Editing Second Intifada (section)

===The Mitchell Report===
The Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (an investigatory committee set up to look into the causes behind the breakdown in the peace process, chaired by [[George J. Mitchell]]) published its report in May 2001.<ref name=mitchell>{{cite web |author=George J. Mitchell |url=https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6E61D52EAACB860285256D2800734E9A |title=Report of The Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee |date=30 April 2001 |publisher=[[United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine|UNISPAL]] |access-date=28 September 2014 |display-authors=etal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823071635/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6E61D52EAACB860285256D2800734E9A |archive-date=23 August 2014 |author-link=George J. Mitchell }} [http://eeas.europa.eu/mepp/docs/mitchell_report_2001_en.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201163408/https://eeas.europa.eu/mepp/docs/mitchell_report_2001_en.pdf |date=1 February 2017 }}</ref> In the [[Mitchell Report (Arab–Israeli conflict)|Mitchell Report]], the government of Israel asserted that:

<blockquote>The immediate catalyst for the violence was the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000, and the "widespread appreciation in the international community of Palestinian responsibility for the impasse". In this view, Palestinian violence was planned by the PA leadership, and was aimed at "provoking and incurring Palestinian casualties as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative".</blockquote>

The Palestine Liberation Organization, according to the same report, denied that the Intifada was planned, and asserted that "Camp David represented nothing less than an attempt by Israel to extend the force it exercises on the ground to negotiations." The report also stated:

<blockquote>From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behavior which, in the PLO's view, reflected Israel's contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of Muhammad al-Durrah in Gaza on September 30, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception.</blockquote>

The Mitchell report concluded:

<blockquote>The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada". But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited.</blockquote>

and also:

<blockquote>We have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the [Government of Israel] to respond with lethal force.</blockquote>