[weatherlite]

"Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]"

"Israel would retain around 9% in the West Bank in exchange for 1% of land within the Green Line."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

The issue for the Palestinians is way way deeper than 9% of the 67 lines. Hammas doesn't hide its will to turn Israel proper into an Islamic state. PLO never actually forfeited the right of return which is considered a "sacred" right. If only the issue was as simple as offering 9% more percent.

[impossiblefork]

If you're representing people whose property rights have been infringed you can't agree that some of those people are to have to give up their property rights-- then you aren't representing them any more, so you are no longer their legitimate representative. Framing in terms of a sacred right is strange, and it's possible that the project will fail, but the PLOs legitimacy for those it represents must obviously hinge on actually representing them.

I very strongly dislike Islam, but to say that Israel has done as it has due to the Muslims seems difficult to support, since Christian Palestinians do exist, even if they're few and have been treated in the precise same way as the Muslims despite their lack of association with terrorism etcetera.