Ultimately, this “generous offer” amounted to turning the West Bank into non-contiguous cantons, crisscrossed by a network of settlements, roads and Israeli areas. Even the supposed “capital” of the Palestinian state would mostly be under Israeli control, with stipulations and conditions that stripped any real sovereignty from any area of the supposed Palestinian “state”. Not even the sky above Palestinian heads would be under their control, nor the water under their feet, as Israel still demanded access to water resources under the West Bank.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    TL;DR Israel’s peace offers are not “generous” as often described, and they involve significant concessions that undermine the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state. The article reviews the Camp David negotiations from 2000:

    • The offer effectively annexed 10% of the West Bank to Israel, with an additional 8-12% remaining under “temporary” Israeli control.
    • In return Palestine gets 1% of desert near the Gaza strip.
    • Israel demanded control over Palestinian airspace, 3 permanent bases in the West Bank, presence at Palestinian border crossings (presumably this references border crossings to other countries) and “security arrangements” at the Jordan border which required more territory.
    • Israel was also allowed to invade at any point in case of “emergency”, with no definition of what an emergency is.
    • In East Jerusalem, Palestine’s proposed capital city, Israel refused sovereignty over Palestinian neighbourhoods.
    • Israel would only allow a very limited return of a very limited number of refugees over a very long period of time.

    In general, the article claims that Israel’s peace offer with the establishment of a Palestinian state was not actually granting sovereignty to that state, and instead sought to legitimise the Israeli occupation.