| > I think it's good to apply Mearsheimer's realist thinking here, and the intention is obviously clear that Israel does not want peace with Gaza From what I see from my perspective: Last time it was on the table the deal was so good PLO realized it could be forced into a real two state solution with peace and permanent borders. At that time the PLO, not Israel, left the negotiating table without even a counteroffer. For me, from all I see from the rhetoric, Arab organizations want all: - right of return for them - no compensation or right of return for Jews forced into Israel from surrounding areas - no permanent borders and peace, they see it only as a first step > as that would require recognition of a Palestinian state as the PLO had wanted since the 70s Let's also for completeness include that PLO want to eradicate Israel, and are brazen enough to have it in their official charter. |
This is not true. I am not interested in whatever labels the Israeli or Palestinians might ascribe to their agreements. There has never been an instance where the PLO was offered something that resembles a modern, economically and politically independent nation-state. The closest was in 2001 under Bill Clinton, but Israel refused the conditions set by Clinton while the PLO accepted them.
>Let's also for completeness include that PLO want to eradicate Israel, and are brazen enough to have it in their official charter.
Again, much like the Likud party's own charter, from a realist perspective this is irrelevant. What's relevant is what both parties are realistically capable of doing, and the balance of power clearly favours Israel.