Blaming the failure of the 2000 Camp David talks solely on the PLO is a convenient lie that seems to only serve to justify the increasingly harsh treatment of Palestinians by Israel. The historical record shows that both parties were not willing enough to compromise in order to create the two state solution [1].
The convenient lie is papering over the blame where it squarely belonged.
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.”
The citation [100] here is Jimmy Carter's book, which not only does not support the wiki summary (Camp David was based on a proposal from Clinton--not Barak, and Barak had "twenty pages of reservations" about the proposal himself), Carter also concludes:
[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)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit