Punished UMN wrote:1) For negotiations to be serious, the Israelis would have to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Palestinians, doing so would acknowledge that the Palestinians have sovereignty and therefore that the Israeli position on the borders is illegal. If the Israelis don't acknowledge the sovereignty of the Palestinians, the PA has zero legal right to make binding decisions on behalf of the Palestinians as a nation. The Israeli desire to both not acknowledge the Palestinian Authority as a sovereign entity, and to negotiate with them, is an irreconcilable difference. Palestinian sovereignty can't be used as a bargaining chip for good-faith negotiations.
Palestinian sovereignty was acknowledged to some extent in the Oslo Accords. The disagreements, slated to be addressed in future negotiations, revolved around where that sovereignty was applicable because, as has been stated, the territorial extent of Palestine remains in question and has not been formalized by a bilateral treaty. UN Resolutions state that the territorial extent of Palestine is at the 1967 borders, but not even the Palestinians accepted that at the time the resolution passed (they view it as the starting place for negotiations where they'd likely demand even more) and the Israelis have very few practical reasons to accept that at the moment given de facto borders haven't been that for over forty years.
Punished UMN wrote:2) Invading foreign countries is indeed a guarantee of security, that doesn't make it legal or right. This is a double-standard which you're willing to give in the Israelis' favor but not that of any other country.
I'm absolutely willing to extend that standard to other countries in the absence of a viable peace process. I don't even begrudge the Palestinians for engaging in a protracted insurgency given the peace process has failed. The issue is that they're losing that insurgency in the long-term as they lose more and more territory to the settlement policy. Had they come to the negotiating table at any point before now, most of the West Bank would be Palestine. Had they done it before 1967, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza would all be Palestine - without lingering disagreements. Beyond that, as stated, I don't support Israel's settlement policy. I think it's immoral. But I do see the utility in it.