@Avi The reason there isn't a Palestinian state is because the Palestinians don't want one No, actually, they try to get recognized and Israel is opposed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Of course, a peace agreement comes with a lot of strings other than being recognized as a state, such as a final settlement of border disputes, and one would really have to look at the whole package to decide whether Palestinian leadership was unreasonable to reject the proposal.

@user189035 AFAICT, the source PDF for that image does not explain how the "selected producers" shown are chosen, but I'll change the text because the point is the U.S. is no longer very dependent on foreign import of oil, which is not directly related to the ranking.

@Avi Well, for one thing, Olmert refused to give his counterpart a copy of the map he was proposing. Abbas had to draw the map from memory to show it to the rest of the Palestinian leadership. Seriously, that's not how you bring people to the negotiating table. And when Abbas drew the map from memory, he didn't remember the right figures for land swaps - he hadn't even been given a copy of the figures for land swaps. Why would anyone sign something they haven't been given a copy of - the Israelis could even have changed the map and told Abbas the next day "this is what you signed".

@Avi There was a drawn map, we don't know how detailed, that Olmert had but wouldn't give Abbas a copy - Olmert himself said this in his memoirs: nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html. So that's a bizarre start to negotiations by any standard, I mean say it wasn't a high quality CAD drawing and just a hand sketch, but how could they not have at least a photocopy for the other party? As to the content I can hardly speak for the Palestinians but the objections that they had are outlined in the nytimes article I linked above.

I am saddened by this poor quality, speculative, biased answer that does not cite much.... especially not relevant legal doctrines. -1.

@Shai Please, we're not talking about 586 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and exiled the Jews to Babylon. We're talking about the modern day conflict between Israel and Palestinians.

@DavidGrinberg Well answers are editable on SE, I am 100% in favor of the addition of citations if someone wants to do the work; personally I think the facts are virtually indisputable. And regarding "relevant legal doctrines" that just has to be a prank - international law carries little to no weight in politics. I mean look at the structure of the UN - how exactly were the permanent members of the "security council" chosen? There's no secret about it - they're the biggest badasses militarily, all with thermonuclear weapon capability. To speak of justice in international affairs is a joke.

@DepressedDaniel it's your answer... You failed to do required work for it. If you want me to find citations for you then I can cite several books worth of citations that dispute your "Indisputable" facts. And if you don't believe in the internationally recognized (including by Israel and the PA) law that literally setup large swaths of the scenario we are in today then you are being willfully blind of crucial data.

@DavidGrinberg I fully welcome your dissent and I encourage you to post your cites that you claim contradict my facts.

@DepressedDaniel (1) you have very few facts here, its mostly just speculation since you have almost no citations. This is your core issue. (2) lets just pick off some easy ones.... Israel is against it because recognition of Palestine would require fixing some borders except Israel has on multiple previous occasions offered to "fix" the borders. You can easily argue the big issue is that Palestine is making gestures counter to the peace process. backed Israel in order to maintain some control over the region Or maybe because Israel... (ctd)

(ctd)...is the only middle east democracy. Ultimately, U.S. support for Israel is on the decline Trump seems to disagree. Well, the Palestinians were there first, and they were kicked out and marginalized by Israel so they hate that and fought back That is so laughably biased and poorly written its not even woth a repsonse. You just tried and failed to consolidate the entire middle easy situation into a single line... and again didnt even try to cite anything.

I want to add that your answer is not inherently wrong, you do make some points that can be good, but without anything backing them they are just your own personal speculation and tantamount to a downvote worthy answer.

I'm heading off to bed in a few so if you post something now Ill try to response tomorrow.

"except Israel has on multiple previous occasions offered to "fix" the borders" from this Wikipedia paragraph you linked "Israel insisted on retaining an armed presence in the future Palestinian state". How can anyone demand an armed presence in another state with a straight face? This is the exact opposite of fixing the borders - they wanted a one-sided border that applies to the Palestinians but not to Israel; i.e., no virtually change from the status quo.

Next you linked a long speech of Netanyahu's and it's not clear what you are trying to demonstrate with it. From you link about Trump disagreeing, the cite links in Wikipedia dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/03/21/… indicate that Trump suggested Israel should pay for U.S. defense. Not going to happen of course but also entirely not clear that Trump wants to continue Obama levels of aid to Israel.

AIPAC of course stands for America's Pro Israel Lobby so I'm not even going address the content of that link, there is obvious bias that is not even being hidden but rather admitted by the organization authoring it

So don't fall for the straw man here. I'm not necessarily saying that your points are wrong and my points are right (though I do believe that in most cases). What I'm showing here is that you failed to cite the majority of your points under the guise of "indisputable facts." I just disputed all of your "facts" (actually you just had speculation) in less than 5 minutes of research.

This is why your answer as it currently stands is crap. Your personal opinions is no better than a random biased source I wrote

So, for example, yes AIPAC will have an Israel bias

And?

That doesn

't mean they dont have valid points

For example I only used them to cite that Israel is the only middle east democracy

Do you dispute that? If so you better cite some other source that say another middle east nation is a democracy

Otherwise your response wont have much value

@DavidGrinberg: Thanks for the invite, but I'm not interested (anymore) in the discussion. I tried to stay objective and moderate on this particular subject. Both parties usually have such extreme views that they usually think I'm an extremist from the other side.

@DavidGrinberg Well I think the difference between AIPAC and me is that I'm not obviously biased. I'm not Jewish nor Arab and I don't have any beef with either side. And finally, reasons are not facts. Facts then to support a certain reason for doing something but inferring a reason can only be done circumstantially - parties can, and frequently do, hide their actual motives for doing something under a curtain of idealism

So when you were talking about disputing my facts, I though you meant disputing that Israel is a military ally of the U.S., that the middle east region is volatile and needed to be controlled while the U.S. was dependent on foreign oil, all those other hard facts in my answer that you ignored

@DepressedDaniel Everyone is biased. You are biased. I am biased. AIPAC is biased. It doesn't matter if you are Jewish, Arab, or believe in the flying spaghetti monster. That is why the only good arguments are the ones that are sourced by multiple citations. This is what I'm trying to convince you of. This is why your answer was lacking and I downvoted it.

As for facts... again, you had very few facts. Ill grant you that Israel is a military ally of the US. I wont grant you your point about middle east oil. At best its a gross oversimplificaiton.