Israel-Palestine Mega Fact Check!

The truth about Israel’s offer at Camp David, according to multiple sources, is as follows:

• It would indeed offer about 91% of the West Bank land to Palestine.
• But it denied the new Palestinian state an independent foreign and economic policy (i.e. it would not be a true, independent state).
• Palestine's capital would not actually be in East Jerusalem, but instead in the small village of Abu Dis, just outside of East Jerusalem.
• The deal would include most of East Jerusalem being annexed by Israel, with only "pockets" given to Palestine.
• It categorically denied the refugees' right of return to their stolen properties in Israel (though it left open the possibility of them returning to Palestinian land, which was already crowded).
• It did not include any significant removal of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank-settlements which had greatly expanded during the Oslo years.

As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe wrote: "We have an authentic and reliable report of what happened at Camp David from the State Department's Hussein Agha and Robert Malley.[8. 10] Their detailed account appeared in the New York Review of Books and begins by dismissing the Israeli claim that Arafat ruined the summit. The article makes the point that Arafat's main problem was that, in the years since Oslo, life for the Palestinians in the occupied territories had only got worse. Quite reasonably, according to these two American officials, he suggested that instead of rushing within two weeks "to end the conflict for once and for all," Israel should agree to certain measures that might restore the Palestinians' faith in the usefulness and benefits of the peace process. […]

There were two major proposals that Arafat signaled as potential areas of discussion, which, if accepted, might improve the reality on the ground. The first was to de-escalate the intensive colonization of the West Bank that had increased after Oslo. The second was to put an end to the daily brutalization of normal Palestinian life, manifested in severe restrictions of movement, frequent collective punishments, arrests without trial, and constant humiliations at the checkpoints. […]

According to the testimony of the American officials, Barak refused to change Israel's policy towards the Jewish colonies or the daily abuse of the Palestinians. He took a tough position that left Arafat with no choice. Whatever Barak proposed as a final settlement did not mean much if he could not promise immediate changes in the reality on the ground. Predictably, Arafat was blamed by Israel and its allies for being a warmonger who, immediately after returning from Camp David, encouraged the Second Intifada.”

Source: Ten Myths about Israel (2017) by Ilan Pappe, pp.107-110.

Source: Cursed Victory: A History of Israel and the Occupied Territories (2014) by Ahron Bregman, pp. 236-242.