> It's based on my reading from various people who were there and who have commented on the process afterwards. There is a massive gap between how this is discussed in the American popular media and how it's discussed among experts.

Ok. Can you tell me who some of these experts are? I'd genuinely like to read more about this, having recently read quite a bit about the negotiations.

> Camp David was utterly unacceptable for the same reasons I've discussed earlier.

You keep talking about Israel "offering" something unacceptable. We're talking about a negotiation, both sides having something they want and trying to achieve it, and having to compromise on things they disagree with. Yet you keep saying "this is unacceptable to the Palestinians, that is unacceptable to the Palestinians". You frame this as "they conceded to only asking for 22% of the land", meaning their original position of getting rid of Israel entirely made sense and was a hard concession for them to make, a concession they should be praised for making?

And as far as I know, there was no counter-offer made to these deals. It wasn't "well this isn't ok, here's what would work for us", because by the same token as you saying that Israel didn't want a full Palestinian state then, Arafat didn't want to agree to giving up anything from his side either. It was just "this is unacceptable" and back to terrorism to get better terms.

Again, this isn't my view, what do I know? This is a view of people taking part in the negotiations, e.g. talked about by Aaron David Miller on the Ezra Klein podcast [1]. It's pretty clear that he lays the blame on both sides and that the Israeli side isn't as rosy as Americans/Israelis sometimes think, but it's also pretty clear that at the end of the day, there were real, good legit offers on the table that Arafat walked away from without offering an alternative to.

> The Palestinians have very little agency. They have no army and no money. They live under military occupation. They have no significant international backers, and their opponent, Israel, is backed by the world superpower.

Clearly this isn't true of Gaza. They didn't live under Israeli occupation, though they did live under a blockade. And they have an army, which carried out a successful invasion of Israel. It's much smaller and weaker than Israel's army, of course, but saying they have no arms is patently false.

As is saying they have no and no backers. Iran is a huge international backer, as is Qatar, providing both money and arms. Palestinian refugees also receive a lot of international aid. Money that, in the case of Gaza, could've been put to good use in building up Gaza into some place amazing, and was instead put into fighting with Israel non-stop for the last 20 years.

Even setting aside who is "more right" or "more wrong", do you really think Hamas had little agency for the last 20 years? That there was no way to work on improving the lives of Gazan's and turning Gaza into a great place? And that they instead went the other way, spending most of their effort into war? I totally get criticizing Israel, you raise valid points, but is it really a stretch to also criticize Hamas and realize that they do have agency and could have made far better choices?

[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-best-primer-ive-he...