The fact that Foxman can actually get away with making statements like this without being called a total shill for a foreign state is amazing to me. If you're going to pick an envoy who is one-sided in his support for one of the negotiating partners, why even bother negotiating?

Mitchell's a good a choice as any, I suppose - but it needs to be clear that he's going into it with the explicit, full backing of his superiors, so that he can make real promises and agreements. He also needs to be tougher on the Israelis - no more of this dancing-around-the-issue on the West Bank settlements. Mitchell should say, outright, to Israel, "They need to go, and let's try to work out a security arrangement that will protect Israel with them gone."

I must say I thought Barrack Obama was going to pick
Dennis Ross/Martin Indyk to be the Mideast envoy. So i guess George Mitchell is much better, but I don't know much about his stance on this issue.
More importantly I think, is what is going to be our overall policy, do we ignore 2006 elections results in
West Bank/Gaza, and talk to Mahmoud Abbas who sits in an unconstitutional chair who has limited following, and formed an illegitimate government. Or do we deal with a unity government that has legitimacy and the following of the public, that can actually make and enforce agreements.

Stephen in your book you described the Israel lobby as very influential.
So my question to you is do you think that Obama can actually forge a fair peace between Palestine and Israel?
Can Obama be a honest broker and put pressure on Israel like
H.W Bush 41?

I lived in Belfast (back in Hyde Park now) when Mitchell was chairing the negotiations between the Irish republicans and the unionists. He was fair (sorry Abe - this Jew thinks that being "fair" might actually help!), low-key, patient, and cautious.

All in all he did a very good job of:

-- Keeping the participants eyes on the prize;
-- Helping them to forge the sort of relationships that helped move the process forward, if sometimes at a glacial pace;
-- Not in any way appearing to favor one side or the other;.
-- Not hogging the spotlight and taking credit - he always gave the kudos to the participants.

And he did a good job - the negotiations worked and turned into the Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998. And the peace process has matured and is now embedded in Northern Ireland - ten years on nobody has the slightest thought of going back to war. If the Israel/Palestine conflict can be in the same sort of shape as N. Ireland is now in 2019, he will have been a huge success.

And Mitchell is a Clinton person - so much for the notion that Hillary is too biased towards Israel. The fact that both Obama and Hillary can agree on Mitchell is a good sign that everyone will be pulling on the same oar.

@jsinaiko

Good to read a report from one close to the problem. Mitchell is highly regarded in Ireland. Best of luck to him in his new role.

@jsinaiko
Thanks for the heads up from one who was there - "and Jewish."
I understand that Mitchell, now 75, has prostate cancer, which can move in unpredictable directions. If Netenyahu is elected do you think there is any chance that he would consider bailing on the West Bank? Without a civil war?
What kind of ethnic mixture would work to protect Israel's border with a Palestinian-controlled West Bank?

For years, America and its sole democratic ally in the Middle East faced a hostile and intransigent alliance of Arab dictatorships and Soviet military might. Today, outside of Qatar, Kuwait, and perhaps the UAE, most of the Arab countries remain backwater slums — a noxious brew of official repression, human rights violations, misogyny, the persecution of religious minorities, and Islamic social retardation.

If you're going to argue, based on straightforward realpolitik, that the US should sell out Israel in exchange for cheap Arab oil, petrodollars which can be recycled into the ailing economy, and a desire to appease 1.2 billion hostile Muslims, why don't you just drop the pretense and say so instead of waltzing around with the notion of “even-handedness”?

The "even-handed" solution envisaged by Walt and Mearsheimer, the Saudis, the Arab League, and the PA calls for Israel to divide her capital, shrink her width to 9 miles, surrender the high-ground overlooking her population centers, and agree to bisection.

That’s not even-handedness; it’s assisted suicide.

If you're going to argue, based on straightforward realpolitik, that the US should sell out Israel in exchange for cheap Arab oil, petrodollars which can be recycled into the ailing economy, and a desire to appease 1.2 billion hostile Muslims, why don't you just drop the pretense and say so instead of waltzing around with the notion of “even-handedness”?

Very well. I'm willing to break an unprofitable and largely obsolete alliance with a herrenvolk democracy in order to find a new strategic arrangement that puts us on better terms with both the Arab states and the Arab populations in that neck of the woods.

By the way, that would be even-handedness, since we'd be treating the Israelis just like we'd be treating the Arab states - as a regional contender with its own set of issues. That's what bothers Foxman and his ilk; they don't want Israel to be treated like any other state in that region. They want it to be special, for the US to continue showering money and arms buyback deals for . . . what, again?

What exactly does Israel bring to the table for the US in that region? They don't even have the excuse of standing against the Soviets anymore, who were backing some of Israel's neighboring Arab states. They were of little help in both Gulf Wars, and they could actively plunge the entire region into war if they ever get hold of bombers and/or refueling aircraft with long enough range to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

The "even-handed" solution envisaged by Walt and Mearsheimer, the Saudis, the Arab League, and the PA calls for Israel to divide her capital,

Please. Israel never had the right to all of Jerusalem in the original UN partition, and they could easily move the Knesset back to Tel Aviv, where most of the embassies are (and where the Israeli government was seated until after 1967).

shrink her width to 9 miles,

At the narrowest point. Of course, that fear is pretty close to meaningless when you consider that Israel has nukes - any state whose army gets in a position to seriously threaten to bisect the country is going to get plastered.

surrender the high-ground overlooking her population centers,

They survived up until 1967 that way, and in any case, they still have much superior firepower - if the Palestinians start lobbying rockets from their new statelet, they get glassed.

and agree to bisection.

At no point would Israel be "bisected", unless you are talking about the possible trade of a land corridor to connect Gaza to the West Bank. Even then, they could run it through the southernmost part of the Negev, which is mostly worthless desert anyways.

Or perhaps you are talking about Israel losing its right to the West Bank.

Apparently, some of your readers think "fairness" is giving an aggressor who made war on israel repeatedly half of what he wants but could not get by conquest.

There is a big difference between some irredentist terrorists in Northern Ireland and a vast array of Arab nations determined to destroy Israel by war, or failing that, by salami tactics, using the non-Israeli Palestinians as a proxy. There is enormous evidence of this, from actions at the UN to squalid refugee camps in Arab countries and (from the Arab war legacy) in the West Bank and Gaza, to refused resettlement by Arab states.

The Republic of Ireland was a normal state with normal relations with Great Britain during most of the recent pre-Mitchell conflict in Northern Ireland. The same cannot be said for most Arab countries with respect to Israel. A first step for any "fair" settlement, and indeed evidence of bona fides must he such normal relations between at least Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Israel, not even a "cold peace" along the Jordanian and Egyptian model. Only then can work on the Palestinian track have the possibility of success.

The Irish are a post-renaissance people who can be trusted to accept a stable and fair peace. The Arabs are not. That is not racism, but historical fact: a core value of Islam is the temporary truce to build strength until one can defeat "the enemy". It is called Hudna, or lately Tadiyya. It was taught and practiced by Mohammed and is alive and well in Inter-Arab politics to this day, not just with respect to the Jews and Arabs (for that is at the core of the issue and goes well back before modern Israel) but also between Arabs and themselves. Any notion that a negotiated "peace" can be stable is sheer fantasy and flies in the face of regional history, ancient AND modern.

Finally, since the Arabs chose war over peace repeatedly rather than accept the UN partition, that deal is now permanently off the table. Appeal to it as a territorial basis for peace is just more salami tactics seeking to destroy Israel. Israel already suicidally tried pulling out of Gaza in the past, and we all saw the results, ranging from destruction of valuable infrastructure because it once was Jewish, to ethnic cleansing of Gaza, to terror bombings and missile attacks. Third country and UN forces proved a cynical joke which failed to make a dent in such belligerence.

I turn now to the "Palestinians". They tried to overthrow the government of Kuwait and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Lebanon and got kicked out. Such character clearly has little to do with Israel. It is long past time when the democratic world takes its head out of the sand and sees this. Such an international pariah entity can only be dealt with by quarantine or distribution, not statehood.

Of course there is the humanitarian problem. Nevertheless, the Allies did not send food and medicine to the Nazis during the belligerent period of World War II, nor later to Northern Korea or Northern Vietnam, and we should not do so in this case. As another has suggested, the Arab prison camps should be taken away from the UN agency giving permanent handouts, and transferred to the UN agency responsible for cooperative peaceful resettlement of refugees in countries willing to accept them. And the real refugees are those in camps, not those already resettled and their descendants.

It may be pointed out that no country will accept any significant number, given their belligerent history. With the vast territories of Arab countries, if this should prove to be so, it will put paid to much anti-Israel propaganda. We can then consider the creation of a "safe space" elsewhere there is available land. Many have called for resettlement of Israelis out of the Middle East, Although that is a nonsense, given the success they have made of their country, if it is credible for Israelis, it is credible (and far more hopeful) for "Palestinians:.

David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles

Duplicate posting deleted by author.

Respectfully: the non-Jewish population of multi-cultural Palestine was, in effect, criminalized by the system that made Jewish identity normative after 1948.

Non-Jews' resistance to losing their citizenship, homes and rights was turned into a mass criminal offense.

Hundreds of thousands have been incarcerated, tortured and have died in the wars and occupation that followed.

Non-Jews are not even allowed to convert to Judaism to save their lives, property and children.

Like race was decriminalized in South Africa, religion must be decriminalized in the Middle East.

Let's stop policing the ethnicity and religion of these human beings, and let them live in equality.

The people of Palestine were moderate, secular Christians and Muslims before this violent tragedy came upon them, causing the radicalism we see today.

If American supporters prevent normalcy and a secular state from coming to the region, they will be responsible for the additional terrible loss of life that will come at the end of this tragic experiment.

People like Professor Walt see the folly and the self-destruction of Israel, and are trying to save the lives of all people concerned. Some state models are just a perpetual motion machine of injustice-driven conflict.

It is the Arabs who have criminalized religion in many areas under their control. It is tantamount to ethnic cleansing. In contrast, there are many mosques, churches, cathedrals, and other non-Jewish holy places in Israel having (pace internal security in a few rare hot spots, mostly El Aksa) freedom of access and worship. Arabs are Israeli citizens in enormous numbers, and recently the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that hostile Arab political parties could not be decertified because of their ideology.

It is the Arabs who have deliberately destroyed many non-militarized holy places of others, and not vice-versa.

This is another of the thousands of cases of anti-Israel propagandists (however educated of language and expression) seeing the mote in their own eye and projecting it on the Israelis.

Congratulations to Foreign Policy for giving Prof, Walt both a platform and a blog, despite M&W'S hysterical claims of a so-called "Israel Lobby" suppressing dissent. Refutation is not suppression.

Let's hear no more of such pandering to demonization, however couched in academic terms; let's instead deal with facts on the ground, history, and substance,

Further, though M&W's logic is, I think, sometimes specious and their selective reading of history and national interest sometimes at least arguable, they have, as far as I know, always followed the rules of civilized discourse, for which they are to be commended.

Every1 thinks this conflict started in 1947 but it didnt it actually started at the turn of the 20h century. When the early zionists wanted to establish a home for the jews they quickly realized that there was a large arab population and virtually an irrelevant amount of jews in the area. So in public they used the slogn a land without a people fora people without a land. One of israel zangwill's popular sayings. But in private they understood that the land was populated so their first strategy was to go over the head of the native population and aly themselves with the imperial power at the time and try to etablish a homeland. They did this at the start by buying land and employing only jewish labor in the hopes that this will force the peasant population to migrate out of palestine. After a while they realized that this necesarily wont work either especially after the riots around the 1920's. ben gurion himself privately admitted that there is no solution to the arab problem because there is no way to reconcile zionism the belief that jews are entitled to that land when it was predominantly arab for over a millenium. So in public they would talk about co-existence but in private they would talk about ways to transfer the local population voluntarily or by some other means. They realized that the native population would never agree to allow themselves to become the minority in their homeland and they wouldn't agree to transer themselves out of the area. i dont knnow any native population that wouldnt resist. it as always the zionist goals to have a state over all of Palestine this was explicitly stated at the Biltmore conference in 1942. In 1947 there was a partition to divide the country 56percent going to the jewish state when they were only about 33 percnt of the population and owned about 7 percent of the land. While the arabs got about 44 percent and owned teh vast majority of the land and had about 67 percent of the population. Even then the zionists only accepted the partiton as a tactical move because it was unworkable it had a population of 44 percent that was arab.

There is enormous evidence of this, from actions at the UN to squalid refugee camps in Arab countries and (from the Arab war legacy) in the West Bank and Gaza, to refused resettlement by Arab states.

Yes, because there couldn't possibly be other reasons why the surrounding Arab states would hesitate to integrate large groups of desperately poor refugees. Jordan from the 1970s, which had to deal with a revolt by said Palestinians, would be very interested to hear this argument.

Tell me, if Mexico collapses into a failed state (I don't think it will, but what the hell - it's a hypothetical), is the US in the wrong if it doesn't do everything possible to integrate the no-doubt enormous masses of migrants heading north over the border?

The Arabs are not. That is not racism, but historical fact: a core value of Islam is the temporary truce to build strength until one can defeat "the enemy". It is called Hudna, or lately Tadiyya.

I was waiting for the Islamic essentialists to pop out of the woodwork. Tell me, if this is the case, then why do the governments of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which are overwhelmingly muslim (and the former led by a muslim head of state and head of an Islamic party) have a long-term peace with Israel? And don't try to weasel out of this by saying "Well, their governments aren't Islamic enough!"; you made a point about how this supposedly applies to all Arabs (and yes, I know that the Turks aren't Arabs, but they are very much a part of the region).

Any notion that a negotiated "peace" can be stable is sheer fantasy and flies in the face of regional history, ancient AND modern.

Egypt and Jordan, both of which negotiated said peaces with Israel in the twentieth century, would be very surprised to hear that (and none of that bullshit about how they are "cold peaces" - many peaces are as such, and the exchange of money has been part of peace treaties going back into ancient history).

Israel already suicidally tried pulling out of Gaza in the past, and we all saw the results, ranging from destruction of valuable infrastructure because it once was Jewish, to ethnic cleansing of Gaza, to terror bombings and missile attacks.

If by "pulling out of the past" you mean embargoing all but the bare minimum humanitarian supplies to keep the population of Gaza from starving to death, and that after undermining the elected Palestinian government. Considering that the Gazans (and Hamas) were in a corner, is it really a surprise that they were willing to start up a fight again with Israel?

Such character clearly has little to do with Israel.

Aside from the fact that they and their parents were kicked out of Mandatory Palestine proper, right?

transferred to the UN agency responsible for cooperative peaceful resettlement of refugees in countries willing to accept them.

Generally speaking, the refugees have to agree to be settled, unless you want to starve them out (which is a good way for Israel to alienate everyone, including its patron). And who is willing to put up the money and other resources necessary to integrate a large number of poor refugees into surrounding countries, and why, honestly, would they want to do it? So Israel can have the comfort of never having to do anything for them?

We can then consider the creation of a "safe space" elsewhere there is available land.

You mean aside from Israel, right? I don't see why the whole world should bend over backward just so Israel doesn't have to make any compromises regarding the Palestinian refugees. Part of that is very much their problem, and they owe part of the solution.

You know, I would have a lot more respect for pro-Israel arguers if they just came out and said that they want to more or less ethnically cleanse the remainder of the Palestinians from "Eretz Yisrael". I'd be somewhat concerned with their brutality, but nation-building is a bloody business.

Arabs are Israeli citizens in enormous numbers,

Second-class citizens. The fact that they are better off materially than their counterparts doesn't change that, anymore than pointing out that blacks in Segregated America were better off materially than black Africans somehow invalidates the immorality of said discrimination.

Of course, what really causes the Israeli government to shit itself is the prospect that those Palestinians will one day decide that fighting for a separate Palestine is meaningless and impossible, and instead decide to fight a South Africa-style struggle to get full and equal rights for all the Palestinians over all of the territory that Israel currently controls.

In 1947 there was a partition to divide the country 56percent going to the jewish state when they were only about 33 percnt of the population and owned about 7 percent of the land.

And then, once the dust settled after the war following Israel's declaration of independence, they were sitting on 78% of the territory. I don't blame them for taking it (it was a war, after all, and even though the partition shafted the Palestinians), but they need to understand that this has bearing on any type of Two-State discussion.

Israel's problems are self-created. There are lots of other nations that are not defendable. The czech republic, for example. Their land is flat, it's perfect for mobile warfare. What's the chance that the czechs will ever have more tanks than the next big invader?

Your analogy is risible. The Czech republic is not surrounded by twenty hostile nations with a combined population of 350 million people, most of whom are ideologically and fundamentally opposed to a non-Islamic sovereign and whipped into a frenzy on a steady diet of the most vile Naziesque propaganda one could imagine.

Why should we pay for your forever war?

The US currently provides in the vicinity of $2.4 billion/year in military aid to Israel. There are strict restrictions on this money in that most of it must be spent with American defense contractors. Thus, the aid directly benefits the employees and shareholders of these firms as well the US economy in terms of increased GDP. Additionally, much of the acquired technology is re-engineered, improved and shared with the US military.

Also, with the single-minded and obsessive hatred of Israel permeating on sites like this one, you may not have noticed that the US government has been funding and selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to nations around the world for years.

hus, the aid directly benefits the employees and shareholders of these firms as well the US economy in terms of increased GDP. Additionally, much of the acquired technology is re-engineered, improved and shared with the US military.

At what political cost? You're evading the question.

Also, with the single-minded and obsessive hatred of Israel permeating on sites like this one, you may not have noticed that the US government has been funding and selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to nations around the world for years.

We don't generally give them away without some serious expected returns, which is what the buybacks amount to with regards to the aid (and the military aid isn't the only kind - the US also gives aid in the form of low-interest loans under which, as J Thomas pointed out in an earlier thread, Israel isn't under any real obligation to pay back on time).

We especially don't generally give them away when it works to sour our relations with most of the surrounding countries, many of whom are sitting on important energy assets that the US economy depends on. Or are you forgetting the other ramification of the 1973 War, when the Arab World got an OPEC embargo placed on the United States?

If you re-read my posts above carefully, you'll see that it is precisely my point that Israel cannot and should not have to rely on nuclear weapons for her survival. This is truly a lose-lose-lose scenario for Israel, the Arabs, and the US. (Also see my post "You're getting warmer" just above).

The USA would be better off distanced from this issue.

I generally couple my argument for reducing American patronage of Israel with a greater argument about disengaging from the entire region, and taking foreign and domestic actions (like acting to reduce oil consumption at home) to ensure that. In this case, I think I got sucked in to arguing that detaching from Israel would somehow make our access to Arab energy resources better by improving our relations with said states, but my usual stance (and I'll return to it, here) is that we should get into a situation where reliance and connection to the Middle East in general (Arab or otherwise) is minimized.

let's be clear that we are not going to use military force to either spread nor protect "democracy" abroad. (remember what kind of trouble we got us in for doing just that very recently.)

As for if Israel’s interests equal US interests: for those who claim to know history so well, what’s our diplomats’ position on the very creation of Israel? I shall not argue right or wrong but the historical consensus is here, Truman's decision to recognize Israel is “opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment“ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html).

Now, who were more likely to think in terms of US national interests, Truman or Marshall (with his group of professionals)? And who was more likely to think like a politician :)?

if you have not read, read, very interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html

It's an interesting historical "what if?" to consider what might have happened if the UN Partition Plan hadn't gone through. My guess is that Ben-Gurion and his supporters probably would have declared an independent state of Israel anyways, and then tried to carve out a state from Mandatory Palestine. No idea on how recognition of this would have gone from the US and USSR, or how the boundaries would have ultimately ended up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html

last comment in response to Holbooke's above linked article re israel's birth.

wtb3w wrote:
After 60 years the U.S. State Department is still anti-Israel. This is really too bad because the promises voiced by God in Genesis 12:3 are everlasting. They have no time limit. With that in mind do you really want to be on the wrong side by going against God?
5/9/2008 1:35:50 PM

telling, uh,

The original quip by Mr. Walt was simplistic, but the debate that has grown around it is informative. But for all the history and hypotheticals, one fact remains. Israel's enemies publicly vow to destroy her, and show no shame about the lengths they will go to achieve this. This notion that what is lacking is "fairness" or that we needn't be Israel's lawyer in peace negotiations reveals a willful abandonment about the moral condition of the issue. This relativistic approach is exactly why the State Department is held in such low esteem by so many - it insists that stability is worth all the murder and mayhem that may accompany it. Palestinian culture is macabre celebration of death and hatred - recognizing that doesn't make you a Jew-lover, it signals that you know the difference between peace and hudna.

I haven't lost hope that peace may one day be possible, but I've lost a lot of respect for the Leftist perspective that permeates the State department and many of the authors featured on this site.

Yes, because there couldn't possibly be other reasons why the surrounding Arab states would hesitate to integrate large groups of desperately poor refugees. Jordan from the 1970s, which had to deal with a revolt by said Palestinians, would be very interested to hear this argument.
Tell me, if Mexico collapses into a failed state (I don't think it will, but what the hell - it's a hypothetical), is the US in the wrong if it doesn't do everything possible to integrate the no-doubt enormous masses of migrants heading north over the border?

The difference is that the Arab refugees were caused by the Arab states making war on Israel and thus they are culpable; if Mexico collapses it will not be because the US attacks them.

I was waiting for the Islamic essentialists to pop out of the woodwork. Tell me, if this is the case, then why do the governments of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, all of which are overwhelmingly muslim (and the former led by a muslim head of state and head of an Islamic party) have a long-term peace with Israel?

Because they are neither theocracies nor despotic dictatorships

Egypt and Jordan, both of which negotiated said peaces with Israel in the twentieth century, would be very surprised to hear that (and none of that bullshit about how they are "cold peaces" - many peaces are as such, and the exchange of money has been part of peace treaties going back into ancient history).

Tsk, tsk, "bullshit"? Actually the answer is the same as that just above.

Considering that the Gazans (and Hamas) were in a corner, is it really a surprise that they were willing to start up a fight again with Israel?

There are plenty of people "in a corner" who don't seek to get out by making war on their neighbors. Here's a novel idea: ending one's avowed aim of destroying that neighbor and making peace.

(well, you get the idea; little point further analysis of that post.)

Hasn't anyone here read the Hamas Charter? ( http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm )

Israel is supposed to trust them?

Why?

In other words, you wanted Hamas to basically take everything the Israelis threw at them (including a refusal to lift the blockade in exchange for extending the ceasefire), and then beg for peace (peace which Israel has no intention of giving, since it views Hamas as a terrorist organization and targeted its leadership in spite of the ceasefire). It would have been political suicide for them - which is what Israel wanted, of course.

You are living in a dream world. Hamas' aim is, and always was to destroy Israel. Their charter says so; their public speeches say so; their actions say so. They are not some innocent bystander against whom Israel threw the first stone. You cannot start from the middle and ignore the past. If Hamas had stopped rocketing innocent civilians and behaved like a "normal" administration, Israel would not need to close crossing points in response to rocket attacks, nor to defensively, or preemptively destroy weapons used against them.

Hamas cannot do this; their charter calls for destruction of Israel, not peace. No amount of fancy dancing and hand waving can conceal this. Even senior EU officials, normally being very uh, er, um, forgiving of Arab irredentism, now say the responsibility for the destruction in Gaza and the civilian deaths lies squarely on Hamas.

Your time would be far better spent addressing some of the intractable conflicts, for example:

How to find justice for both Jewish and Arab refugees of the mideast conflict (both lost property--the Jews in Arab States and the Arabs in Palestine), while preserving Israel's character as the single, tiny Jewish State in a sea of Arab and Islamic States?

How to provide Arab access to their holy places while protecting Jewish holy places; the Arab track record when they controlled East Jerusalem does not suggest respect for, access to, or safety of Jewish holy places?

How to insure that any settlement is not just an opportunity for the Arabs to rearm and prepare for another war?

How to provide guaranteed separation of forces; past third country and UN forces have shown to be a paper tiger that vanishes at the first sign of Arab belligerence?

How to deal with both the West Bank and Gaza as territory without cutting Israel almost in half strategically, and making it indefensible?

How to create economic linkages between Arab States and Israel for mutual benefit, while overcoming deeply rooted opposition in the Arab States to such progress?

How to reclaim a generation of Palestinians that has been taught hate and martyrdom in school, in textbooks, and in public discourse?

There are many more issues; they cannot be solved by "demands" or taking only one party's maximum desires as a strategy; there is much work to be done and one-sided polemics, defensiveness, and resorting to fault, blame, and historical hatreds do not forward the action,