I could be wrong, but it seems to me that with Likud leaders such as PM Netanyahu, and many others, a diversion from use of force to resolve issues such as dealing with its adversaries, is interpreted as a sign of meekness, vulnerability and a defeat. Amongst some of Israel's adversaries they also think like this. But any smart individual has many times over stated that the Middle East conflict will only be resolved diplomatically. Perhaps Netanyahu's thinking hasn't changed since I asked him 21 years ago if he didn't think Israel was doing something wrong without negotiating with its adversaries. His facial expression to my question made him flinch with being surprised to having been asked the question. They'll argue that only (force) is what they (the Arabs) understand. Hasn't it made things worse over the decades? And can one really attribute the last two wars any advancement for Israel? The threat from Iran has become a regional concern and one cannot say that (to Israel) it is not highly connected to the conflict with the Palestinians as it evidently arose only 20 - 22 years ago. Let's put it simply this way, there can only be a Palestinian state alongside Israel so long that there's an existing Jewish State as the U.N. declaration stipulated 63 years ago. It doesn't have to be complicated if you just talk about it!
U.S., allies stage 20 strikes against Islamic State in Iraq (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu is holding Israel hostage
When asked recently what issue keeps him awake at night, new security service chief replied that it’s the possibility of Hamas carrying out a large-scale surprise attack. It’s now his job to keep that from happening.06:46 12.02.16 | 0 comments
Nearly every delegate at the Tel Aviv conference is happy to declare their belief in the two-state solution, and to explain why it's not yet possible.18:45 11.02.16 | 0 comments