Let's imagine that Egypt (this is just a theoretical example, I am well-aware that it is not realistic) invaded Israel and occupied the whole country, except for Tel Aviv. Egypt then starts building Arab-only settlements in the "disputed territories", pushing the local population closer and closer toward Tel Aviv. When "the world" and international organizations start condemning the Egyptian actions Egypt launches a "peace initiative". The initiative calls on Israel (Tel Aviv) to negotiate with Egypt on the return of the occupied territories. Israeli and Egyptian envoys meet and Egypt offers Israel peace and the return of 5% of the occupied territories, Israel of course rejects. This allows Egypt to continue its settlement enterprise, the goal of which is to create "facts on the ground" that make it impossible to return the occupied territories to Israel. Every couple of years, when international pressure gets too high, Egypt starts another peace talk - these talks drag on and on (while Egypt keeps building of course) and ultimately leads nowhere, perhaps Egypt offers 2% more of the occupied territories in return for peace. When the Israelis become disillusioned by the constant stalling and fake peace-offers and turn to the UN Egypt has its good friend Russia block any SC-resolution. And then Egyptian talkbackers start blaming the failure of the peace-process on the Israelis for taking unilateral actions instead of negotiating with Egypt, especially highlighting the fact that Egypt has made countless offers of "compromise", whereas Israel has always refused these compromises. Wouldn't you say that it is a little bit unfair to blame it all on the Israelis in this case? I think so...
In Bahrain, 2 police officers killed, 6 wounded in bombing (AP)