4 ms·

Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longe

Israel can't choose its neighbours, for sure, and it's true that in the first half of its existence it was regularly threatened by them. But that world no longer exists. Lebanon and Syria are now very weak, and Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. I don't know what can be done about Hezbollah, but it may be worth considering that Hezbollah only exists in the first place because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and it would probably be significantly weaker if Israel would actually resolved the Palestinian question. From what I have heard, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth, but I think the more important thing there is that Rabin was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace, his political career depends on it not happening.

edanm 2y ago
Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. Oh c'mon -- you're not giving Bibi his fair share of the credit, here: “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”* Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”* https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/fibi-netanyahu https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/fibi-netany...
  - edanm 2y ago
    Netanyahu had far less political power in 2001, and Israelis still elected, multiple times, people pursuing peace. Even very hawkish leaders like Sharon and Olmert eventually took steps towards peace, up until 2007 or so. So Netanyahu may have talked a big game, but his POV wasn't winning at that time. Of course, that all changed when he came into power and stayed there for the last 15 years. But part of the reason he originally won, and continues to win, is because the left has been so thoroughly discredited.

edanm 2y ago

Hezbollah exists as an Iranian proxy, and Iran has repeatedly stated that their goal is to wipe out Israel. But yes, alliances with neighbors is definitely something Israel should pursue, as is working towards peace with the Palestinians. That might not work to dissuade Iran from wanting to destroy Israel, but it will certainly help - and is the morally right thing to do anyways. > From what I have head, the idea the Palestinians were ever actually offered a state may be a myth [...] It absolutely isn't a myth. It was widely known and accepted by most people that the Palestinians walked away from very good deals, probably the best Israel can do. I'm not sure why there's a modern movement to change that knowledge, when reading the accounts of most people surrounding the negotiations gives a pretty clear picture. Specifically, Barak offered a decent deal in 2000, the Clinton parameters of around 2001 were an even better proposal that seemed to give the Palestinians almost everything they wanted, and Olmert made a proposal that was really, really good. The Palestinians walked away from these deals without any alternative offer, without saying what would work for them. Don't trust Israel's word for it - trust Clinton's! Or trust numerous other US negotiators. > [...] Rabing was assassinated and that torpedoed the process. This is wrong, he was assassinated in 1995, all the offers I talked about happened afterwards, from 2000 to 2008. Israelis voted multiple times for people who vowed to pursue a peace process, and even Sharon, who was a very hawkish PM, ended up doing the Gaza withdrawal. What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. The same happened again with the Gaza withdrawal - the hawkish Israelis warned that withdrawing the army and giving Palestinians full control of Gaza would end with them using it as a terror base, and that's exactly what happened. Again, to Israelis - a step towards giving Palestinians more control ended with far, far more violence. > Netanyahu has never really seemed interested in peace [...] This is absolutely true, and the major correct criticism of Israel is in its actions under Netanyahu over the last 15ish years. Israel has not only not continued to pursue peace because of the destruction of the Israeli left, but under Netanyahu, actively thwarted peace in many ways, weakening the PA at the expense of Hamas to keep the conflict going. As the stronger party, I think Israel has a moral duty to pursue peace, and to help foster leaders that can bring peace.

aguaviva 2y ago
What really torpedoed the peace process was that Israeli steps towards peace, including the Oslo process that founded the PA and gave them semi-control over the land, was met with the second intifada's terror attacks. Israelis saw steps towards peace being met with more violence, not less. Oh c'mon -- you're not giving Bibi his fair share of the credit, here: “They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”* Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. “They didn’t want to give me that letter,” Netanyahu said, “so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”* https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/fibi-netanyahu https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/fibi-netany...
- edanm 2y ago
  Netanyahu had far less political power in 2001, and Israelis still elected, multiple times, people pursuing peace. Even very hawkish leaders like Sharon and Olmert eventually took steps towards peace, up until 2007 or so. So Netanyahu may have talked a big game, but his POV wasn't winning at that time. Of course, that all changed when he came into power and stayed there for the last 15 years. But part of the reason he originally won, and continues to win, is because the left has been so thoroughly discredited.