From: Monte Davis 

Adam  wrote:

>& then Netenyahu basically killed Oslo by going hell for
>leather building new settlements

Broader and older  than that...

After 1967, Israel could have said (as I think Geo has offered), "'We
whipped your ass, losers lose territory, Gaza & West Bank are now part
of Israel" -- then either (1a) buckle down to full democrfacy/equality
for all within new borders, or (1b) let the ethnic cleansing [however
bloodless] begin. One set of costs & risks, but clear to all parties.

Or they could have patrolled them as (minimally) occupied territories, and
used them purely as bargaining chips for peace treaties over a fairly short
term. Another set of costs & risks, but also clear.

Seems to me that in part for domestic political reasons, they tried to have
it both ways and keep things usefully UNclear... saying to the Arabs and
outside world, "we stand ready to return land for peace," while
encouraging/discouraging/encouraging (but never stopping) settlements to
please their own Greater Israel wingnuts, as well as IDF generals wanting
more strategic depth. Which of course made the "land for peace"
stance less credible year by year, and by now almost certainly a
non-starter for any Israeli government w/r/t much of the West Bank. As a
corollary, year by year the demographic time bomb ticks louder.

Do I "blame" the Palestinian (non-)leadership just as much? Yeah,
in fact more. But as a rule I expect well-armed winners to take chancy
initiatives rather than army-less losers, not because that's "fair
& balanced" but because the former can afford the risk better.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5