You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and “custodianship,” though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no “right of return” to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees’ rehabilitation.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
It’s better than today’s situation, but the thing is that nobody could’ve predicted the situation would get this bad. Also, the thing about accepting a two-state solution is that it’s a one-time thing. All proposals so far included considering the conflict ended, so when you accept a Palestinian state with no East Jerusalem, no territorial contiguity (the offer would have it divided into four parts connected by Israeli territory that could be closed off in cases of emergency) and no control over its own airspace or water sources, you’re stuck with these things forever.
the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”
I have to question the accuracy of this, given that the Israeli PM stated that he wasn’t willing to grant Palestinians anything more than symbolic sovereignty over East Jerusalem at the start of the negotiations, and in fact that was one of the main contention points.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
It’s better than today’s situation, but the thing is that nobody could’ve predicted the situation would get this bad. Also, the thing about accepting a two-state solution is that it’s a one-time thing. All proposals so far included considering the conflict ended, so when you accept a Palestinian state with no East Jerusalem, no territorial contiguity (the offer would have it divided into four parts connected by Israeli territory that could be closed off in cases of emergency) and no control over its own airspace or water sources, you’re stuck with these things forever.
I have to question the accuracy of this, given that the Israeli PM stated that he wasn’t willing to grant Palestinians anything more than symbolic sovereignty over East Jerusalem at the start of the negotiations, and in fact that was one of the main contention points.