What will Israel consider in order to make a peace deal?

Today, Anthony Blinkin said this:

"Israel must stop taking steps that undercut Palestinians ability to govern themselves effectively. Extremists' settler violence carried out with impunity, settlement expansion, demolitions, evictions all make it harder – not easier – for Israel to achieve lasting peace and security.
Israel must be a partner to Palestinian leaders who are willing to lead their people are living side by side in peace with Israel as neighbors. As I told the prime minister, every partner that I met on this trip said that they're ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long-running cycle of violence and ensures Israel's security. But they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to a Palestinian state. If Israel wants its Arab neighbors to make the tough decisions necessary to help ensures lasting security, Israeli leaders will have to make hard decisions themselves."

I guess you will see how much Israel wants peace. Considering that they have pretty much been in constant war for 75 years, it certainly seems like continued fighting will not achieve their goal. They are fighting an ideology, not a country, and it seems they are unwilling to consider why that ideology propagates despite their attempts to destroy it.

What kind of "hard decisions" do you think Israel is willing to make if it means lasting peace? Removing all settlements from the West Bank? Removing settlements from the Golan Heights? Allowing a two-state system and giving up control of Gaza and the West Bank? Frankly, I don't see the current Israeli administration conceding squat. As an American, I would like to see our government use it's leverage here.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

[quote]I guess you will see how much Israel wants peace. Considering that they have pretty much been in constant war for 75 years, it certainly seems like continued fighting will not achieve their goal. [/quote]

1948 -- Palestinians were offered a chance for statehood. Israel's Arab neighbors attacked Israel resulting in the nakba. Israel captured even more land than it had been granted under the UN partition.

1967 -- Israel's Arab neighbors positioned themselves to attack Israel. Israel attacked its Arab neighbors defensively and acquired the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan heights.

1973 -- Egypt attacked Israel.

2023 -- Hamas massacres 1200 Israelis, captures Israeli hostages (which it still holds) triggering the Gaza war.

The facts speak for themselves. Didn't a wise man once say that? 🤣

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@flipper1966 Thanks.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays 1) nakba started before 1948 2) “attacked defensively” is an oxymoron 3) israel claims all land from lebanon to egypt, from mediterranean to jordan and always has (long before 1948). Palestinians, the same. Israel had no intent on sticking to the 1948 UN map.

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer Some people say that.

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer [quote]nakba started before 1948[/quote]

Arab hatred of Jews in Palestine started way before Zionism even existed.

[image]
Safed is a city in the Northern District of Israel.

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer [quote]2) “attacked defensively” is an oxymoron [/quote]

[image][image]

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer[quote] 3) israel claims all land from lebanon to egypt, from mediterranean to jordan and always has [b][i][u](long before 1948)[/u][/i][/b]. [/quote]

The State of Israel did not exist before 1948. There was no Israeli government before 1948.

In 2000, Israel was prepared to give up most of the West Bank and Gaza. It was the Palestinians who turned the offer down.

[image]

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays what would Arafat have to give up? That agreement is not that simple. And true, Israel did not “technically” exist before 1948, but it was anticipated and planned for at least 25 years prior. The “future israelis” were clearly expecting the balfour declaration to designate all west of jordan as theirs https://images.app.goo.gl/BX9i1Yb9BNK1qtRT9

https://www.edmaps.com/html/palestine_in_ten_maps.html

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer It's called compromise. You never get everything you want in negotiations.

[image]

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays “some” arab neighborhoods and a 9-1 ratio? Sounds like a shiitty “compromise” to me. Much the same as “completely stop all bombing and we will give your hostages back”.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer The fact that it was by and large the Israeli public that thought Camp David was a shitty deal for Israel, and not the Palestinians, says something about how shitty a deal Camp David was for the Palestinians. 68% of Palestinians were in favor of what Arafat negotiated before Arafat walked away from the deal.

[image]

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays seems to me your statement is arguing my point? I am confused

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer I am asking how the deal can be said to be shitty if 68% of Palestinians supported the deal before Arafat walked away from it?

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@trollslayer My argument is that Israel thinks all that land is theirs, and that Arafat did not accept the deal because he thought he was being short-changed. 58% of Israelis thought Barak compromise too much. In other words - he was willing to concede too much. Pretty much says that the majority of Israel thinks they deserve more land than the status quo (or all) - confirming my argument. On the other side, 68% of Palestinians agreed with Arafat's position, which Israel would not agree to, so he walked away. Ao 68% of Palestinians thought he was getting screwed and agreed with him walking away. Again, confirming my argument.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays 68% did NOT support the deal The supported Arafat's [u]position[/u]. Read your post again.

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer My interpretation of what I posted differs from yours. 👌

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays Go to the source - not the wikipedia summary. https://web.archive.org/web/20110607135527/http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2000/p1a.html

FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays · M

@trollslayer Dennis Ross was one of the U.S. negotiators at Camp David. This is his personal opinion about why Arafat walked away from the deal.

[image]

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays well, that is one person’s opinion. But for Arafat, you get a portion of the land you want, but you don’t get control over your airspace or your water, and you agree to have israeli troops on your land, AND give up all right to complain or renegotiate in the future. Sounds to me like Israel was not willing to allow a two state solution.