre-1967 borders. This demand effectively sought to alter Israel's demographic balance and challenge its existence as a , rather than accepting compromises such as symbolic returns limited to family unification (e.g., 10,000-20,000 individuals) combined with resettlement in a future Palestinian state and , which Israel proposed. Analysts, including former U.S. negotiator , later assessed that this refusal to delineate a viable end-state for —prioritizing mass influx over state-building—reflected a broader pattern of avoiding strategic choices necessary for peace, as the position undermined the two-state framework by prioritizing historical grievances over pragmatic statehood. Yasser Arafat, as head of the Palestinian Authority (PA), exercised unilateral control over negotiations without submitting outcomes for formal cabinet or broader leadership ratification, a process that would have signaled commitment to any tentative convergences reached. Post-summit statements from Arafat endorsed the talks as productive, yet no PA institutional endorsement followed, leaving the discussions non-binding and allowing Arafat to evade accountability for bridging remaining gaps before Israel's February 6, 2001, elections. This pattern aligned with Ross's observation that Palestinian leadership, under Arafat, consistently deferred tough decisions on core issues like refugees and finality, treating talks as tactical maneuvers rather than steps toward resolution. Parallel to the summit, the PA continued policies of financial support for "martyrs" (shahids)—including stipends to families of individuals killed during the ongoing , many classified as suicide bombers or attackers—which totaled millions in annual payments and incentivized violence amid negotiations. and educational materials during this period promoted martyrdom and anti-Israel , with textbooks and broadcasts glorifying armed struggle, eroding trust in Palestinian sincerity despite surface-level diplomatic engagement. Ross and other observers noted this dual track—talks paired with unchecked —as evidence of rejectionism, where Palestinian demands for concessions were not matched by internal reforms to curb terror infrastructure, rendering agreements illusory.

Israeli Security Concerns and Red Lines

Israel's security concerns at the Taba Summit were shaped by the escalating violence of the Second Intifada, which had begun in September 2000 and included multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks against civilians by January 2001. These incidents, such as the October 26, 2000, bombing in that killed two Israeli soldiers and the November 1, 2000, attack in killing two civilians, demonstrated the vulnerability of Israel's narrow pre-1967 borders to infiltration and terror from adjacent territories, necessitating buffer zones and early warning mechanisms to prevent future incursions. A core red line was the demilitarization of any Palestinian state, prohibiting a , heavy weapons, or military alliances that could pose an existential threat, while allowing only akin to police. proposed retaining operational control over the Palestinian , , and external borders—particularly the —for an initial period to monitor arms smuggling and thwart attacks from the east, alongside three early warning stations on Palestinian soil. These demands stemmed from considerations, as 's terrain lacks natural barriers, making defensible borders imperative against non-state actors backed by hostile neighbors. On the refugee issue, Ehud Barak's negotiation team warned that mass returns to proper would not only overwhelm but fundamentally alter the state's Jewish demographic , creating risks through potential and divided loyalties within a binational framework. offered resettlement options in a future Palestinian state or third countries, with a symbolic return of up to 10,000 refugees over time, but rejected the Palestinian demand for unlimited as incompatible with maintaining a secure Jewish- . Ariel Sharon, who assumed office shortly after Taba, later critiqued the negotiations for proceeding amid unchecked Palestinian violence, arguing that such concessions without reciprocal cessation of attacks merely emboldened terrorists by signaling Israeli weakness and rewarding aggression rather than deterring it. This perspective held that absent verifiable security guarantees and an end to , any territorial withdrawals risked repeating the Oslo-era pattern of escalated from ceded areas.

External Factors and Analyst Critiques

The envoy Miguel Moratinos, who observed the Taba talks, documented in his non-paper that while areas of understanding emerged on certain issues, "serious gaps and differences" persisted between the parties, particularly on refugees—where insisted on a broad —and security arrangements, requiring future negotiations to bridge them. These observations underscored the limitations of external mediation, as the EU's informal role could not compel resolution amid entrenched positions, with no binding mechanisms to enforce interim trust-building amid the ongoing violence. Analyst David Makovsky critiqued post-Taba narratives as inflating progress to "mythchief" proportions, arguing that Israeli doves and some media overstated convergences to deflect blame from core impasses and provide political cover for the Barak government's domestic vulnerabilities ahead of elections. Makovsky highlighted how claims of near-agreement ignored unresolved asymmetries, such as Palestinian demands for unrestricted refugee inflows clashing with Israeli demographic red lines, and security protocols incompatible with Israel's defense needs, rendering any "missed opportunity" portrayal misleading given the absence of viable bridging formulas. Third-party assessments emphasized mutual distrust as a causal barrier, amplified by the Intifada's terror campaigns that eroded willingness to concede on without verifiable Palestinian , while Palestinian of commitments stemmed from prior breakdowns like . This dynamic, per analysts, precluded the confidence needed for final-status risks, with external factors like U.S. election transitions offering no counterweight to the talks' inherent fragility. Analyses in the , reviewing Taba in light of persistent stalemates, reaffirm that failure stemmed from unbridgeable core asymmetries—refugee repatriation versus preservation, and full versus defensible borders—rather than transient , as evidenced by subsequent rejections of similar parameters in bilateral and multilateral forums. Such critiques dismiss "missed " myths by noting public repudiation, including Israel's electoral pivot to , signaling broad rejection of the exposed gaps as insufficient for peace.

Aftermath and Legacy

Immediate Israeli Political Repercussions

The Israeli general election on February 6, 2001, resulted in a landslide victory for Ariel Sharon of the Likud party, who secured 62.5% of the vote against incumbent Prime Minister Ehud Barak's 37.5%, marking the largest margin in Israeli electoral history. This outcome, occurring mere weeks after the Taba Summit's inconclusive end on January 27, reflected widespread Israeli public disillusionment with Barak's concession-heavy approach to negotiations amid escalating violence from the Second Intifada, which had claimed over 300 Israeli lives since September 2000. Voter turnout, though low at around 62%, underscored a mandate for prioritizing security over further bilateral talks perceived as yielding insufficient Palestinian reciprocity. Sharon's incoming government, sworn in on March 7, 2001, explicitly rejected any non-binding understandings from Taba, with stating he would be bound solely by formally signed agreements rather than exploratory discussions. This negation aligned with the summit’s lack of finalized outcomes—deliberately avoided by due to the impending —and signaled a pivot away from negotiated concessions toward unilateral Israeli actions to enhance security. Internal critiques framed Taba's parameters, such as proposed territorial swaps and refugee allowances, as having emboldened Palestinian militancy without resolving core security threats like armed incursions and suicide bombings. The election outcome fueled skepticism toward resuming concession-based processes, as evidenced by Sharon's emphasis on immediate counter-terrorism measures, including expanded operations in Palestinian areas and fortified defenses, rather than extending Taba's unresolved gaps on issues like Jerusalem's holy sites and returns. While Barak's Labor allies later invoked Taba to argue for a "generous offer" squandered by Palestinian inflexibility, the right-wing consensus viewed the summit's inconclusiveness—coupled with ongoing attacks—as validation for abandoning reliance on Palestinian commitments, redirecting policy toward self-reliant deterrence. This shift laid groundwork for later unilateral initiatives, though immediate focus remained on stabilizing security amid intensified conflict.

Palestinian Authority Responses

The Palestinian Authority leadership, led by Yasser Arafat, initially responded to the Taba Summit's conclusion with statements emphasizing substantial progress, asserting that the talks had narrowed differences to the point where a framework agreement was feasible, including convergence on Palestinian control over roughly 97% of the West Bank through territorial swaps. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat described the discussions as having achieved "the closest we ever came" to resolution on core issues like borders and Jerusalem, while attributing the absence of a signed deal primarily to the impending Israeli elections rather than persistent gaps in positions on refugees or security arrangements. This portrayal glossed over unresolved Israeli demands for long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley to prevent arms smuggling and for restrictions on Palestinian armament, which the PA resisted as infringements on sovereignty. Following Ariel Sharon's election on February 6, 2001, publicly signaled acceptance of the Taba parameters as a basis for renewed talks, claiming the PA was prepared to implement convergences if reciprocated, yet no unilateral PA actions followed to build trust, such as curbing militant activities amid over 200 Palestinian attacks in the preceding months that had intensified security apprehensions. Instead, the PA leveraged the summit's outcomes in official communications and media to depict as the party thwarting , framing Taba as a "missed opportunity" due to electoral politics and alleged inflexibility on security, which served to legitimize the ongoing Second Intifada's tactics despite the talks' failure to bridge divides on the practical implementation of refugee claims or demilitarized zones. Internal PA dynamics further complicated responses, as assessments within the negotiation team highlighted reservations about the concessions discussed, including land swaps that compromised territorial viability and protocols viewed as perpetuating oversight, contributing to Arafat's ultimate withholding of full endorsement even as public rhetoric amplified claims of near-consensus. These elements underscored a pattern where Taba convergences, such as phased absorption limited to family unification, remained unacted upon by the , prioritizing control over addressing evidentiary deficits like unchecked and operational gaps in cooperation.

Broader Impact on Peace Efforts and Narratives

The failure of the Taba Summit in January 2001, amid escalating violence during the Second Intifada, contributed to Israel's strategic pivot away from bilateral land-for-peace negotiations toward unilateral security measures, as repeated Palestinian rejections of territorial compromises eroded confidence in reciprocal goodwill. This shift was exemplified by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's , implemented between August 15 and 22, 2005, which involved the evacuation of all 21 Jewish settlements and approximately 9,000 settlers from the without any negotiated agreement or security assurances from the Palestinian Authority. The withdrawal, intended to consolidate Israel's demographic majority in the and reduce friction, instead facilitated Hamas's electoral victory in January 2006 and its violent takeover of in June 2007, transforming the territory into a launchpad for rocket barrages that escalated from fewer than 400 projectiles in 2005 to over 4,000 annually by 2007, precipitating wars in 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and beyond. These outcomes empirically discredited the land-for-peace paradigm, demonstrating that unilateral territorial concessions absent robust enforcement mechanisms enable adversarial entrenchment rather than moderation. Persistent Palestinian insistence on a full for over 5 million refugees registered with —demanding resettlement within Israel's pre-1967 borders—remained a core at Taba, rendering claims of near-consensus illusory, as such demands inherently negate Israel's viability as a Jewish-majority state by aiming to reverse the demographic outcomes through mass influx. proposals at Taba, building on prior understandings like the Beilin-Abu Mazen framework, offered symbolic returns and compensation but rejected wholesale implementation, which framed as non-negotiable under UN Resolution 194, despite its non-binding status and historical rejection by Arab states post-. Narratives portraying Taba as a "missed opportunity" for , often advanced by left-leaning analysts and outlets with institutional biases toward Palestinian , overlook this incompatibility; empirical data from subsequent unilateral actions and fortified borders instead affirm that security prioritization—via physical barriers completed in phases from 2002 onward—slashes infiltration risks, with suicide bombings plummeting from 138 in 2002 to 10 in 2005 and near-zero thereafter in fenced areas, saving thousands of lives without relying on negotiated goodwill. The Taba legacy thus reinforces causal realism in efforts: concessions without verifiable Palestinian and recognition of Jewish invite escalation, as evidenced by Gaza's post-2005 , prioritizing defensible borders over optimistic .

References

  1. [1]
    Economic Cooperation Foundation: Taba Summit (2001) - ECF
    A summit held in Taba, Egypt, on 21-27 January 2001, featuring an Israeli delegation led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and a Palestinian delegation headed by ...Missing: key facts outcomes
  2. [2]
    [PDF] The Taba Negotiations (January 2001) - Institute for Palestine Studies |
    The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian per- manent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust ...Missing: key facts participants
  3. [3]
    The Brink of Peace? An Inside Look from Camp David to Taba
    Apr 18, 2001 · Israelis, Palestinians, and the United States all underestimated the impact of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Also underestimated was the ...
  4. [4]
    Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement in Taba (2001) - ECF
    A joint Israeli-Palestinian statement made at the conclusion of the Taba Summit on 27 January 2001. The sides acknowledged the significant progress made on all ...Missing: primary sources documents
  5. [5]
    The “Moratinos Non-Paper” on the Outcome of the Taba Talks (21 ...
    Jan 27, 2001 · The negotiations tackled the various aspects of territory, which could include some of the settlements and how the needs of each party could be ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  6. [6]
    Moratinos' "Non-Paper" on Taba negotiations - Non-UN document
    Mar 12, 2019 · This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  7. [7]
    Taba Mythchief - The National Interest
    Mar 1, 2003 · Palestinian negotiators made only conditional and tactical concessions at Taba, and even these were never agreed to by the Palestinian leader, ...<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    Palestinian Compliance with the Oslo Accords: A Legal Overview
    Aug 6, 2023 · The continued advocating of terror, financing terrorists, and incitement to violence are incompatible with the spirit and words of the Oslo ...
  9. [9]
    Government Press Office list of PLO violations of the Oslo Agreement
    Oct 25, 1996 · The ten items included the rioting after the opening the tunnel in Jerusalem, as well as incitement to violence, failure to amend the PLO ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] The Oslo Process: Failures, Lessons, Alternatives
    Apr 26, 2001 · particularly those regarding Israeli settlement-building and Palestinian incitement, hoarding of arms and failure to ready the public for a ...
  11. [11]
    Israel's Flight from South Lebanon 20 Years On - Middle East Forum
    May 22, 2020 · Israel's rushed May 2000 withdrawal from south Lebanon tarnished the Jewish State's deterrent posture. ... violence far exceeded its potential ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada - INSS
    YORAM SCHWEITZER | THE RISE AND FALL OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS IN THE SECOND INTIFADA. The Attacks of 1993–2000: Background to the Suicide Terrorism of the Second ...
  13. [13]
    Failure of Perception and Self-Deception: Israel's Quest for Peace in ...
    Some are a cause for great concern, such as the size of the police force, smuggling of arms, incitement and propaganda, the systematic policy of breaking ...Missing: reliable | Show results with:reliable
  14. [14]
    Camp David Summit 2000 - ADL
    Jan 9, 2016 · Barak's offer reportedly included: an Israeli redeployment from as much as 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and the ...
  15. [15]
    In Depth: Arafat Rejected Peace in 2000 | HonestReporting
    This article will review the old and new evidence showing the tragedy of Arafat's “no” response to an attractive peace deal.
  16. [16]
    President Clinton Reflects on 2000 Camp David Summit
    Arafat was afraid of being criticized by other Arab leaders; Barak was losing ground to Sharon at home. So I brought the Palestinian and Israeli teams into the ...
  17. [17]
    The Second Intifada 2000 - ADL
    Widespread Palestinian violence erupted on Friday, September 29, 2000 in the Old City of Jerusalem and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.Missing: spike October
  18. [18]
    Remembering the Barbaric Ramallah Lynch | HonestReporting
    Oct 12, 2020 · The vicious lynching showed Israelis that while peace is surely the objective, hatred and violence on the Palestinian side remain massive ...Missing: spike | Show results with:spike
  19. [19]
    Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee - First Statement of the ...
    Dec 28, 2000 · At its most basic, the violence of the past 93 days is the result of the failure, and indeed refusal, of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority ...Missing: spike | Show results with:spike<|control11|><|separator|>
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Clinton Proposal on Israeli-Palestinian Peace
    Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90%'s, between 94-. 96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State. The land ...
  21. [21]
    Economic Cooperation Foundation: Clinton Parameters (2000) - ECF
    Clinton envisioned the establishment of a Palestinian state over 94–96 percent of the West Bank, with territorial exchange giving the Palestinians the ...
  22. [22]
    MIDDLE EAST: Peace Plans Background
    President Bill Clinton called a summit at Camp David in July 2000 to jump-start negotiations between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The ...
  23. [23]
    Israel agreed to give up sovereignty in part of Jerusalem Old City in ...
    Jun 19, 2023 · Newly declassified response to Clinton proposal under PM Ehud Barak shows Jerusalem was willing to accept Palestinian sovereignty in much of ...Missing: Parameters | Show results with:Parameters
  24. [24]
    Time Running Out on Clinton Proposals | The Washington Institute
    Jan 11, 2001 · Israeli Reaction to the Clinton Proposals Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak was even willing to forge ahead despite suffering the defections ...
  25. [25]
    Comprehensive Listing of Terrorism Victims in Israel
    During the Al-Aqsa Intifada (Sept. 2000 - Dec. 2005), another 1,100 Israelis were killed. Since September 2000, Palestinian terrorist attacks have claimed at ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] The Israeli-Palestinian road towards peace: The Camp David-Taba ...
    Jan 22, 2023 · The Israeli representatives were the following: Shlomo (Chief negotiator); Gilead Sher (Chief negotiator and senior adviser to Barak); Shlomo ...
  27. [27]
    Oslo Accords Timeline: 20 Years Of Failed US-Led Peace Talks
    January 2001: Taba Summit​​ Following the failure at Camp David and the outbreak of the Second Intifada, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators meet again in Taba, ...Missing: participants | Show results with:participants
  28. [28]
    Final American and Israel Proposals - December 2000 - MidEastWeb
    Palestinians and Israelis tried to negotiate a permanent peace settlement with active American help, first at Camp David, and in December of 2000 in Washington.
  29. [29]
    Israelis and Palestinians to Begin High-Level Talks in Egypt Today
    Jan 21, 2001 · The Palestinians will be represented by a similarly high-level team of senior negotiators: Ahmed Qurei, who is known as Abu Ala; Saeb Erekat, ...Missing: Yasser | Show results with:Yasser
  30. [30]
    Chronological Review of Events/January 2001 - DPR review - UN.org.
    Mar 12, 2019 · "The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in ...Missing: participants outcomes
  31. [31]
    Encountering Peace: The missed opportunities | The Jerusalem Post
    Dec 17, 2014 · Indeed, at the January 2001 Taba summit, which was held without the Americans, and without Barak and Arafat, the Israeli offer at Taba got ...Missing: absence heads
  32. [32]
    Taba Talks End Without Deal; No More Contacts Before Vote
    Jan 29, 2001 · Israel and the Palestinian Authority on Saturday ended a week of negotiations at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Taba, with officials from the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  33. [33]
    Taba Peace Talks - Jewish Virtual Library
    A European Union document detailing the alleged progress made toward a comprhensive Israeli-Palestinian peace pact in the Egptian resort town of Taba in ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  34. [34]
    The Peace That Nearly Was at Taba - Haaretz Com
    Feb 14, 2002 · It is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago.<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Moratinos "Non-Paper" on the Taba Talks (2001) - ECF
    A non-paper, or unofficial report, prepared by Spanish diplomat Miguel Angel Moratinos, EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process.
  36. [36]
    Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord - The New York Times
    Jan 28, 2001 · Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials conclude nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, by saying jointly that they ...Missing: facts participants<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    How the peace process killed the two-state solution | Brookings
    Clinton broke with several taboos, hosting Yasir Arafat at the White House a dozen times and using his soft power to bolster Arafat while subtly bearing down on ...
  38. [38]
    Interviews - Ehud Barak | Shattered Dreams Of Peace | FRONTLINE
    But his governing coalition collapsed with the Al Aqsa uprising of September 2000 and he announced his resignation in December 2000, just a year and a half ...
  39. [39]
    Barak halts talks until election | World news - The Guardian
    Jan 28, 2001 · Opinion polls show Mr Barak losing to Mr Sharon by 16 to 18 percentage points. Mr Sharon, who opposes the territorial concessions offered by Mr ...Missing: pressures coalition
  40. [40]
    [PDF] The Middle East Crisis: Camp David, the 'Al - UK Parliament
    Jan 24, 2001 · ... polls suggest Mr Barak is trailing Mr Sharon by around 20 points ... Barak's participation in the talks, given the forthcoming elections and his ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    Barak Felled by Country's Psychology of Insecurity | Brookings
    Opinion polls in Israel continued to show that, had Shimon Peres replaced Barak as the Labor candidate, he would have had an even shot at defeating Sharon.
  42. [42]
    Facing Defeat: The Intifada Two Years On
    The bulk of fighters in these militias were from the tanzim, including officers in the PA's intelligence and police forces. They immediately seized on Arafat's ...
  43. [43]
    View of The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli ...
    Israeli leaders decried the militant opposition to the Oslo process ... Arafat and top Palestinian leaders failed to rein in the militants. But ...
  44. [44]
    VII. The Role of the Palestinian Authority - Human Rights Watch
    However, they also made clear that they had no plans to arrest any of the large number of militants "wanted" by Israel, some of whom were allegedly responsible ...
  45. [45]
    Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba? - jstor
    May 20, 2001 · Gilead Sher, "An Israeli View: Comments on the Negotiating ... Yossi Beilin, "An Israeli View: Solving the Refugee Problem," December ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] MIDDLE EAST ENDGAME I: - International Crisis Group
    International Affairs conference in London on 8 July 2002 that ... Coordinated and constructive pressure from the EU and from moderate Arab countries can help ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  47. [47]
    Developments/Peace process review: January 2000 - December 2001
    Israel also wanted to annex 10.5 percent of the West Bank to absorb the settlements. But all West Bank settlements do not sit on more than 1.8 percent.
  48. [48]
    The Taba Negotiations (January 2001) - Taylor & Francis Online
    The negotia——following tens of meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, mostly in Jerusalem, almost from the collapse of the Camp David summit in ...
  49. [49]
    Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Gov.il
    Jan 27, 2001 · "The Taba talks were unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression of mutual willingness to meet the national, security and ...Missing: 21 | Show results with:21<|separator|>
  50. [50]
    Negotiators Scorn EU Non-paper - Haaretz Com
    Feb 14, 2002 · The Taba talks were broken off because of a series of lethal terror attacks carried out by Palestinians while negotiators sat at the discussion ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  51. [51]
    Negotiating the Palestinian Refugees - Middle East Forum
    They showed no intention of discarding the “right of return.” Even though the leadership played down this demand for tactical reasons during the negotiations ...
  52. [52]
    Bomb blast as Mideast talks resume - January 22, 2001 - CNN
    Jan 22, 2001 · Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have begun a second round of peace talks in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Taba, soon after a bomb blast ...Missing: Tel impact
  53. [53]
    Bomb blast wounds Israeli soldier as peace talks restart - CNN
    Jan 22, 2001 · Bomb blast wounds Israeli soldier as peace talks restart. arafat barak. January 22, 2001 ... Israeli and Palestinian negotiators began talks in ...Missing: Tel impact
  54. [54]
    Clinton Parameters - - Foundation for Middle East Peace
    Dec 23, 2000 · Based on what I heard, I believe that the solution should be in the mid-90%'s, between 94-96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian ...
  55. [55]
    Taba Summit - Israeli Proposals (2001) - ECF
    Two Israeli proposals for a permanent territorial settlement put forth in 2001 during the Taba Summit, including territorial exchange involving 6–8 percent ...Missing: borders | Show results with:borders
  56. [56]
    Pre-State Israel: Jewish Claim To The Land Of Israel
    In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. ... No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed ...
  57. [57]
    5 Facts About the Jewish People's Ancestral Connection to the Land ...
    Feb 26, 2024 · Jews have had a continuous presence in the land of Israel. · Israel was under Jewish leadership for hundreds of years in antiquity. · Jerusalem is ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] EU description of the outcome of permanent status talks at Taba
    This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the Middle East. Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations with ...
  59. [59]
    Resolution 194 | UNRWA
    The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their ...
  60. [60]
    Palestine refugees - UNRWA
    Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home ...
  61. [61]
    1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight - Wikipedia
    About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the termination of the British Mandate on ...Causes of the 1948... · Hebraization of Palestinian... · Nakba denial · Aref al-Aref
  62. [62]
    [PDF] UNRWA AND THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEES: A HISTORY WITHIN ...
    In terms of current figures (and according to the UNRWA definition), registered refugees total nearly 4,700,000 people from three generations. As for their ...
  63. [63]
    The Middle East: how the peace was lost
    However, everyone taking part in the Taba talks knew that nothing could protect Ehud Barak from defeat in the elections of 6 February 2001: he was trailing ...Missing: key facts
  64. [64]
    The Moratinos Document: The peace that nearly was at Taba
    The Palestinians rejected the Israeli proposal regarding the ... The Israeli side requested to have 3 early warning stations on Palestinian territory.Missing: Summit army
  65. [65]
    U.S. to Arafat: Comply with Oslo Agreements or Lose Aid
    ... Oslo agreement. The PA neglected its commitment to confiscate all illegal arms and refused repeated Israeli requests to extradite known Palestinian terrorists.Missing: smuggling | Show results with:smuggling
  66. [66]
    [PDF] KEY PRINCIPLES OF A DEMILITARIZED PALESTINIAN STATE
    the Oslo Accords, terrorist organizations and PLO security forces have smuggled arms and military manufacturing expertise from Iran through Egypt into. Gaza ...Missing: breaches | Show results with:breaches<|control11|><|separator|>
  67. [67]
    Exploring Palestinian Weapon Proliferation during the Oslo Peace ...
    The Oslo peace process created a Palestinian police force for the purposes of law enforcement and preventing terrorism. However, Israel soon accused the.
  68. [68]
    Why the Oslo Accords Failed | My Jewish Learning
    ... agreement for an anti-terrorism alliance ... support for terrorist infrastructures; and Palestinian policemen took up arms against Israeli soldiers.Missing: smuggling | Show results with:smuggling
  69. [69]
    Gaza's Subterranean Warfare: Palestinian Resistance Tunnels vs ...
    May 5, 2024 · ... Oslo Accords (1993). Up until the early 2000s, tunnels ... 71 “Hamas Terror Tunnel Uncovered and Neutralized in Southern Israel ...
  70. [70]
    Israeli Operations in Area A: The State Department vs. the Oslo ...
    Israel's Legal Right to Combat Terrorism in Area A. The Palestinian Authority is in wholesale violation of its commitments to combat terror, confiscate illegal ...Missing: arms | Show results with:arms
  71. [71]
    Joint statement at the end of Taba negotiations - Non-UN document
    Jan 27, 2001 · The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust ...Missing: January framework
  72. [72]
    How Dennis Ross Proved the Palestinians Aborted the Peace Process
    [23] In his epilogue, Ross seems to sanction Israel's annexation of a much higher percentage of the West Bank in the event of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal.
  73. [73]
    From Oslo to Camp David to Taba: Setting the Record Straight
    Aug 14, 2001 · I think Taba was much more, from the Palestinian side, about trying to hook the new administration and create a sense of continuity with the ...
  74. [74]
    Incentivizing Terrorism: Palestinian Authority Allocations to Terrorists ...
    ... funding prisoners, released prisoners, and families of “martyrs. ... of 2015 that conditioned the ongoing support for the Palestinians on ending incitement.
  75. [75]
    Palestinian Education and the Debate Over Textbooks
    not incite Palestinians toward anti-Jewish violence or constitute a “war curriculum.” The sweeping victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliament in January ...
  76. [76]
    Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of ...
    Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles. Apr 6, 1994 - Eight people were killed in a car-bomb attack on a bus in the ...
  77. [77]
    Key Principles of a Demilitarized Palestinian State
    Throughout the years since the signing of the Oslo Accords, terrorist ... A unified airspace, controlled by Israel, to prevent aerial terrorism and aerial ...Missing: breaches | Show results with:breaches
  78. [78]
    The Needless Intifada - Hoover Institution
    The Israelis maintain that readmitting more than a token number of refugees would threaten the demographic fabric of the Jewish state, a view endorsed by some ...
  79. [79]
    Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak)
    Jun 13, 2002 · It is true that there are demographic threats to its existence. That is why a separation from the Palestinians is a compelling imperative ...
  80. [80]
    Crushing Palestine is no answer - The Economist
    Sep 12, 2002 · A lull in the violence, encouraging talk of some kind of interim agreement, is smashed, either by a terrorist bomb or by Israel ...
  81. [81]
    Text of Speech by Sharon to Israeli Parliament - The New York Times
    Apr 8, 2002 · Peace is important to all the peoples of the Middle East, because the continuation of terror and violence encourages fundamentalist elements and ...
  82. [82]
    Banging Square Pegs Into Round Holes
    This fact emerged from the official notes of the Taba talks prepared by Miguel Moratinos, the European Union's special representative to the Middle East ...
  83. [83]
    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/taba-mythchief
  84. [84]
    Taba Mythchief | The Washington Institute
    Mar 1, 2003 · David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute and director of the Koret Project on Arab-Israel Relations.Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  85. [85]
    Was There a Missed Opportunity for Resolving the Israeli ...
    Following Taba, the Israeli people elected Ariel Sharon as prime minister by an unprecedented majority, in an implicit referendum rejecting the Taba proposals.
  86. [86]
    Visions in Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba?
    PDF | International Security 28.2 (2003) 5-43 Many officials and analysts have inaccurately portrayed the Israeli-Palestinian-U.S. summit at Camp David.<|control11|><|separator|>
  87. [87]
    The international community's role and impact on the Middle East ...
    Jan 11, 2021 · This article posits that the MEPP's failure may be tied to structural-cognitive weaknesses in the international community's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian ...
  88. [88]
    Sharon's Victory: Implications for the Peace Process and U.S. Policy
    Feb 7, 2001 · Ariel Sharon won a larger share of the vote 62.5 percent than any presidential candidate in history. Essentially, Israel voted to express one word: "enough!"Missing: immediate repercussions
  89. [89]
    SHARON EASILY OUSTS BARAK TO BECOME ISRAEL'S ...
    Feb 7, 2001 · Concluding a campaign held against a backdrop of the worst Israeli-Palestinian violence in years, Mr. Sharon defeated Prime Minister Ehud Barak ...
  90. [90]
    Sharon Routs Barak in Israel - The Washington Post
    Feb 6, 2001 · ... victory over incumbent Ehud Barak today in Israel's election for prime minister. With virtually all of the ballots counted, Sharon had won ...
  91. [91]
    Sharon claims victory in Israeli election - February 6, 2001 - CNN
    Israeli Arabs appear to boycott polls. Exit polls have a checkered history U.S. reaction. Winner must balance Knesset factions. RELATED STORIES, SITES icon ...
  92. [92]
    Taba Summit Concludes | CIE - Center for Israel Education
    Sep 14, 2025 · January 27, 2001. Weeklong discussions between Israeli and Palestinian leaders conclude in the Egyptian resort town of Taba.Missing: observers EU<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    Sharon's Disengagement Plan: A Likud Perspective
    Jun 14, 2004 · Although these suspicions are partly rooted in the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit, the subsequent peace talks at Taba, and the Oslo ...
  94. [94]
    [PDF] Moratinos Document (Taba Talks) - Nederlands Palestina-Komitee
    The daily chronicle of exchanges of fire between IDF soldiers and Palestinian fighters, F-. 16 bombing raids and missile firings, terror attacks and ...Missing: Summit | Show results with:Summit
  95. [95]
    Arafat approves Taba plan too late | Palestine - The Guardian
    Jun 21, 2002 · The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, yesterday belatedly accepted a Middle East peace plan put forward 18 months ago by the then US president, Bill Clinton.
  96. [96]
    [PDF] A Palestinian Perspective on the Failure of the Permanent Status ...
    In the absence of progress in the talks leading to agreement and closure, such deadlines were seen artificial by Palestinian leaders who came to believe that it ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  97. [97]
    Israeli Unilateralism and Israeli–Palestinian Relations, 2001–2006
    By reassessing the Gaza disengagement, this article suggests that the withdrawal better advanced Israel's national interests than prolonging an ineffective ...
  98. [98]
    Israel's 2005 Disengagement from Gaza: a multilateral move under ...
    Mar 11, 2025 · This event, known as the Gaza Disengagement, involved evacuating 21 settlements and displacing 8000 settlers from their homes.
  99. [99]
    The lasting impact of Israel's 2005 Gaza Disengagement
    Aug 9, 2025 · Ariel Sharon's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza created an opportunity for Hamas to rise, leading to devastating consequences for both Israelis and ...
  100. [100]
    Remembering Gaza Disengagement 13 Years Later
    Oct 1, 2018 · In contrast, Hamas presented the disengagement as a victory that proved the effectiveness of its armed resistance in the fight to “liberate” ...
  101. [101]
    Why Land for Peace Is Dead | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
    The current fighting between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip proves one thing is certain: the era of land-for-peace is over.
  102. [102]
    [PDF] the controversy of a palestinian “right of return” to israel
    The birth of modern day Israel was a result of the yearning and commitment of the Jewish people to return to the land that is sacred to their.
  103. [103]
    Effective in Reducing Suicide Attacks from the Northern West Bank
    Jul 7, 2004 · Another factor that helps minimize the scope of terrorism is the ongoing activity against terrorist groups' leaders and bomb engineers. A Source ...
  104. [104]
    Setting the Facts Straight on the Security Fence | IDF
    ... terrorists from carrying out deadly attacks on Israeli civilians. ... The security fence proved to be a highly effective measure for reducing terror attacks.