That’s totally false. In the 1970s the PLO launched attack after attack on Israel and on Jordan and Lebanon in response to peace efforts.
No its not false at all... During this period Israel was hoping that the problem would just go away, that the Palestinians would be absorbed by Syria, the Lebanon and by Jordan, they refused to negotiate unless it was on their terms and their terms only. Israel only seriously started to negotiate much later when it knew that the problem wouldn't just go way and when it came under intense international pressure to do so. In short, the situation was way different then it is now. In 2002, Saudi - on behalf of the Arab world - presented Israel with a peace plan that would have led to full recognition of Israel and one that would leave in place room for negotiations on Jerusalem and some other issues to be held at a much later date, Israel refused - why?
There is a reason Arafat rejected Oslo and it was not due to the fact that his ultimate aim was the complete destruction of Israel. Whilst negotiations over Oslo were going on Israel was still building settlements, had plans to build more and made a number of promises that were highly ambigious, why?
That’s not true in the slightest. The settlements are no obstacle to peace and have not been so in the 70s, 80s and 90s and certainly aren’t now. The settlements are Israel’s way of pushing the Arabs to peace. It’s the only leverage they have to motivate the Arabs to settle their desire to give up what they don’t have (1948 borders of Israel) and settle on what they can have (Gaza and West Bank).
Somehow, the Arabs who have been forced to vacate their land and who have had their homes demolished to make room for new settlements might not agree with you. And you're saying it's all about leverage? The issue is hugely political in Israel and whichever PM is in power has to tread very carefully because there is a lot of internal support for these settlements. If what you're saying is true - if a peace deal was finalised, then Israel would readily give up all the settlements built on land that has been promised to the Palestinians? And I'm not reffering to places like Jerusalem, Latrun or the roads to Jerusalem, I'm refering to land allocated for a future Palestinian state that is shrinking due to the building of settlements that is meant for everyone except the people who actually currently live there...
Well even Egypt does. While all of them have given up the direct assault option most of the Arab states and certainly the Palestinians and the non Arab Iranians have significant plans to destroy Israel. All of their state propaganda is vicilously anti Jewish and anti Israeli. The Egyptian Army does nothing but plan to fight Israel, Syrian army used to until more immediate worries. Hezbollah, Hamas are all configured to destroy Israel. The Palestinian street is still obsessed with destruction of Israel and think that they can do it.
That's a very pro-Israeli line which I have no problem with except that it's not true at all - I'm neither pro-Arab/Palestinian or pro-Israeli BTW but I firmly believe that justice has to be served to everyone, that both sides are equally to blame and that no one has a monopoly on truth or on suffeting. Egypt for the past few decades has been focusing on regime survival and ensuring that financial aid from the U.S. is not disrupted - 'attacking Israel' is the last thing on its mind. And off course the Egyptian military will have contigency plans to fight Israel, it's part of their job to have such plans in place. Same goes with Syria, under Assad the elder, priority was regime survival, maintaining the status quo in Lebanon [which is why Israel was more than happy when Syria intervened on the side of the Christians against the PLO and other groups] and regaining the Golan. As to groups like Hamas, the reason they do not recognise the state of Israel is because by doing so it gives legitimacy to Israel's continued illegal occupation of land it does not own and even if they do recognise Israel, which Israel should they recognise, one with pre or post 1967 borders and what about Jerusalem which the Israeli's refuse to discuss? The Israeli's however would like us to believe the totally false self-serving narrative that the only reason groups like Hamas [which was at one time courted by Israel as an alternative to the corrupt Fatah] do not officially recognise Israel is because they want to 'destroy' the state of Israel.
Just a friendly reminder not to get too deep into the politics of this situation, folks... I understand it's difficult to discuss without politics, and you're welcome to do so in private, but for the purposes of this thread let's stick to military discussion. I think we can all agree the situation has a myriad of different political factors to be considered, and a long history in which both sides have been active participants, so let's leave it there.
My apologies, I won't say anything more.
