"Israel has made concessions for peace."

Proponents claim that Israel has consistently made meaningful concessions for peace, citing high-profile negotiations like the Oslo Accords, Camp David Summit, and unilateral withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza. They argue that these moves reflect Israel’s willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for coexistence, contrasting with Palestinian rejectionism and continued violence.

Israel has made limited diplomatic gestures, yet most key offers narrowed crucial Palestinian rights. At Camp David 2000, Ehud Barak’s proposal would have granted Palestinians about 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and parts of East Jerusalem, but demanded full renunciation of the right of return and Israeli retention of security control in critical areas, preserving a militarized footprint under Israeli authority. Similarly, Israel’s broader Arab Peace Initiative acknowledged withdrawal to 1967 lines in exchange for normalization, but it was rejected by Israeli leadership as a starting point only, not a final agreement.

Historical Israeli withdrawals, such as the Sinai in 1979 and Gaza disengagement in 2005, did not end occupation or settlement expansion. Instead, Israel imposed blockades, maintained control of airspace and borders, and continued settlement activity. These structural realities undercut claims of genuine compromise. Legal analysts and human‑rights organizations argue that these actions reinforce occupation rather than equate to equitable peace.