I keep hearing Arafat rejected it when Barak offered “90% of palestinian demands”. What were these 90%? Was it 90% of the west bank and gaza? Why would Israel want any presence in the west bank or Gaza anyway?
What else was covered in that 90%? Was it just control over the west bank or were there other concessions?
Arafat would settle for nothing less that 100%
His successor will also settle for nothing less that 100%
We will just have to wait and see.
The ‘90%’ idea isn’t really accurate. It’d be hard to know exactly what percentage of the total number of points in Arafat’s list of desired gains were actually offered at Camp David in 2000, but it’s clear where the 90% comes from. Israeli Prime Minister Barak’s final offer to Arafat involved 10% of the West Bank being annexed by Israel in exchange for a smaller piece of land to be annexed by the future Palestinian state. Additionally, a further 10% of the West Bank would become nominally under Palestinian control with considerable Israeli influence, and some resources in the future state would remain under Israeli control. The Palestinians argued that this would result in a state of scattered, isolated territory; the Israelis argued that this was necessary for their security and the security of Israelis living in the West Bank.
The offer included Palestinian sovereignty over much of East Jerusalem, but offered ‘custodianship’ but not sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which is the location of the Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall), one of the holiest sites in Judaism. This was unacceptable to Arafat.
Finally, Arafat felt that the offer did not sufficiently address the ‘right of return’ of Palestinian ‘refugees’ to Israel. Many Israelis feel that the ‘right of return’ is an attempt to demographically seize Israel from Jewish control.
So, it’s clear that Arafat rejected something other than a neat 90% of his full demand. He was offered roughly 90% of his territorial demands and many of his other demands, and refused what many others saw as an unprecedently generous offer.
I would point out that the “East Jerusalem” the Israelis refered to was an enlarged version of Jerusalem (a large area around the city having been annexed to Jerusalem), and what was offered was mostly this suburban area, while the Palestinians were interested only in Jerusalem proper.
The 90%, sometimes quoted as 93% refers to geographical area.
The claim misleads by omission. The retained 10%, or 7% was the arable and necessary land for a viable Palestinian State.
So, had Barak offerred only that particular land he could have boldly claimed such a victory that he gave the Palestinians only 20% or 10% or less of their claim. Such a claim would have been no less misleading than the claim you now hear and the Israelis would have scorned it.
Summary: The 90% figure is not a meaningful measure of the claim nor of Barak/Arafat’s compromise.
Cite please? Especially since much of current Israeli farmland is arable only because Israel irrigated it?
The CIA World Factbook states that 16.9% of the land area of the West Bank is arable (cultivated with crops that are replanted each year) and a further 18.97% is used for permanent crops that do not need to be replanted each year. 64.13% of the West Bank is not used for agriculture. If 35.87% of the West Bank is used for agriculture, it’s not possible that all the arable land required for an independent Palestinian state was to be annexed by Israel. Since the part of the West Bank to be retained by Israel was centered mostly around Jewish settlements, it’s possible that this section contained a disproportionate amount of good agricultural land. This would not be intended directly to starve or undermine the Palestinian state, but to protect existing settlements which had either been situated in good agricultural land or in areas which had been improved by irrigation and other techniques.
There is a map of the proposed division of land, not including concessions made at the Camp David summit in 2000, here. The ‘current division of land’ map shows the location of Israeli settlements and areas of Palestinian control circa 1998; it’s clear that the 2000 offer was primarily meant to keep these settlements under Israeli control at least temporarily. Also, some of the land to be kept under Israeli control probably include the West Bank’s water resources, which are (according to the CIA World Factbook) the main recharge source for Israel’s coastal aquifers.
It is true, as can be seen from this map, that the proposed land was fragmented into several areas; this is also true of the areas under current Palestinian control. It is not clear whether Arafat would also have rejected a proposal that gave him a contiguous block of land equivalent to 90% or 95% of the West Bank’s total area.
Without stating too much opinion, I’d like to encourage critical consideration of any explanation offered for why Arafat rejected the Camp David proposal. Such explanations may seem rational, but they neglect deeper religious, emotional and symbolic issues.
Have a look on the recent GD thread discussing Arafat’s legacy. I’m pretty sure I linked to at least one good article explaining why the 90% claim is misleading.
In brief my sources were: Juan Cole; LA Times opinion piece; and others I don’t now clearly recall, probably including a NYTimes opinion piece.
In summary the consensus of these is that the nominal 90% was less than the minimum any Palestinian leader could accept.
So if Roach’s map is similar to the camp David offer, did Israel still insist on controling all boarders with Jordan? And into how many parts was the Palestinian land to be split?
Certainly the pre-Camp David map is rediculous, like some foreign power taking over France and then offering it back indipendance except for a mile each side of every major road, and all borders with Germany, Austria, and Spain.
