[perfecthjrjth]

The deeper problem is not discussed at all: is it possible in a one-state solution (non ethnostate, that is) for Jews to co-exist with Muslims when the latter becomes majority? Past drives the decisions for the present and the future.

The other issue heavily discussed is settlements in the West Bank. Settlements have caused, and continue to cause, problems: barriers, scanners, street closures (thereby preventing access for non-Jews), etc. Here, Israel downplays problems faced by locals. This is also a consequence of why it is not possible for Jews and Arabs to live together without barriers, scanners, closures.

Arafat scuttled the camp David deal in 2000. Of course, that deal was bad to Palestinians from the latter's perspective. Can they get a better deal than that by NOT 'lay down and die'?

From Clinton's biography: 'Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.'