I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) in the region. Israel has previously made big concessions for diplomacy, like giving up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty.

Perhaps Israelis differ significantly in their perception of neighboring cultures, just like Americans differ greatly in their perception of Latin American immigrants?

You know, I may not remember all the pertinent details. It may have had something to do with going into a particular location? Would going into a synagogue or something with a head scarf be abnormal? The anecdote was mentioned though in the context of the generally tense relations and hostilities that he was arguing still plagued the region. He was a history professor with I think a relatively pro-Israel stance.

> Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace)

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.

Your question seems to be

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.

> 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.

This land was owned by Jordan, not the Palestinians. It was lost by them in 1967 and they lay no claim to it today. Israel has every right to make this land as prosperous as the rest of the country.

So you think Israel should get the land. And with or without its current inhabitants?

This land was Jordenian and Jordan doesn't want it. Jordan had it for 29 years and did not establish a Palestinian state. So the legal status lie needs to end. Because I like liberal democracies better than Arab trible dictatorships, I hope Israel would take as many Palestinians as possible. Without turning itself into one.

And what do you plan to do with the excess Palestinians? We're talking a few million people.

Nothing really. We can go on creating a great country for the Israeli Arabs, Jews, Druze and Christians. This conflict is slowly ending.

> I hope Israel would take as many Palestinians as possible. Without turning itself into one.

> 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?

The Palestinians (which do not act as a nation and never did, their loyalty is to their tribe) have autonomy, and they should be given as much autonomy as possible (without bad security implications).

> The Palestinians ... have autonomy

Wait, are you saying that they would not vote for Israel's government?

No, democracies don't work well when different groups in the country hate each other. Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards.

> Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards

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.

They already have autonomy. They might would like it to be better armed, and they are free to accept the deal of the century proposal, but they won't get more.

This doesn't answer my questions.

I don't know how you define sovereignty, as distinct from autonomy. The guideline for me (and I believe this is also the way the conflict will end in real life) is the most autonomy possible, without any security risks to Israel. It's not far from the situation now.

> The guideline for me ... It's not far from the situation now.

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?

There are lots of Israelis living in the west bank, they aren't going anywhere nor is their presence harmful to anyone (nationalist feelings aside). Palastinians would vote to the PA, and they will decide their own taxes and laws, ext (as is the case now). The Israelis will vote to the Knesset. Besides the lack of arms to the PA, this isn't too far from where it is now. This is of course not apartheid, just a reasonable way to live side by side.

> There are lots of Israelis living in the west bank, they aren't going anywhere

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.

Helge, this kind of suggestions may be reasoned from your moral grounds (which I don't share), but in terms of getting towards peace - they are so far from anything Israel would consider they venture into the realm of fantasy and thus will just stir hatred and conflict which clearly mainly harms the Palestinians. To end the conflict what the PA needs now more than fantasies is a dose of reality.

>That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?

70% would. Government would.

>Israelis are reaping enormous gains from the occupation.

Some israelis. Most just pay for it, not getting anything in return.

>That people would be happy to see house and land prices skyrocket?

> 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.

There are consequences to starting wars of aggression intending to destroy a nation. One of those consequences is losing land if you lose the war.

It's a pity you just made this "rule" up, because the delivery was very convincing.

No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any form of civilized law.

Did the villagers of Iqrit and Biram start a war of aggression?

I saw plenty of head scarves in Tel Aviv and no one seemed to be concerned. I could see you getting the full pat down walking into the mall or a store. Whereas my very white American looking features meant they kinda waved their arms over me like metal detectors.

I finished high school in Israel couple of years ago, my friends wore Keffiyeh during school trips.

My tour guide in Germany ranted for 20 minutes about how sure the Holocaust was bad but Germany said sorry a long time ago so why should they keep paying reparations?

Is it that surprising that a tour guide is just an ordinary person who may have some bad opinions?

youre naive or projecting, go visit israel and hire palestinian guide, go with him into any shop, mall, restaurant and tell him to speak in arabic, and look on their faces.

Go to the West Bank, try speaking Hebrew, and look on their faces. The entire region is like that.

I'm named David and work around the whole region for the past 10 years. Nicest people I know. Really.

I have had a similar experience when visiting as well.