Neocons treated land-for-peace as unilateral Israeli surrender to Arab destruction
Evidence
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 Center for Security Policy 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.” — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 434
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: Repeats the same maximalist logic seen in neocon opposition to Reagan’s arms deals — the pattern of treating any negotiated compromise as retreat, which also appeared in The Defeat of the Spanish Armada’s analysis of how ideological blocs refuse accommodation.
Related
- Neocons framed land-for-peace diplomacy as strategic retreat toward Arab destruction (similarity 0.92)
- Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as an Israeli surrender (similarity 0.90)
- Neocons rejected Oslo as too conciliatory toward Palestinians (similarity 0.90)
- Neocons opposed the Oslo Accords as a unilateral Israeli retreat to hostile Arabs. (similarity 0.89)
- Neocons and Likud rejected Oslo even though the accords heavily favored Israel. (similarity 0.89)
- Neocons urged Israel to destabilize Arab states to defeat the Palestinian cause (similarity 0.79)