Tentative Taba Agreement, January 2001

The two sides agreed that in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242, the June 4, 1967 lines would be the basis for the borders between Israel and the State of Palestine. Any modifications will be calculated from this baseline.
1.1.The West Bank
For the first time both sides presented their own maps of the West Bank. The maps served as a basis for the discussion on territory and settlements…The Clinton parameters served as a loose base for the discussion, but differences of interpretations regarding the scope and meaning of the parameters emerged. The Palestinian side stated that it had accepted the Clinton proposal, but with reservations.
The Israeli side stated that the Clinton proposals provided for annexation of settlement blocs. The Palestinian side did not agree that the parameters included blocs, and did not accept proposals to annex blocs. The Palestinian side stated that blocs would cause significant harm to Palestinian needs and rights, particularly for the Palestinians residing in areas Israel seeks to annex…The Palestinian side maintained that since Israel has needs in Palestinian territory, it is responsible for proposing the necessary border modifications. The Palestinian side reiterated that such proposals must not adversely affect the Palestinians' needs and rights.
The Israeli side stated that it did not need to maintain settlements in the Jordan Valley for security purposes, and its proposed maps reflected this position.
The Israeli maps were principally based on a demographic concept of settlement blocs incorporating 80% of the settlers. The Israeli side sketched a map presenting a 6% annexation of the West Bank, the outer limit of the Clinton proposal. The Palestinian illustrative map presented 3.1% of the West Bank in the context of a land swap.
Both sides accepted the principle of land swap but the proportionality of the swap remained under discussion…
The Israeli side requested an additional 2% of land under a lease agreement to which the Palestinians responded that the subject of lease could only be discussed after the establishment of a Palestinian state and the transfer of land to Palestinian sovereignty.
1.2.Gaza Strip
…It was implied that the Gaza Strip would be under total Palestinian sovereignty…all settlements will be evacuated. The Palestinians claimed it could be arranged in 6 months, a timetable not agreed by the Israeli side…
Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side, within the context of a land swap, affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli requests regarding settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebel Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements outside the municipal borders of Jerusalem, such as Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.
The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including the entire Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters of the old city of Jerusalem, The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were willing to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the Armenian quarter.
2.2Open City
Both sides favored the idea of an Open City…
2.3. Capital for Two States
Both sides accepted that the City of Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalayim, capital of Israel and Al-Qods, capital of the State of Palestine.
2.4. Holy/Historical Basin and the Old City
…The Israeli side expressed its interest and raised its concern regarding the area conceptualized as the Holy Basin (which includes the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives, the City of David, Kidron Valley). The Palestinian side confirmed that it was willing to take into account Israeli interests and concerns provided that these places remain under Palestinian sovereignty. Another option for the Holy Basin, suggested informally by the Israeli side, was to create a special regime or to suggest some form of internationalization for the entire area or a joint regime with special cooperation and coordination. The Palestinian side did not agree to adopt any of these ideas, although the discussion could continue.
2.5. Holy Sites/Western Wall and the Wailing Wall
Both parties have accepted the principle of respective control over each side's respective holy sites by the two parties (religious control and management). According to this principle, Israeli control over the Western Wall would be recognized although there remained a dispute regarding the area covered by the Wall and especially the link to what is referred to in Clinton's ideas as "the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part."
The Palestinian side acknowledged that Israel has requested to establish an affiliation to the holy parts of the Western Wall, but given its own reservations regarding the delineation of the Western/Wailing Wall, this issue has not been fully resolved.
2.6. Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Both sides agreed that the question of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount has not been resolved…An informal suggestion was raised that for an agreed period such as three years, Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount would be under international sovereignty of the P5 [the five permanent members of the Security Council] plus Morocco (or another Islamic presence), whereby the Palestinians would be the "Guardian/Custodians" during this period. At the end of this period, either the parties would agree on a new solution or agree to extend the existing arrangement. In the absence of an agreement, the parties would return to implement the Clinton formulation. Neither accepted or rejected the suggestion.

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for talks…
Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Both sides maintained their respective narratives regarding the essence of UNGAR 194, namely the right of return versus the wish to return.
3.1. Narrative
The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refuges. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement concluded.
3.2. Return, Repatriation, and Relocation and Rehabilitation
Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee problem. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees shall have the right of return to their homes in accordance with UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:
A.Return and Repatriation
To Israel
To Israel swapped territories [Israeli territory transferred to the Palestinians in a land-swap agreement], which will be over and above territories discussed in the territorial negotiations
To the Palestinian state
B.Rehabilitation and Relocation
Rehabilitation in a host country
Relocation to a 3rd country
Preference in all of these options shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon.

The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees…
The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first 3 years of the program (40,o00 in the first 5 years this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of the family reunification theme.
4.1. Early Warning Signs
The Israeli side requested to have 3 early warning stations on Palestinian territory. The Palestinian side was prepared to accept the continued operations of the early warning stations but subject to certain conditioned. The exact mechanism has therefore to be detailed in further negotiations.
4.2. Military Capacity of the State of Palestine
The Israeli side maintained that the State of Palestine will be non-militarized as per the Clinton proposals, The Palestinian side was prepared to accept…[that Palestine] be defined as a state with limited arms…both sides agree that this issue has not been concluded…
4.4. Timetable for Withdrawal from the West Bank and Jordan Valley
Based on the Clinton proposal, the Israeli side agreed to a withdrawal from the West Bank over a 36-month period with an additional 36 months for the Jordan Valley in conjunction with an international force.
The Palestinian side rejected the 36-month withdrawal process expressing concern that a lengthy process would exacerbate Israeli-Palestinian tensions. The Palestinian side proposed an 18-month withdrawal under the supervision of international forces. As to the Jordan Valley the Palestinian side was prepared to consider the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces for an additional 10-month period. Although the Palestinian side was ready to consider the presence of international forces in the West Bank for a longer period, it refused to accept the ongoing presence of Israeli force.