CuriousJockAZ saidIsrael is ready and willing to make concessions and compromises. The question is -- are the Palestinians?
Israel, and the Jewish Agency before it, have been open to compromise long before the 1947 UN partition compromse (which was violently rejected by the Arab parties).
Prof. Benny Morris points out:
It is worth noting, at this point, a major asymmetry in the evolution of the Jewish national movement and the Palestinian national movement. The Zionists, too, at first sought sovereignty over the whole of the land. As one early Zionist, Ze'ev Dubnow, put it in October 1882, the first year of Zionist settlement in Palestine: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland." But over the decades the Zionists came to recognize that the land was inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Arabs who devised their own collective identity and began to resist the Jewish influx. Following the start of the Arab Revolt, the Zionist movement formally accepted--in 1937, in response to the Peel Commission recommendations--the principle of partition, meaning a division of Palestine between its two communities. And in 1947, the movement accepted both the principle of partition and the specific United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which, positing the establishment of two states, awarded the Zionists some 55 percent of Palestine (most of it in the Negev desert) and the Palestinian Arabs some 40 percent.
The shift in Zionist ideology from an ideologically pristine demand for all of Palestine to a sober acceptance of partition was not paralleled in the development of the Palestinian national movement. This asymmetry has underpinned the conflict since the 1930s.
After the 1948 war, the Arab League issued its infamous "3 NOs": No negotiations, No recognition, No peace.
This was repeated after the 1956 war despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal.
After the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula). The Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, reiterated their 3 NOs.
After another failed Arab war in 1973, Israel was under the leadership of its most right-wing government. Yet when Anwar Sadat said he'd journey to Jerusalem, he found a ready, willing and able partner in Menachem Begin. No other Arab party would accept President Carter's invitation to Camp David. For making peace, Sadat would be assassinated and Egypt - the largest Arab country - expelled from the Arab League.
It took the 1990 Gulf War and Arafat backing Saddam (thus alienating his Gulf sponsors) to get the PLO to renounce violence and terrorism (for the first of many times). Israel, under the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir, in short order came to Madrid to launch what became known as the Oslo Peace Process.
This led to Camp David 2000 and Taba, at which Israel agreed to:
* An independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories.
* Contiguous in Jordan's former "West Bank" and Gaza.
* Including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
* With shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
* A so-called "right of return" to then nascent state.
* With a $30 Billion fund to compensate/resettle the Arab refugees and descendents.
Arafat rejected this without so much as a counter-offer (leading some to falsely state it was a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer).
Or, rather, his counter-offer was re-turning to his old friends of violence and terrorism.
Here we are, 10 years later.
Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs on RJ (or their anti-Israel supporters) can finally answer the question:
On what can the Arabs compromise?