Not after the 1973 Egyptian attempt to liberate its territory from illegal Israeli occupation. After that close call ( initially ) Israeli leaders decided it would be beneficial to Israel to strike a peace agreement with Egypt and take them , the most powerful enemy of the group , out of the equation for good.
That goes both ways. Egyptian leaders finally decided that it would be beneficial to Egypt to make peace with Israel.
But regardless, the settlements were no barrier to peace. When Israel reached a decision to give up land, they removed their settlements from the land.
Once again the Israeli leaders decided the move would be beneficial to Israel but for the completely opposite reason than has been running through this thread, namely to strike a peace deal/two state solution to the problem with the Palestinians. Well if you are to believe the words of one of the senior advisors to Sharon , Dov Weissglass
Not opposite at all. It is true that it was an attempt to resolve the issue without negotiating with the Palestinians, and that Israel hoped to get a better outcome for themselves by deciding the issue unilaterally. But Israel was still trying to make peace with the Palestinians by providing the Palestinians with land of their own.
And Israel still withdrew settlements from land that they handed over, which shows that settlements are no impediment to handing over land.
In my opinion , which is supported by many well known International organisations , all of the settlements built on territory acquired after the 1967 war are illegal and thus if even one is allowed to remain after any would be agreement it would in fact be a concession by the Palestinian side.
The settlements are no more illegal than the Palestinians' refusal to make peace with Israel.
As for keeping settlements after an agreement, there would be land swaps involved. Israel and the Palestinians would essentially trade land.
I'm suggesting that Israeli leaderships, past and present , have with regards to the Palestinians chosen land acquisition over any prospect of peace with them.
Israel's repeated offers to return to 1967 borders show that that is untrue.
Finkelstein , for me , encapsulates the situation accurately when he states .......... " There never has been a peace process, but rather an annexation process that used the “peace process” as a facade ".
By denying Israel's past peace offers, he makes peace more unlikely. Why would Israel bother to try making peace one more time when they know that the only thing they will get for their trouble is Finkelstein telling the world that they didn't actually try to make peace?
Kind of like Lucy asking Charlie Brown to kick the football one more time. Why bother?
People need to understand what is considered a " favourable agreement " for the Palestinians by Israel and then check out what international law states.
Shlomo Ben Ami , one of the chief Israeli negotiators during Oslo is on record as stating that had he been negotiating for the Palestinian side he would not have accepted the terms of the agreement. I respect that kind of honesty .This was , and still is , sited as a great deal that the Palestinians missed out on. But one of the chief Israeli negotiators was honest enough to tell us why he wouldn't have accepted it. Says it all really.
The agreement wasn't too bad.
But if the Palestinians had wanted to negotiate for an even better deal, that would have been fine.
But instead of negotiating, Arafat had terrorists start making horrendous attacks on Israel until Ehud Barak's government fell and that was the end of negotiations for a good long time.
Years later, instead of continuing to negotiate, Abbas simply stopped negotiating and started playing mind games with the peace process. Mind games that continue to this day.
Mind games that include this report condemning Israel, although I remain confident that the criticism will be confined to empty words and not offer any meaningful harm to Israel.