> 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.
> Had they agreed, there would be a peace in place today.
There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy. And several Israeli politicians were sabotaging things by encouraging further settlements.
My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced. Any "peace negations" without that on the table are not really meaningful and just window dressing. "Please behave nicely according to our satisfaction until we maybe give you your due rights" is not a reasonable demand, especially not in the face of some of the people in government right now.
And "Hamas born" was not the right term. The point is they stepped up their game and became influential, which is not particularly controversial AFAIK. IIRC they also didn't do any suicide attacks before Goldstein, but I could be misremembering that.
> 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.
Different zeitgeist. Post cold war 90s were very optimistic. Too optimistic probably.
Also less of a "second world war" hangover. Look, I grew up with stories from my grandparents about the occupation. Half my history lessons were about the war and Holocaust. I have great sympathy for the Jewish people and would even go so far to consider myself a Zionist, at least for some meanings of the concept.
But also, I'm young enough that as far as I'm concerned it's too long ago, and while some morally dubious actions from the past are at least understandable, it's no longer a reason. Even more so for people 20 years younger than me who never had grandparents who told them stories.
I mean, half of the US was on-board with "Satanic Ritual Abuse" during the 80s. Just because "people are the time" said X or thought Y doesn't mean it's correct.
> There was no meaningful "peace deal" because there were no meaningful concessions on the root cause: the settlement policy.
I don't understand what you mean. The negotiation was to come to an agreement to stop settlement activity and give all the territory to the Palestinians.
Are you saying the problem is that there were no concessions before the negotiations had reached an agreement? That is not how negotiations typically work.
> My case is very simple: there needs to be a significant compromise on the settlement policy first, and only then can any meaningful agreement be reached and violence be reduced.
Look, I agree that settlement activity should stop. Many Israelis agree and don't want settlement activity to continue.
The problem is that many Israelis are convinced, very likely correctly, that undoing settlements without a deal will cause far more violence to happen to Israel. This is exactly what happened with Gaza - a unilateral withdrawal of army and settlements, before any negotiated agreement, led to Gaza turning into a launching pad of rockets on Israel.
I still think the settler violence happening today in the WB is abhorrent, all new settlements must cease immediately, etc. I'm totally with you there. I don't know if it'll happen - we may be too far gone at this stage.
In any case, Palestinian violence has basically always backfired on Palestinians. Even if you can somehow accept it morally (which you absolutely shouldn't), the end result is that every single bad condition of the Palestinians has been the direct result of violence, including the horrific condition of Gaza right now. Maybe trying a different approach like renouncing violence is just a good idea?
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.