Israel’s final offer to Arafat at the ‘Taba’ talks which followed the failed Camp David 2000 negotiations:
The final Taba offer, as presented to the two sides by Dennis Ross, US Middle East Envoy from 1993-2001, as described in an interview by Brit Hum (Fox News) with Ross, April 12, 2002:. and later published by CNN & BBC.

ROSS: Let's look at the terms. Let me spell out exactly what it was. It was something that we offered, by the way. There's a kind of imagery out there that Barak made an offer. It was a U.S. offer.
HUME: Barak accepted it?
ROSS: Barak was willing to accept it.
1. Israel will withdraw from 97% of the territories, turning over to the Palestinians CONTIGUOUS territory for their state -
HUME: Now, they also say that the offer would have divided Palestinian territory into four separate cantons and entirely surrounded and therefore controlled by Israel.
ROSS: Completely untrue. There were going to get a net 97 percent of the territory. In the West Bank, it would have been 95 percent of the West Bank. There was going to be a swap that would have added onto the size of Gaza.
They were going to have their own border with Jordan. There was not going to be an Israeli presence there. There were not going to be cantons. There were not going to be divisions. They were getting contiguous territory in the West Bank.
2. The Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would be the capitol of the Pal state.
Ross: There was going to be a divided Jerusalem in the sense that the eastern part of the city has Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. The Arab neighborhoods were going to become part of the Palestinian state. They would be the capital for that state. So there would be an east Jerusalem capital for the Palestinian state.
3. Right of return for refugees to Pal state.
Ross: When it came to the issue of refugees, there would have been a right of return to their state, not to Israel. We were talking about a two-state solution. Right of return to your state makes perfect sense. Right of return to their state makes no sense.
4. International security zone in the Jordan Valley
Ross: When it came to security, there would have been an international process in the Jordan Valley. Now, I will tell you that Palestinian negotiators clearly thought this was acceptable. It was unacceptable to only one man - Yasser Arafat.
And the question is why. I believe because in this agreement was a phrase that said end of conflict. Arafat can agree to all sorts of things as long as he doesn't have to admit the conflict is over.
HUME: So this idea that there was a nine-to-one land swap in Israel's favor is bogus?
ROSS: That's bogus. That is what Camp David was. It's not what the Clinton ideas were.
When you hear this, this is part of the mythology. They have never yet to this day honestly presented to their own public what it is that was presented because when you hear it as we just described it, you say it looks like a pretty good deal.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: What a surprise they haven't presented it to their own public.
HUME: Now, you see Powell there. He must know, as you do, that that was an offer acceptable to some of the people around Arafat, probably therefore acceptable to many people in the Palestinian world over there. Yasser Arafat was the guy who said no.
ROSS: That's right.
HUME: He was the ultimate final obstacle.
ROSS: That's right
HUME: And meant that he also went against the dream of so many Palestinians and Palestinians terrorists that someday they could drive Israel to the sea.
ROSS: Absolutely. He couldn't give up his mythologies. That was the key thing. He could not give up his mythologies.