Given the treatment the members of the various Abrahamic faith's have given each other over history, I'm not sure if that is an inducement, flowery euphemism for a mortal threat, or something somewhere in between.
Quite a non-realistic view of history and people's behavior. People will do bad things regardless of (and in-spite of) religion, and we have seen it (WWI/II, the massacres of the Uyghurs, the Holocaust, etc.). Humans are bloody creatures after all.
And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank?
Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of consequences.
No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any form of civilized law.
Plenty of Israelis would happily vote to trade some or all of those regions for stable alliances with their neighbors.
After the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, that dream was never going to happen though.
Israelis largely care about national security. If you could assure them that giving up those regions would guarantee peace, you would win an election.
Eh. Are you sure you thought this through? There are about 800 thousand Israelis living in occupied and annexed territories. That's 10% of the country. Do you think they would vote to leave their homes? That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?
Come on, let's not kid ourselves: land is monstrously valuable, Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation. You're pretending it's indifferent, that Israelis just want peace. But for the meanwhile they'll just keep getting more free land, thank you very much.
70% would. Government would.
>Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation.
Some israelis. Most just pay for it, not getting anything in return.
> 70% would. Government would.
Please. Stop and think. There are countries who had their youth decimated in atrocious wars to conquer portions of new territory proportionally smaller then the one Israel is occupying almost without damage.
This cavalier attitude you're showing is part of the self deception of Israelis in regards to the occupation. They keep building cities in land that doesn't belong to them, but refuse to admit they're actually reaping any benefit. That the country is becoming substantially larger and more spacious. That there is space- or there will be some time in the future- for more industries, more fields, more suburbs, more people to come and live in Israel- the people Israeli leaders keep inviting to move from France, from the UK, from the US.
But of course this would be an admissions that Israel is reaping some unjust benefit. That it might want peace, but it also wants to keep what it gained. That peace is a negative, because it implies an end to the progression of appropriations.
> We can go on creating a great country for the Israeli Arabs, Jews, Druze and Christians
So you're arguing for the one-state solution. You do realize that that means the end of the nature of Israel as a "Jewish state" (definition that was just sanctioned in the law), and that a democracy in which half of the citizens are Palestinians is going to fundamentally change the nature of the country?
Wait, are you saying that they would not vote for Israel's government?
And how would this "autonomy" be different from full sovereignty? And in case it were different, to which superior body would this autonomy be subjected? And who would have democratic control of this superior body?
Because if the answers are respectively 'different', 'Israel' and '(current) Israeli citizens', then what you're talking about is proper, institutionalized apartheid.
The situation now is that vast parts of the West Bank are ultimately under Israel's control- Israel can decide to appropriate portions of land and build on it, build infrastructure for the exclusive use of settlers, and deploys the army to protect Israeli squatters from Palestinians trying to retrieve their possessions. Of course the settlers are allowed to vote for Israel's government, while the non-Israeli Palestinians living all around them have no rights and cannot vote for the government that has these powers on their land. This is de facto apartheid.
You're saying that this is "not far from" the ideal solution for you, and you'd be happy to turn it into apartheid de jure?
This problem can be easily solved: let everybody out, don't let anybody in, don't let them vote (as it happens with Israelis living in other countries). We did it twice: Sinai peninsula and Gaza Strip, we can do it again.
But this is very small problem. The real one is return of 2-5 millions of Palestinian refugees. Integrating them into Israel society would take time and effort.
Is it that surprising that a tour guide is just an ordinary person who may have some bad opinions?
https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/ethiopian-jews-once-hai...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32813056
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/07/why-ethiopian-jews-israe...