For a Map of the Camp David Proposal: http://www.orienthouse.org/dept/images/Maps/ecartediplo.eng.pdf
- Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?
For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel’s Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel’s Camp David proposal presented a ‘re-packaging’ of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.
- Didn’t Israel’s proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?
No. Israel sought to annex almost 9% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1% of Israel’s own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a “long-term lease”. However, the issue is not one of percentages – the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95% of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners – cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities – but the remaining 5% is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.
- Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?
The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel’s Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel’s favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel’s commitment to a fair territorial compromise.
- How did Israel’s proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?
Israel’s proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.
- How did Israel’s proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?
The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.
- Why didn’t the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?
The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David – especially at the Taba talks – the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it wants to annex Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees’ their right of return. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them.
- Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?
Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration – i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler “by-pass” roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any “progress” in terms of their daily lives.
However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his “offer” would be Israel’s best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider “unilateral separation” (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338.
- Doesn’t the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?
Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine’s right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel’s incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory – not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace – not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.
- Doesn’t the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?
The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine (23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22%. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to “compromise the compromise” and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.
- Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?
The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution however is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement – already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens.
- Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?
The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel’s demographic concerns.
Factsheet - Fair Tax Monitor 2019-2024
Date posted: February 20, 2025
By MIFTAH
Introduction
The tax system is a financial and economic policy tool through which society's goals and objectives are realized based on its intellectual philosophy and ideology. Thus, the tax system is based on certain economic, social, and political pillars and foundations that differ from one society to another, from one country to another, and in the same country from one stage to another. Taxation has become not only a source of revenue for the state, but also a social and economic function, in addition to its traditional financial function, by becoming one of the economic tools through which economic development can be achieved, addressing inflation and stagnation, redistributing incomes, and raising the standard of living of citizens to advance the national economy in general .
The analytical review of the philosophy of tax systems shows that it is based on social, financial, and economic foundations. Its social function is to redistribute wealth to ensure social justice in the state, and to use tax revenues to achieve social stability and provide social services, and social protection for marginalized, vulnerable, and poor groups. Its financial function is to secure revenues for the state treasury to cover public expenditures, while its economic function is represented by the fact that it is a major tool of the state's fiscal policy, which it uses in order to stimulate economic growth, reduce inflation levels, protect the national economy, or stimulate some economic sectors, by imposing certain taxes, tax cuts, and others.
Based on these foundations and principles, the Palestinian tax system must achieve the philosophy of taxation by maximizing revenues, protecting the national economy, and, most importantly, achieving and enforcing social justice for all social groups . And responding to gender issues.
In 2024, the FairTax Monitor-FTM in the Palestinian Territories was updated, complementing the previous monitor’s data, which was published in 2018. The current update focuses on the years 2019-2024 and presents a set of conclusions and facts, the most important of which are:
To view the Full Factsheet as PDF
Factsheet on the status of Palestinian digital rights for CSOs and consequences of the genocide
Date posted: January 15, 2025
By MIFTAH
As part of its work in the field of public and digital diplomacy to expand global communication outreach in support of the Palestinian cause, MIFTAH conducted an assessment survey on the cognitive capabilities of civil society organizations (CSO) in the West Bank, including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, on digital rights and its implementation.
This survey reflects the complex reality of digital rights in occupied Palestine and assesses how prepared CSOs are in dealing with growing digital challenges, especially after the 2023 genocide. The survey sheds light on the gaps in digital knowledge and the infrastructure for digital security, which is a particular challenge, hampering the ability of institutions to protect their data and effectively carry out their role.
The survey is based on the descriptive methodology, including questionnaires from 55 institutions in the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, in addition to in-depth interviews with six digital rights, women’s and other institutions working in the Gaza Strip. The qualitative data was analyzed using advanced tools such as Nvivo and SPSS.
Overview
According to the outcomes of the survey, CSOs target various sectors, with women being the most targeted sector at 43.6%, followed by children, at 16.4%, the elderly at 12.7% and youth at 10.9%. Meanwhile, persons with disabilities were targeted at 9.1% and media persons at 7.3%. Furthermore, the results of the survey showed that 34.5% of CSOs target all sectors indiscriminately, thus reflecting the comprehensiveness of the sample.
The scope of the work of Palestinian institutions is distributed within the districts as follows: Ramallah, at 50.9% of institutions, Hebron, at 40%, Jerusalem at 34.5% and Nablus at 38.2%. It also extends to the Bethlehem, Jenin, Tulkarm and Salfeet governorates at 29.1% each and the northern Jordan Valley at 32.7%, Jericho and the Jordan Valley at 27.3% and Qalqilya at 25.5%.
In the Gaza Strip, the work of CSOs in northern Gaza stood at 40%, Khan Younis at 29.1% Gaza City at 40%, Rafah at 25.5% and Deir Al Balah at 27.3%.
The locations of Palestinian CSO included in the survey were distributed among cities, camps and villages, with the majority of CSOs concentrated in cities, at 74.5%. Villages were the headquarters of 16.4% of the institutions while only 9.1% were based on camps. This distribution reflects the urban concentration of CSOs and highlights the need for increased presence in rural areas and in camps, to promote inclusiveness and access to marginalized and vulnerable sectors.
The size of Palestinian CSOs participating in this survey varied in terms of the number of employees. The survey showed that 27.3% of institutions include from one to 10 employees, while 16.4% have 11 to 15 employees. The largest majority of CSOs, 41.8% had between 16 and 30 employees while only 14.5% of institutions had over 31 employees. This distribution reflects the variety in size of CSOs, with most institutions either small or medium size, which is compatible with the survey sample.
To view the full Factsheet as PDF
Sexual violence as a weapon of genocide
Date posted: October 09, 2024
By MIFTAH
Background
Since the beginning of its illegal occupation in 1967, Israel has detained over 1 million Palestinians, who are tried in Israeli military courts with a conviction rate close to 100%. Israel also detains Palestinians with no charge or trial for an indefinite period under so-called “administrative detention”. This policy of mass arbitrary arrest is one of the tools used to maintain Israel's illegal occupation, apartheid regime and settler-colonial project.
To date, over 10,400 Palestinians have been arbitrarily arrested since October, 2023. The conditions of Palestinian prisoners have significantly deteriorated since the beginning of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, and imprisoned Palestinians are being subjected to torture, starvation, violent cell raids, including with tear gas, deliberate medical negligence, denial of food, water, sanitary pads and sanitation, as well as denial of lawyers and family visits.
Despite the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment under international law, Israeli occupation forces and prison authorities employ various torture and ill-treatment techniques against almost all Palestinian political prisoners and detainees, including women and children, leaving grave physical and psychological damage. Israeli prison authorities, occupation forces and interrogators feel emboldened to commit such acts of torture with full impunity, knowing that neither the complicit Israeli legal system nor the international community will hold them accountable.
While sexual violence against Palestinian women and men has long been a tactic of torture at Israeli military checkpoints, during raids on their own homes and inside prisons, it has rapidly increased since the start of the genocide in Gaza. Palestinian women are often hesitant to share such stories, in fear of the associated social stigma, something which Israel exploits, and also due to the belief that Israel’s crimes will go unpunished.
Access the full factsheet here.
