Concretely speaking, neocon positions on Israel are in line with right-wing Zionist or Likud-style politics, combined with an abhorrence of any negotiations that show compromise and weakness. It follows, therefore, that the neocons were strongly opposed to the Oslo Accords, which were based on the principle of mutual recognition through a process of “land for peace.” When Yasser Arafat signed the agreement on the White House lawn in 1993, President Clinton told him that he could proclaim a “state” in the Occupied Territories and become its president. In exchange for US and Israeli recognition of this “state,” Arafat was asked to sign away long-standing—and historically just—Palestinian claims on three major issues: the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and the right of return, and sovereignty over their land.

QUESTION: The claim that Arafat signed away historically just Palestinian claims on Jerusalem, refugees, and sovereignty is debatable — worth checking the actual Oslo terms and what was deferred versus signed away.

Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politi…, loc. 389