4 ms·

Is there really cause to believe a peaceful compromise would have been possible even without the settlements? Has there been any period where the borders betwee

Is there really cause to believe a peaceful compromise would have been possible even without the settlements? Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides?

tptacek 2y ago
Israel's two largest borders are with Egypt and Jordan, both of which it has shared peaceful relations with for decades. It shares a complicated border with Syria, where it has for more decades held a salient into Syrian sovereign territory (the Golan), but until recently there has been little military activity involving it. It's the Lebanese border where all the action is at.
- edanm 2y ago
  (And the "border" with the West Bank and Gaza.)
hmcq6 2y ago
> Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides? The Oslo Accords, but right wing Israelis assassinated their own PM to prevent a peace deal. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo#:~:text=Worried%20that%20the%20peace%20process,of%20Hebron%20to%20Palestinian%20control https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo#:~:text=....
- edanm 2y ago
  That's a misleadingly small part of the story of why there's no peace today. Israeli went on to elect multiple other PMs to continue working towards a peace deal. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, but Barak met with Araft in 2000, 2001, Olmert was trying to make a deal all the way up to 2007. And in the meantime, famous military hawk Sharon actually withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements. What actually happened is that a result of the Oslo accords, while yes, one right-wing extremist killed Rabin (and another right-wing extremist committed a disgusting terror attack on Palestinians) - the Palestinians started a massive wave of terror attacks, probably spearheaded by Hamas with the express purpose of scuttling the peace process.
  - afiori 2y ago
    > withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements. No settlements != No occupation
    - edanm 2y ago
      OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? I think the basic logic of "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" is the guiding logic here, whether you call it occupation or not.
      - afiori 2y ago
        > Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? Yes. > "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" I think that the part where snipers spent year gloating about how many kids they shot in the head and knees might have worked against that.
  - arp242 2y ago
    Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. Not only that, you had stuff like Ariel Sharon encouraging people to settle all the land while they can. It was hard to really take in good faith. And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. This is just not true. The Palestinians didn't have any recognized governing body before the accords; the accords made the Palestinian Authority the official representative of the Palestinian people, and outlined the areas from which Israel would withdraw and that would be governed by the PA completely. This all happened and is still the situation. > I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism. That is not the reason the peace process failed - it failed because the Palestinians at some walked away without agreeing to a deal, or giving a counteroffer that Israel could weigh. Multiple times. Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today. But the terrorism is the reason the Israeli Left eventually lost much public support - because the Right just said, correctly, that all attempts at peace and all concessions have been met with refusal and more violence. I'm not saying Israel didn't do anything bad or was always the best negotiating partner, and I think settlement activity should've been stopped (and really, should never have happened in the first place!). But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying. You don't have to trust Israelis for this, trust Clinton, trust the other Americans, trust plenty of historians who've looked at the deal. As for historical revisionism... > And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. It takes like two minutes on Wikipedia to show that this is not true. Hamas was founded in 1987 and carried out its first terror attack in 1988, about 6 years before Goldstein's terror attack.

tptacek 2y ago

Israel's two largest borders are with Egypt and Jordan, both of which it has shared peaceful relations with for decades. It shares a complicated border with Syria, where it has for more decades held a salient into Syrian sovereign territory (the Golan), but until recently there has been little military activity involving it. It's the Lebanese border where all the action is at.

edanm 2y ago
(And the "border" with the West Bank and Gaza.)

hmcq6 2y ago

> Has there been any period where the borders between Israel and its neighbors have been peacefully respected by both sides? The Oslo Accords, but right wing Israelis assassinated their own PM to prevent a peace deal. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo#:~:text=Worried%20that%20the%20peace%20process,of%20Hebron%20to%20Palestinian%20control https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo#:~:text=....

edanm 2y ago
That's a misleadingly small part of the story of why there's no peace today. Israeli went on to elect multiple other PMs to continue working towards a peace deal. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, but Barak met with Araft in 2000, 2001, Olmert was trying to make a deal all the way up to 2007. And in the meantime, famous military hawk Sharon actually withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements. What actually happened is that a result of the Oslo accords, while yes, one right-wing extremist killed Rabin (and another right-wing extremist committed a disgusting terror attack on Palestinians) - the Palestinians started a massive wave of terror attacks, probably spearheaded by Hamas with the express purpose of scuttling the peace process.
- afiori 2y ago
  > withdrew all settlements and military presence from Gaza, supposedly giving them what they wanted - no more settlements. No settlements != No occupation
  - edanm 2y ago
    OK. Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? I think the basic logic of "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" is the guiding logic here, whether you call it occupation or not.
    - afiori 2y ago
      > Can we agree that withdrawing all settlements and the military means less occupation than before? Yes. > "we're doing a move that gives them, at least directionaly, what they say they want, and they use it to wage even more war" I think that the part where snipers spent year gloating about how many kids they shot in the head and knees might have worked against that.
- arp242 2y ago
  Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. Not only that, you had stuff like Ariel Sharon encouraging people to settle all the land while they can. It was hard to really take in good faith. And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Oslo accords were almost entirely concessions from the Palestinian side. There were no meaningful concessions on the Israeli settlement policy. This is just not true. The Palestinians didn't have any recognized governing body before the accords; the accords made the Palestinian Authority the official representative of the Palestinian people, and outlined the areas from which Israel would withdraw and that would be governed by the PA completely. This all happened and is still the situation. > I am not approving any of that of course, but the notion of "it failed because Hamas terrorism" is outright historical revisionism. That is not the reason the peace process failed - it failed because the Palestinians at some walked away without agreeing to a deal, or giving a counteroffer that Israel could weigh. Multiple times. Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today. But the terrorism is the reason the Israeli Left eventually lost much public support - because the Right just said, correctly, that all attempts at peace and all concessions have been met with refusal and more violence. I'm not saying Israel didn't do anything bad or was always the best negotiating partner, and I think settlement activity should've been stopped (and really, should never have happened in the first place!). But this notion that there was never any real chance at peace, that Israel never even tried to negotiate, etc, is something that people have only started saying in the last couple of years, it's not what anyone at the time was saying. You don't have to trust Israelis for this, trust Clinton, trust the other Americans, trust plenty of historians who've looked at the deal. As for historical revisionism... > And yes, with Arafat and the PLO seen as "selling out", as well as Baruch Goldstein's terror attack fanning the flames, Hamas was born and started their suicide attacks. It takes like two minutes on Wikipedia to show that this is not true. Hamas was founded in 1987 and carried out its first terror attack in 1988, about 6 years before Goldstein's terror attack.