Read the article. Arafat got what he wanted.. The right of return, other than small numbers and compensation or some combination, was not going to happen.. At some point, you take a deal because it's good for your people to move forward. He didn't and caused a second violent "shaking off".

And you saw the rightward shift after that.. Hamas blew up shit during the 93-00 accords not because they had differences in minor details.. They hated the Jewish presence in the whole region.

It's Hamas caused enough violence to think that Arafat couldn't have control of his more violent wings, and when listening to him in Arabic was encouraging it .. Israel still negotiated and got more violence and that's what they remembered.

Evangelicals are becoming more and more of a minority in the US though. Just look at the abortion debate. — Mr Bee

But these things take time.

Times do change, but perhaps it will take a decade or so.

It will also take time for younger generations to gain power. At this point it seems like both converge around the same time.

This is all Barak talking in the article and not Morris, since it's an extract from an interview of Barak. But nice try.

Everybody who thought the Oslo accords were decent ought to start here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after

But should really just read the whole collection: https://www.amazon.com/End-Peace-Process-Oslo-After/dp/0375725741

Barak and Morris were in accord. Barak wasn’t going into the deal in bad faith, he wanted to finish the job of Rabin. Clinton wanted a legacy. Arafat didn’t mind more violence for a non starter issue.

At some point, you take a deal because it's good for your people to move forward. — schopenhauer1

Again, what deal are you talking about? There was no deal to be had. Or do you think Israel would have started removing settlers based on whatever borders were agreed?

Again, what deal are you talking about? There was no deal to be had. Or do you think Israel would have started removing settlers based on whatever borders were agreed? — Tzeentch

If Israel couldn’t remove settlers then you could legitimately have an argument that Israel was in the wrong. You first need the agreement for that to even happen.

Of course Israel couldn't remove the settlers. We're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of people (in many cases armed and militant), when Israel could barely remove a couple thousand from the Sinai without a full-blown domestic crisis. It was after the Sinai debacle that Israel actually vowed never to conduct such a removal again, so you'll have to contend with Israel's own words as well.

And the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions make exactly this argument - that Israel was making any peace deal impossible by creating facts on the ground that are basically irreversible. That was exactly the goal of the settlement policy.

But if you are under the impression that removing settlements was something the Israelis were actually prepared to do, then at least it's clear where the disconnect happens.

It was after the Sinai debacle that Israel actually vowed never to conduct such a removal again — Tzeentch

Which they did in Gaza afterwards, so that was false just on the events..

That was in 2005, and the numbers involved just weren't anywhere in the ballpark of what would be required for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Also, the disengagement from Gaza turned into another domestic crisis, with riots, gunfights between the IDF and settlers, and people setting themselves on fire in protest. Gnarly stuff.

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct?

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct? — Tzeentch

Yes, give or take, and that again was the basis for the 2000 negotiation, with large swaths of settlers to be removed.. and not sure, but Pals would have had at that point a lot of infrastructure to work with.. Like Gaza, probably kept things intact, but in Gaza the greenhouses and infrastructure was destroyed.. Lovely.

Had this plan been agreed to, what exactly does Israel get? A promise of peace and a renunciation of violence from the current Palestinian administration? Would things have changed had this new Palestinian state began importing or creating WMDs? Or what happens if terrorism had continued from a non-government source?

I'll have to take your word for it because it's not clear from the article. I also note that what Benny Morris wrote at the time about the Oslo accords was factually incorrect. He often repeats that the deal would create a Palestinian state and provide them with sovereignty. This is in fact false as any one who had actually read the text would know.

https://peacemaker.un.org/israelopt-osloaccord93

This is why you should read Said’s articles, who's much more critical and skeptical in his interpretation. And as a result he was accurate and predictive.

and anti-Israeli Leftist sentiment and you get a quite ridiculous judenhass. — schopenhauer1

Actually thinking of Israel started to change with "Peace for Galilee" and the massacres in Shabra and Shatila (done by the Falangists). Then with the Palestinian intifada and the actions in Gaza and in the Westbank. Somehow little boys throwing rocks at armoured vehicles started to change the image of a tiny nation desperately defending itself larger Arab armies.

Yeah, a lot time has gone since Israel was portrayed with Hollywood films like Exodus (from 1960):

[T]he corresponding UN Security Council resolutions make exactly this argument - that Israel was making any peace deal impossible by creating facts on the ground that are basically irreversible. That was exactly the goal of the settlement policy. — Tzeentch

:100: :up:

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct? — Tzeentch

Yes, give or take, — schopenhauer1

And on what basis do you make that judgement, given that the UN has consistently pointed at Israel's settlement policy as a purposeful obstruction of the peace process?

And on what basis do you make that judgement, given that the UN has consistently pointed at Israel's settlement policy as a purposeful obstruction of the peace process? — Tzeentch

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. Not much more to say.

But as for the Israeli settlement policy.. it could have been solved years ago, but Arafat didn't want that.

There are the religious zealots and what not that want to settle "Judea and Samaria". Some have an argument that prior to 48, there were actually Jewish communities in the West Bank that they are trying to rebuild.. All of that wouldn't be any good reason to keep that land. The only reason I have heard that makes sense is that it is a strategic region to have to prevent extremist Palestinian groups (like Hamas obviously) from organizing enough to try to gain the high ground (literally) to launch attacks and destroy Israel proper.. And that reason indeed, makes sense. As long as you have a group that wants to see your nation-state destroyed (either all at once, or slowly overtime when you have enough resources to attack), then if you DO HAVE the upper hand in keeping the strategic high ground, you will keep it until there is truly a de-radicalized movement that wants a lasting peace.

And since no Palestinian leaders have really taken the hard(er) route of getting past absolutist terms for peace, we haven't seen it come to fruition that Israel dismantles the majority of their settlements.. It's too bad for those who truly want peace, and the whole world, who wait for eternity, for the de-radicalization to happen.. And yeah, if there is a civil war between settlers and Israeli troops, that is what would have to happen..

In fact, I see civil war in that region as an improvement over unified hatred.

And since no Palestinian leaders have really taken the hard(er) route of getting past absolutist terms for peace — schopenhauer1

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. — schopenhauer1

I wonder why those with basically no historical understanding whatsoever keep displaying these tired, stale, vapid observations.

It’s Israel and the United States that have blocked any peaceful agreement, and have done so for decades. But let’s blame the people we’re stealing land from and literally fencing in. How brave.

Fuck oppressor-apologists.

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. — schopenhauer1

The UN represents global opinion, and global opinion has condemned Israel's actions now and in the past nearly unanimously - in the General Assembly, in the Security Council, in various UN bodies, etc.

Have you considered that maybe it is you that is biased?

Considering the countries in the General Assembly, not really.

All countries are in the General Assembly. :chin:

All countries are in the General Assembly. — Tzeentch

Indeed

In other words: "I'm not crazy, the world is crazy!"

If Hitler were to make the same argument in 1939, what would you think of that? Would that be very convincing?

In other words: "I'm not crazy, the world is crazy!" — Tzeentch

As in, look at a lot of those countries in the General Assembly...

As in, look at a lot of those countries in the General Assembly... — schopenhauer1

What should I be looking for?

What should I be looking for? — Tzeentch

Numerous human rights violations, many vote as an Arab/Islamic bloc, and then there is the third-world non-aligned countries in Africa.. all of these countries with numerous human rights violations that they don't condemn for their own cultures/countries, not to mention China and Russian interests and violations against the "West". Not to mention Israel is the only Jewish nation-state in the world, so hard to compare.. But, Jews haven't been known to be easy and exceptionally singled out targets in history, right?

Numerous (48 or so?) human rights violations, [...] — schopenhauer1

If countries' views may be disregarded based on human rights violations then where does that leave Israel? :lol:

many vote as an Arab/Islamic bloc, — schopenhauer1

Okay, so in your view, Arab and Islamic nations don't count...

and then there is the third-world non-aligned countries in Africa. — schopenhauer1

And third world countries in Africa. (?) :chin:

not to mention China and Russian interests and violations against the "West". — schopenhauer1

And any nation that is aligned against the West.


Well then, let's disregard all of these (on whatever shakey grounds you have yet to present).


What kind of a picture do you think we'll end up with?

Will the voting behavior of the list of countries that are left paint a less painful picture for Israel?

But, Jews haven't been known to be easy and exceptionally singled out targets in history, right? — schopenhauer1

By the way, Israel does not represent Jews globally. It doesn't even represent all Jews within its borders. Many are adamantly opposed to Israel's malpractices.

If country's views may be disregarded based on human rights violations then where does that leave Israel? :lol: — Tzeentch

The point is the unique singling out.

And third world countries — Tzeentch

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement

There are many countries in Africa that align with the Islamic bloc, but some that also align with it that are from the formerly "third-world" (non-aligned) countries during the Cold War.. Of course all of these countries have brutal ongoing violations, but easy to coalesce against a singled out enemy.. guess who!

And any nation that is aligned against the West.


Well then, let's disregard all of these (on whatever shakey grounds you have yet to present). — Tzeentch

Huh? China and Russia are not aligned against Western powers? The question is more to you not me then..

What kind of a picture do you think we'll end up with?

Will the voting behavior of the list of countries that are left paint a less painful picture for Israel? — Tzeentch

Well, since the UN is biased, and has no executive powers that countries are obliged to abide by anyways, and seems to just be a place people can point to for this and that argument for appealing to authority, I say just move forward with different conversation points.