The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, and occupying territory acquired through conquest. For thirty years. Against dozens of UN resolutions, or near-resolutions vetoed by the US.

1. You will note that the language of most Security council resolutions that pass in re Israel enjoin "both sides" to do ____XXX. Resolutions aimed solely at Israel would tend to get a veto. It takes two to tango.

2. Thirty years? Referencing that time horizon is a crimson fish. The Israel/Arab conflict is a continuum that starts AT LEAST in 1948, but really sooner. What happened in 1967 and 1973, in re occupied territory, is a directly traceable child of the failed 1948 attempt to wipe Israel off the map completely by a combined Arab effort. It is intellectually bankrupt to choose a "start the clock" in 1967. Without occupying X territory, the invasions and shelling would continue as before. What happened there was the "fruit of the poisoned tree" of 1948 and 1956, and even before that, the 30+ years of the British failure, during its administration of the Palestinian Mandate, to find a way to iron out an agreement that allows peacefule coexistence between Jews and Arabs in that bit of real estate. The attempts were many, the parties intractable.

That said, you would be correct in your assertion that there have been opportunities missed by Israeli leadership. Like most democratic countries, Israel's policies have moved about depending upon who is PM, etc. The "colonization" of the West Bank has been a particular thorn in the side of the peace process in the time frame you mention. The land for peace deal, Sinai for peace, with Egypt was a deal made between two nations. "The Palestinians" are not playing from the same point of reference, so the solution will require a bit more subtlty.

What strikes me as the most damning bit of evidence against the Arab position was the punishment of Anwar Sadat for his participation in the Camp David Peace accord.

Assassination was his reward for his role as a man of peace. That was a wake up call to every leader, and IIRC, the Ayatollah was influential in that effort. (Memory fuzzy)

What momentum Jimmy Carter might have built upon after Camp David, or even Ronald Reagan had he been so disposed, was stymied by the message sent to every Arab capital: peacemakers will be assassinated, we know where you live, and we will take you down! King Hussein walked a very fine line for a number of years before he warmed up a bit with Israel and made some progress on his own behalf. You will note that his example has not been followed by many.

Reagan's attempt at intervention in Lebanon, IMO, pretty much guaranteed that any peace overture similar to Carter's would be greeted in the Arab world with a pretty large grain of salt while he was in office. Given that he had Iran to deal with vis a vis the Arab world, he armed some "new friends" against Iran and I think mistook their agreement to that for friendship. It took The Wall coming down, IMO, for Pres Clinton to have a shot, with the threads from the Cold War somewhat withdrawn from the MidEast, at an accord similar to what Carter achieved. He tried, and failed. Just like the Brits in the 1930's.

To keep on trying is, IMO, the only course of action available. For anyone to stop trying would be an immense mistake, unless the status quo is considered acceptable.