And I've heard it was ~90% of whatever parts of the West Bank that had not been claimed by Israel, occupied by settlers (both legal and illegal), or set aside for the IDF at the time of the implementation of the plan.
There were far fewer settlers back in 2000. And many settlements would have been abandoned under the deal offered the Palestinians.
Where is the evidence that supports this claim?
Arafat wanted no less than 100% and also wanted millions of descendens of 1948 to move into Israel. Which is a total non-starter and as long as Palestinians insist on the so-called "right of return" the peace process will not go anywhere.
And where is the evidence that supports this one?
Also, Arafat may have wanted 100% of Palestine under Palestinian control and a return of all Palestinian refugees it but it is clear he was willing to accept much less. The evidence that supports my claim can be found
here.
What I have not heard is the proposed borders, when and how the land would be formally recognized as not a part of Israel, the method of transfer of control (the one used in the Oslo Accords failed), or anything other than rumors, and neither have you.
Because the arch-terrorist Arafat broke off negotiations before details could be hashed out.
The reason is because none of the alleged offers were written down.
For some reason you have faith Barak's offer was as good as what was offered in the Oslo Accords, or very nearly as good, with none of the flaws that caused the Oslo Accords to fail. I don't share your faith, therefore I don't see how that's possible.
Rabin was assassinated for offering ~20% of Palestine to the Palestinians so they could form their own State. You seem to think Barak was offering more.
Under the Oslo Accords the transfer of control of land took place in stages with final borders to be determined at the end of the transfer process, in about 20 years or so. And during that time, settlements could still be built, leading to a land grab by Zionists as the Accords were being implemented. You seem to think settlement building was going to stop and the borders would be decided right then and there at Camp David. Not only is that not likely, it's contrary to Israeli policy all the way back to the founding of the State of Israel.
I don't believe Barak was that brave, that generous, that much of an innovator, or even that much of a leader.
IMO your faith in Ehud Barak is misplaced.
, I was asking for the list of concessions you keep talking about, not some alleged offer one guy may have made behind closed doors.
There were others. Disengagement from Gaza was a concession.
Israel did not disengage. It built a wall around the concentration camp and stationed its soldiers there. That's repositioning the troops so provide greater advantage and clear lines of fire, not a disengagement.
Giving Gazans work permits inside Israel is a concession.
Okay, I'll accept that as a concession.
It's not much of a concession, but it's a start.
And Israel has shown willingness to negotiate for peace with other entities. There was a peace treaty with Egypt for example. There was rapprochement with Saudi Arabia that was going well until the Hamas terrorist attack on 10/7.
That's not a concession, and even if it was, it's not a concession made to the Palestinians.
Basically all you have is: Israel lets Palestinians pick crops on the farms they used to own, and do other low paying jobs, sometimes.
It is the Palestinians who are preventing the peace process, not Israel.
Also, you really should look into the origin and growth of the Second Intifada. You are utterly wrong in thinking Arafat "proclaimed" it.
Then who did? Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in any case was an excuse, not a reason, for the terrorist violence of the so-called "Second Intifada".
You really should look into the origin and growth of the Second Intifada.
You can start
here if you'd like.
