They have been pushed right by the actions of the Palestinians.
^^^^ This ^^^^
Israel used to be a left wing nation. The voters stopped going for that because the left's land-for-peace deals kept not getting them any peace.
Which land for peace deal was enacted?
if the answer is none, then how do the Israelis know the deal would not have improved matters for them?
Which land for peace deal was offered? All the Israelis got from the left's years of talking to Arafat was offers of temporary peace for permanent land.
That is taking history and flipping it on its head.
It was the Israelis who refused to discuss permanent borders after Rabin was murdered.
You're misinformed. The Barak administration negotiated for permanent borders in 2000 at the Camp David Summit.
Rabin was denounced as a traitor to Zionism for agreeing to a plan that would have had part of Eretz Israel become a Palestinian State.
And if Arafat hadn't walked out of the CDS and gone with the 2nd Intifada some Palestinian extremist probably would have murdered him for being a traitor. Peace-seeking moderates on both sides keep getting torpedoed by their own sides' we-want-it-all-ists.
When Secretary of State Clinton attempted to <snip>
Secretary of State Clinton took office in 2009. That's after Israel became a right-wing nation. It is not relevant to whether the Israelis have been pushed right by the actions of the Palestinians unless you've got a DeLorean with a flux capacitor.
Arafat and the PLO officially recognized everything on the Israel side of the 1967 borders as part of the State of Israel, that those lands would not be part of the Palestinian State, and agreed to make some land swaps so that the border could be somewhat adjusted. They explicitly and openly agreed to a land for peace deal and followed through on their end of it until the peace process stopped when the Israeli Prime Minister backing it was murdered.
I really think you should read up on the Oslo Accords and the history of its implementation.
Take your own advice. Start with the very name: "The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". "Interim" means "interim". The agreement was "for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." The PLO was reserving the right to resume the armed struggle if the Israelis didn't meet their demands within five years. It should be noted that the Israelis and the Palestinians have very different understandings of what Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 dictate.
According to Clinton the Camp David Summit failed because Arafat wouldn't budge on "right of return".
Well, if that was the sticking point, why are you saying the problem was Palestinians not agreeing to final borders?
The heck are you on about? Where the bejesus did I say the problem was Palestinians not agreeing to final borders?
The problem I'm talking about is Western leftists' double standard, constantly holding Israelis responsible for the wrongdoings they provoke Palestinians to commit but never holding Palestinians responsible for the wrongdoings they provoke Israelis to commit.
And what exactly was Arafat proposing? For the Rights of Indigenous People to be acknowledged?
Are you under the impression that the Israelis and the Palestinians are playing charades as if they were Republicans and Democrats?
For a token return of a few thousand refugees? For compensation to be offered by the State of Israel to those who were deliberately targeted in Plan Dalet? That's not controversial to anyone who isn't determined to screw over people of other races, ethnicities, and religious faiths.
Where do you get this stuff? You're the one "taking history and flipping it on its head" here. It was
the Israelis who proposed monetary compensation and the "token return of a few thousand refugees", if "token" and "a few" are what we're calling
one hundred thousand Palestinians. What exactly was Arafat proposing? Arafat was exactly proposing that Israel accept the return of one hundred and fifty thousand refugees
per year.
To Arafat and the other Palestinians delegated to talk to the Israelis, negotiations for a two-state solution appear to have always been a temporary measure, a strategy for getting the one-state solution of their dreams by gradual means. If they get Israel to agree to take in enough Palestinians, eventually Israel will have a Palestinian majority and democratically vote to give itself the power to ethnically cleanse the Jews. That's permanent land for temporary peace. When the Israeli voting public concluded that that was the best deal their leftist governments were going to be able to get from the Palestinian leadership, they stopped electing leftist governments.
Why are you making it sound like Arafat was being unreasonable?
Why are you making it about me? I'm reporting Bill Clinton's opinion of why the negotiations fell apart.
