Allow me to start with a citation of the Near Easterm emeritus scholar, always a clear and far-sighted analyst of the region, Bernard Lewis (from his book Faith and Power, 2010, OUP):
"From the international discourse in English and other European languages, it would seem that most of the Arab states and some members of the Palestinian leadership have resigned themselves to accepting Israel as a state. But the discourse in Arabic - in broadcasts, sermons, speeches, and school textbooks - is far less conciliatory, portraying Israel as an illegitimate invader that must be destroyed. If the conflict is about the size of Israel, then long and difficult negotiations can eventually resolve the problem. But if the conflict is about the existence of Israel, then serious negotiation is impossible. There is no compromise position between existence and nonexistence."
Since the book is a collection os previosuly published works, I would say that Mr. Lewis originally wrote those lines before Obama's Presidency and before the European bullying and menacing with the implementation of a Palestian State even without a prior agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
A lesson muslims learned from day one is that you can agree on lesser terms when force is not in your side; it will only be a first step in your way to your real goal. That is why the Koran's first suras are far more amiable, accomodating and friendly than those corresponding to later years, when Muhamad had already won battles and was already feared.
It is also true that, lately, Western powers have not defended their allies when they required assistance (Kurds in Irak, Georgians in Russia, Maronites in Lebanon, Coreans in Asia, etc) to no one 's surprise, since they haven't defended themselves either, even when ferouciously attacked, at home (WTC in NYC 1993, 9/11, March 2004 in Spain, London, Muhamad cartoons, illegal and legal muslim inmigration all over, etc.) or outside (USA in Lebanon 1983 or Mogadischio 1993, Somalia pirates, persecution of christians in Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq and..., etc.).
So Israel has no way out: it cannot trust those seating at the table, nor the enemies nor the mediators, nor the grantors. It can solely confide in the conditions negotiated themselves.
And the enemies are 'crecidos', that is, they see themselves winning, defeating the deprecated infidels, Christians or Jewish invaders. Why are they going to settle for less when they can have it all?
While they don't perceive that they might go backwards again and loose even more, they'll never concede anything. And this means that they will not renounce to the destruction of Israel, not for now, not in actual conditions, even if tactically they pretend otherwise.
And Europeans and Americans are not helping at all, on the contrary. If they really want to help they have to back Israel 200% and offer no concessions, or at least that is what he Arabs had to believe. Bullying Israel cannot lead anywhere useful... because the Arabs will want it all, including the anhilitaion of Israel... and Israel knows it.
Robert Aumann, Israeli Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis, recently stated the obvious:
"... there can be no co-existence if one person isn’t willing to negotiate as hard as the other. The appeaser will always be swallowed up and simply cease to exist. It is stubbornness rather than the willingness to make immediate concessions that brings about successful negotiations. In other words, if you want peace, prepare for war."
I would like to see something different, but I am sorry to say it: Israeli concessions pushed by Americans and Europeans are the best way to impede any real negotiation... unless we are talk plainly about Israel nonexistence.