Neocons rejected Oslo as too conciliatory toward Palestinians

Evidence

The neocons viewed this as a mistake. Even though Israel had no intention of upholding any of its pledges and the United States had no intention of forcing Israel to comply, the neocons vociferously opposed the Oslo Accords, seeing the deal as an Israeli, and by extension American, retreat. Consistent with their opposition to the deals Reagan struck with the Soviet Union, the neocons argued that Oslo would lead to the dissolution of Israeli power. Frank Gaffney and the CSP stated that the “land for peace” formula was nothing more than a series of “retreats by Israel—unilateral, headlong surrenders of strategically vital real estate” to the Arabs who were “committed to its destruction” (emphasis in original). — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 389 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as an Israeli surrender; Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as a unilateral Israeli retreat to hostile Arabs. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 389; Neocons and Likud rejected Oslo even though the accords heavily favored Israel. (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as an Israeli surrender #corroborates (0.95)
• Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as a unilateral Israeli retreat to hostile Arabs. #corroborates (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 389
• Neocons treated land-for-peace as unilateral Israeli surrender to Arab destruction #expands (0.90)
• Neocons framed land-for-peace diplomacy as strategic retreat toward Arab destruction #expands (0.88)
• Neocons and Likud rejected Oslo even though the accords heavily favored Israel. #corroborates (0.85)