You make my point well in the above so let's look a little more closely in response to your post generally in the first instance. The list is probably the most stark example of the maximum point to which Israeli negotiators have ever moved away from the wish list. How seriously we should take it all considering Olmerts refusal to give Abbas the actual map he had , forcing him to try to write it all down on a napkin from memory later on and the pending corruption case against him, we probably will never be sure of.
So to the list and your point one
Firstly land percentages on their own are pretty meaningless without any knowledge of the actual land being discussed. The 7 % of Palestinian land Israel demanded left East Jerusalem isolated from the rest of the West Bank which would have had a huge impact on the economy of the future Palestinian state. In fact this is a feature of why the holding on to the illegal settlement blocks presents such and obstacle because it consigns the Palestinians to live in a none contiguous state basically split into 3 areas with East Jerusalem serperated and thus isolated, a series of Cantons rather than a viable state.
Also that 7 % would account for some of the most valuable land in the West Bank and give Israel control of the entire regions water supply. Current estimates put settler use at 3/4s. They have swimming pools whilst many Palestinians are forced to carry containers to stand pipes etc
The 5% of Israeli land offered in return was , according to Harretz , " a desert territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip." ( see link )
When we factor these things in in looks very very different. When we add that Israel has exactly no right to any of the West Bank territory it breaks down as........
The Israeli side would gain
7% of the most valuable land and water resources in the West Bank ( to which it has no right at all ) along with the encirclement/isolation of East Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian state and the economic/cultural nightmare that would create for it. Additionally it would leave the Palestinian centres seperated from one another in what would not have been a viable state.
The Palestinians would have given up 7 % of some of their most valuable land and water resources in exchange for desert next to the Gaza strip.
Thus what is portrayed as a huge concession by Israel would have been a huge concession by the Palestinians.
All the settlers are illegal and yet around 80% were even being cosidered to remain where they were whilst around IIRC 5-10 thousand Palestinians out of 5.5 million were to be told they could never go home.
How is all of this somehow the deal of the century for the Palestinians ?
PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - Haaretz - Israel News | Haaretz.com