Obama Needs to Hear from You on Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Options
Comments
-
Lie No. 5: Israel is an apartheid state deserving of international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns.
In fact, Israel is a democratic state. Its 20 percent Arab minority enjoys all the political, economic and religious rights and freedoms of citizenship, including electing members of their choice to the Knesset (Parliament).
What follows are the laws in Israel that are discriminatory and which promote apartheid policies. Clearly, based on UN definitions of apartheid, and the universal human rights of ALL people enshrined in the UNCHR, the methods and means which Israel employs to assert its control and dominate the indigenous people of Palestine cannot be classified as anything but apartheid.
Law of Return (1950)
This law grants every Jew (defined as those who convert or have their mother as a Jew) the right to immigrate to Israel automatically. On the other hand, Palestinians who fled in fear during 1948 and 1967 have not been granted the right to return as mandated by the UN. This is systematic discrimination based on race.
Identity Card (Possession and Presentation) Law (1982)
Residents must carry identity cards at all times and present them to "senior police officers, to the heads of local authorities, or to police officers or soldiers on duty when requested to do so." Furthermore, their nationalities must be printed on these, including whether being Jewish, Palestinian, Druze etc. This provides the means to systematically discriminate based on race.
Cultural Exclusion:
Any form of Palestinian expression of national self-determination is fiercely suppressed. The Palestinian flag has been declared illegal under Israeli law, and flying the flag is punishable by a prison sentence
Land:
While Israel excludes Palestinians and non-Jews from state land and land belonging to the Jewish National Fund, it does not exclude Jews from the very limited and minimal land remaining under Palestinian (“Arab”) ownership. This has been compared to Apartheid South Africa where only 13% of the land could be owned by the native African population, but the difference lies in the fact that South African law guaranteed that 13% as African land, while Israeli law makes no such provisions for what it terms “Arab land”
Absentee Property Law (1950)
Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during 1947/48 as "absentee property" and becomes state property, even if they are within the state or making attempts to return to it (conveniently stopped by Israel).
National Planning and Building Law (1965)
Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders.
Agriculture
Palestinians cultivate 15% of arable land, but only receive 3% of water available for irrigation.
Income, Employment, and Allocation of Government Spending:
The Central Bureau of Israeli Statistics indicates that 85% of Palestinians in Israel are in the bottom five deciles of income distribution while 50% of Jews in Israel are in the upper five deciles. Palestinian familes earn, on average, less than 65% of the average income of Jewish
families. IDF service a requirement for employment in many jobs; the vast majority of Palestinians do not serve in the IDF, and thus are excluded from these jobs
The Law of Political Parties (1992)
Bars the Registrar of Political Parties from registering a political party if it denies "the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State." In 2002 both Section 7A(1) of the Basic Law: the Knesset and the Law of Political Parties were amended further to bar those whose goals or actions, directly or indirectly, "support armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization, against the State of Israel." These amendments were added expressly to curtail the political participation of Palestinian Arabs within Israel - such as Azmi Bishara - who have expressed solidarity with Palestinians resisting military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. Despite the right to vote, right to run for office, and the right to hold limited positions on the Israeli legislature, the Knesset, Palestinian political and social activism has been completely supressed by the Israeli government. The right to organize, protest, and mobilize has been blocked by Israel on numerous occasions; several political parties have also been outlawed, their leaders arrested, and their newspapers banned due to their advocacy for Palestinian human rights within Israel.
Education
There is not a single Arabic-language university in Israel, despite Palestinians making up some 20-30% of the population. Systematic discrimination exists in the Israeli education system with separate schools for Palestinian and Jewish schoolchildren. Selective allocation of funds means Arab schools are usually overcrowded, underequipped, underperforming, and having less reources relative to Jewish schools. Jewish curriculum is all-round with history, politics, sciences being taught while the curriculum in Arab schools is very heavily censored, with history, politics, and any national material being edited out. -
Lie No. 6: Plans to build 1,600 more homes in East Jerusalem prove Israel is "Judaizing" the Holy City.
Ramat Shlomo was not about Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem but about a long established, heavily populated Jewish neighborhood in northern Jerusalem, where 250,000 Jews live (about the size of Newark, N.J.) -- an area that will never be relinquished by Israel.
Irregardless of whether Ramat Shlomo is heavily populized Jewish neighbourhood it is still illegally annexed to Israel. Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is a military occupation, and illegal under international law. As defined under international law, it’s a military occupation. This is the position of the entire international community and the United Nations Security Council. It has been reaffirmed in court cases before the World Court, the ICJ, and Israel’s own Supreme Court/High Court of Justice, and even Ariel Sharon used the word “Occupation”, if perhaps just once. -
Lie No. 7: Israeli policies endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would benefit everyone, including the United States. But an imposed return to what Abba Eban called “1967 Auschwitz borders” would endanger Israel’s survival and ultimately be disastrous for American interests and credibility in the world.
I’ll state it again, since you have clearly shown your ignorance and intellectual ineptness. according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Joe Biden engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives. " -
Lie No. 8: Israeli policies are the cause of worldwide anti-Semitism.
From the Inquisition to the pogroms, to the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis, history proves that Jew hatred existed on a global scale before the creation of the State of Israel. It would still exist in 2010 even if Israel had never been created. For example, one poll indicates that 40 percent of Europeans blame the recent global economic crisis on “Jews having too much economic power” -- a canard that has nothing to do with Israel.
Nothing to really refute hear. It would be no surprise to find anti-Semites critical of Israel, but to criticize specific Israeli policies that violate international law is the opposite of bigotry. Instead it is a just act — one might even say a very Jewish one — that works to strengthen human rights, rights that protect Jews as much as anybody else.
If one is criticizing house demolitions, checkpoints, extrajudicial executions and like, and one is called anti-Semitic, then the accuser is bizarre indeed. In order for those criticisms to be anti-Semitic the accuser has to accept those violations of international law as inherent characteristics of Jewry. So who is being anti-Semitic here? -
Lie No. 9: Israel, not Hamas, is responsible for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Goldstone was right when he charged that Israel was guilty of war crimes against civilians.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is obsessed with false anti-Israel resolutions. It refuses to address grievous human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and beyond. Faced with similar attacks, every U.N. member-state, including the United States and Canada, surely would have acted more aggressively than the Israel Defense Forces did in Gaza.
Well, this is nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric and completely false. The U.N has repeatedly described Gaza as a humanitarian catastrophe and has called for Israel to end the blockade to let in much needed aid, medical supplies, construction material and other items to give healthy subsistence back to the Gazan’s
Furthermore, It was not Hamas that broke the ceasefire, but Israel. In November 2008, Israel launched a cross border raid into the Gaza Strip, killing several Hamas militants, exacerbating an already tense situation. Moreover, in addition to this violation, Israel had tightened its illegal siege on Gaza throughout the 6-month ceasefire. Thus, when Hamas retaliated by launching several rockets into Israel in December, the Israeli Defense Forces used that as a pretext to launch a massive offensive against Gaza. According to Israeli officials themselves, this offensive, called Operation Cast Lead, was planned months in advance and sought to restore the “deterrence capacity” of the Israeli state after it had been humbled by Hezbollah in South Lebanon in 2006. Operation Cast Lead cannot be described as a war, it was a one-sided massacre of a defenceless civilian population, who were subjected to a brutal aerial, naval, and artillery bombardment. Of the 1400 killed, the overwhelming majority were Palestinian civilians, who died in Israeli strikes against mosques, hospitals, homes, and other non-combatant infrastructure. Israel also used illegal weaponry such as white phosphorus against the civilian population of Gaza. The Goldstone Report, compiled by the respected Judge Richard Goldstone, investigated the events of the war and concluded that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and failed to uphold the rules of engagement, hence countering the Israeli claim that the IDF behaved “humanely and admirably”.
As well, the IDF has it’s own report http://www.hybridstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf in which the IDF confirms over 20 gravest findings of the Goldstone Report -
Lie No. 10: The only hope for peace is a single, binational state eliminating the Jewish State of Israel.
The one-state solution is a non-starter because it would eliminate the Jewish homeland. However, the current pressures on Israel are equally dangerous. In effect, the world is demanding that Israel, the size of New Jersey, shrink further by accepting a three-state solution: a P.A. state on the West Bank and a Hamas terrorist one in Gaza. All this as Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, stockpiles 50,000 rockets, threatening northern and central Israel’s main population centers. Current polls show that while most Israelis favor a two-state solution, most Palestinians continue to oppose it.
The only hope for peace is for Israel to abide by the Saudi Peace Plan, if it doesn’t the facts on the ground will be too large to overcome and the only solution will be a bi-national state with democracy for all or by having an apartheid state and further isolating itself.
I want to add to this. It is stated " Israeli's favour a two-state solution..." This is categorically false. Lets look at the U.N voting on the two-state solution.
The international community, apart from Israel and the United States, has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its June 1967 borders, and a "just resolution" of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine." This resolution repeatedly includes these tenets for achieving a "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine": (1) "Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"; (2) "Reaffirming the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem"; (3) "Stresses the need for: (a) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem; (b) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State"; (4) "Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948."
Here is the recorded vote on this resolution in recent years:
Year
Vote
[Yes-No-Abstained]
1997Negative votes cast by…
155-2-31998Israel, United States
154-2-31999Israel, United States
149-3-22000Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
149-2-32001Israel, United States
131-6-202002Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
160-4-32003Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
160-6-52004Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
161-7-102005Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
156-6-92006Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
157-7-102007Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
161-7-5Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
now, really, who are the main obstacles to peace???
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »You claim that the lands of Israel and Palestinians originally belonged to Blacks, I'm very skeptical on that, but even if that's true, I don't see many Blacks claiming the land now....some, but not many.
The REALITY is that 700,000 Palestinians were kicked out of their homes when Israel was created, and businesses were lost by the thousands. Israel is still stealing water and building illegal settlements on stolen farmland.
You say Jews and Palestinians can't claim any of this land, but the reality is Jews are stealing from Palestinians like crazy. And as an American, I can speak on this issue because America defending the scumbag, ? , apartheid loving nation known as Israel is ruining America's reputation worldwide.
If it wasn't for America's vast support of Israel, your beloved country would not be able to ? , steal from, and murder Palestinians like flies every single day.
lol @ 2,000 year old land claims -
you have officially been OWNED. And now I am done with you, I'm not continuing this any longer. I have exposed your ignorance on the subject for everyone to see. It is clear that you do nothing but rehash old zionist propaganda on a topic you claim to know something about. Anyone with a clear mind will come in here and see that you have officially lost this debate. You are one who does not care for peace, but only to hold onto these racist and unfounded beliefs
-
Could you ? this girl? Juda sure could.
Attachment not found. -
Jews have a genuine historical tie but not exclusive. Jews were the majority in the Land for only some 1,900 of 10,000 years of modern history, and were the governing authority for even less. Exclusively maintaining the land ignores the 21st century reality, which is one in which Jews have lived outside of Israel for centuries and must accommodate the other populations who have lived, and continue to live here. For example the Canaanites were the dominant group for over two thousand years, as were the Natufians. The Yarmukians were around for some four thousand years and laid the base for the agricultural communities that followed. Jews have no more, and no less, a right to the land than the others who have populated land, including the Arabs (1200 years).
Ok. Lets start with this one. I agree to an extent, but I challenge who or what is considered a Jew. Some people who call themselves Jews have no historical ties to the tribe of Judah nor to the land. The Jewish presence that has remained in the Land are not the same ethno-type as the main ruling class amongst Israelis. But ethnicity is really small potatoes in light of my beef with the secular Israelis. Whether their ancestors were there or not, they do not follow the spiritual criteria that the Torah insists upon as a prerequisite for the existence of the Nation of Israel.
The Torah/Tanakh states that all nations will flow unto her (the land) so therefore, yes, you are correct that exclusivity is not viable. And this is where me and political Zionism part ways.
And thank you for proving the "Israel has nothing to do with Africa scoffers wrong" inadvertently by listing Afro-Asiatic people as indigenous i.e the Natufians. The Yarmukians were actually there longer than you said if Im not mistaken.
Now, lets get into the term ARABS which you state have been there for 1200 years. Yes and no. Heres where understanding the indigenous culture and language plays a huge part in having an understanding of what youre talking about. There is no such thing as an Arab people in terms of ethnicity. Let me explain:
According to the Arab League an Arab is "a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples". This was defined in 1946 with the formation of the Arab League, not 12000 years ago. Way before that when Islam was enforced by the sword, many indigenous tribes and ethnotypes were Arabicized. The origin of the word ARAB in the Hebrew tongue is 'ereb which means a mixed people. We can see that breakdown certainly holds water if we consider the Crusades. There is definitiely such a thing as an ethnic Saudi Arabian or a cultural Arab, but there no longer exists any such thing as an Arab in the ethnic sense and by the time "Arabs" were on record for ruling Jerusalem (and most of the known world) they were allready heavily diluted from their Ishmaelite roots.
This leads me to the whole thing of why I say there are no Palestinian "people". The United Nation defines them as anyone who has lived TWO YEARS in Palestine before 1948, they and their descendants - with or without proof or documentation. This was definition was designed to help migrant workers in the area. Those people are mostly Jordanaian (moreso in the West bank) and mixed with many other ethnic types from all over the so-called Middle East. Bu t the key concept here is that the modern Palestinian is the descendant of mixed, migrant workers. There is no Palestinian language or culture to speak of. Now, I'm not saying this reality is justification to abuse them but we can't come to a real solution without peeling the mask back off of sensationalistic terms that are not historically, culturally or genetically accurate.
Soooo....back to my firsthand thing. The people who have the realest and strongest ties with the land are in the Old City (Jerusalem) or in the Negev and it just so happens they are impoverished in comparisons with Israelis of more predominantly European ancestry in the North. Long story short, the Israelis and Palestinians who make the decisions to make their subjects fight on terms of right by ethnicity are full of ? . For instance, the architect of Palestinian liberation philosophy Arafat was in fact Egyptian. And hell, we know where Hertzl and his ancestors were born..........not there. Whether of Ishmaelite. Midianite, Canaanite or Israelite ancestry, the people with the deepest ties to that land are barely represented in the media at all. In our village we call them the "Hidden Ones'. -
you have officially been OWNED. And now I am done with you, I'm not continuing this any longer. I have exposed your ignorance on the subject for everyone to see. It is clear that you do nothing but rehash old zionist propaganda on a topic you claim to know something about. Anyone with a clear mind will come in here and see that you have officially lost this debate. You are one who does not care for peace, but only to hold onto these racist and unfounded beliefs
hold fast cowboy. i got a response for everything you itemized....gimmie a day or two to get to it all. -
1.) @ the bolded. its not wise to assume that what you dont see is non-existent or insignificant.
2.) why would israel have to steal water when they have one of the biggest and most advanced desalination programs in the world? thats stupid. once again you as others are emotional over unfounded and unproven propaganda.
3.) um...israel is not the reason why the world hates america. trust me...i know.
4.) you and your boy have history twisted. many palestinians left their homes voluntarily. look it up...if you care to view unbiased sources. either way war is war.
5.) stolen farmland? where is proof that the land BELONGED to the palestinians in the first place. im not saying that there aint no ? in the game , but its basically a squatter fight. prove that the land BELONGS TO THEM.
6.) if said settlements are illegal according to international law then why no repurcussions??
7.) countries dont steal or ? . individuals do.
8.) america has been a scumbag, ? , inventor of apartheid nation for hundreds of years before 1948. people in glass houses.....
9.) explain to me to me factually without drawing conclusions, making conjecture, rhetoric, insults or assumptive reasoning how israel would be able to do what you are describing, surrounded by arab nations and watched like a hawk by the u.n. without being destroyed or its leaders indicted on war crimes?
You are voluntarily BLOCKING information from your brain. There are plenty of sources out there that will tell you that Israel is stealing water from Arabs and building illegal settlements on stolen farmland.
Go out there and read the many sources me, Memphis, and others have posted.
Read the TONS upon TONS of of statements from the United Nations (an organization run by a Korean, NOT an Arab) that lambast CONSTANTLY the evil and disgusting policies of theft, destruction, and murder that Israel is bestowing upon Palestinians.
Than read this funny BBC poll that, shockingly, found that Israel is the 3rd most hated nation in the world.
http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2010/04/bbc-poll-shows-israel-3rd-most-hated-country-in-the-world-germany-most-loved.html -
The evil and thieving ? nation of Israel is approved by only 19% of responders in a worldwide BBC Poll taken THIS YEAR.........
http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2010/04/bbc-poll-shows-israel-3rd-most-hated-country-in-the-world-germany-most-loved.html
World poll: Only 19% see Israel in positive light
Survey conducted in 28 countries on 29,000 respondents reveals that only Iran, Pakistan, North Korea have more negative perception than Israel. Most 'loved' country is Germany. 'Obama effect' has resulted in improvement in relations towards US for first time since 2005
Only Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are viewed in a more negative light than Israel, according to a poll conducted in 28 countries and published Tuesday by the BBC.
The poll shows that just 19% of the 29,000 respondents questioned view Israel positively versus 50% who perceive the country in a negative light. Together with Israel at the bottom of the list are Iran (15% positive, 56% negative), Pakistan (16% positive, 51% negative), and North Korea (17% positive, 48% negative).
The poll also showed that world perceptions of the US are improving with 46% of respondents viewing the country favorably and 34% viewing the country negatively. Only two countries saw a decrease in the perception of the world's number one superpower – Turkey and India.
Read more at YNet and BBC.
----Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........I wonder why. It might be because of the fact Israel is bulldozing the homes of Palestinians everyday while millions of Palestinian refugees are living in misery around refugee camps.
The world knows what the ? is going on....and Israel will never have peace as long as it mistreats and murders its neighbors. -
Well, this is nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric and completely false. The U.N has repeatedly described Gaza as a humanitarian catastrophe and has called for Israel to end the blockade to let in much needed aid, medical supplies, construction material and other items to give healthy subsistence back to the Gazan’s
Furthermore, It was not Hamas that broke the ceasefire, but Israel. In November 2008, Israel launched a cross border raid into the Gaza Strip, killing several Hamas militants, exacerbating an already tense situation. Moreover, in addition to this violation, Israel had tightened its illegal siege on Gaza throughout the 6-month ceasefire. Thus, when Hamas retaliated by launching several rockets into Israel in December, the Israeli Defense Forces used that as a pretext to launch a massive offensive against Gaza. According to Israeli officials themselves, this offensive, called Operation Cast Lead, was planned months in advance and sought to restore the “deterrence capacity” of the Israeli state after it had been humbled by Hezbollah in South Lebanon in 2006. Operation Cast Lead cannot be described as a war, it was a one-sided massacre of a defenceless civilian population, who were subjected to a brutal aerial, naval, and artillery bombardment. Of the 1400 killed, the overwhelming majority were Palestinian civilians, who died in Israeli strikes against mosques, hospitals, homes, and other non-combatant infrastructure. Israel also used illegal weaponry such as white phosphorus against the civilian population of Gaza. The Goldstone Report, compiled by the respected Judge Richard Goldstone, investigated the events of the war and concluded that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and failed to uphold the rules of engagement, hence countering the Israeli claim that the IDF behaved “humanely and admirably”.
As well, the IDF has it’s own report http://www.hybridstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GazaUpdateJuly2010.pdf in which the IDF confirms over 20 gravest findings of the Goldstone Report
Damn, you're really making Judah look silly right now.
Great posts you're putting up, very educational......every educated person knows the many war crimes Israel is forcing upon the throats of Palestinians, and people worldwide have said for years Israel has become almost as evil as their oppressors the Nazis were.
Judah's favorite response seems to be "war is war".......he would make a great serial killer. He would be an even better mass murderer. I'm pretty sure he was one in his past life. -
Name ypur sources for this revisionist ? besides Deborah Sontag, Robert Malley or the damn P.A. propaganda squad itself. I been typing on my phone on the go and unable to really dig in your ass, but now I'm at home. So lets go..
Contrary to popular assumptions, “Israel never offered the Palestinians 95 percent of the West Bank as reports indicated at the time”. The ‘generous offer’ was just another incarnation of previous Israeli plans to annex huge swathes of the OPT, retaining major settlement blocs “that effectively cut the West Bank into three sections with full Israeli control from Jerusalem to the Jordan River”
First of all the whole ? point of the summit was to NEGOTIATE. Time was running out on Barak and Clintons terms and they were trying their damndest to get a FINAL solution. According to firsthand accounts, this was NOT in accordance to the goals of Arafat. The chief negotiator for the U.S. , David Ross is on record saying basically that yeah, the four canton deal was offered without the Gaza nucleus BUT THERE WERE OTHER OFFERS MADE. All Arafat did was say no to everything but the ? had no ideas or counter-offers to present. Prove me wrong by firsthand sources! Clinton snapped off on Arafat and his negotiation team at their lack of real contribuition to the process and it is on record in the diaries of Shlomo Ben-Ami : “‘A summit's purpose,’ Clinton said, ‘is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.’ Then he got up and left the room.”
Israel also offered a Jerusalem solution in which there would be "a division in practice that would not look like a division". Israel was willing to divide Jerusalem and accepted “full Palestinian sovereignty” on the Temple Mount and asked the Palestinians only to recognize the site was also sacred to Jews. What was Arafats response? That no temple ever existed on the Temple Mount: just an obelisk and that the real Temple was in Nablus. WTF???? Ross said of this “he denied the core of the Jewish faith.” AND THIS IS ALL THIS MUTHAFUCKA ARAFAT HAD TO SAY BESIDES "NO" DURING THE WHOLE THING.
Now the ? perspective you are repping comes from the Malley chick in the New york Times. She basically said, to paraphrase the U.S. and Israeli negotiators were not tactically sound in their presentation and aroused suspicion in Arafat which made him revert to being passive. FOH!! This ? got his people's lives on the line and this is the lame line of reasoning to why he had no COUNTEROFFERS TO MAKE?
Lets see what eyewitness Ambassador Ross said :
[Malley’s] account of “the tragedy of errors” of Camp David — though correct in many aspects—is glaring in its omission of Chairman Arafat's mistakes. One is left with the impression that only Barak did not fulfill commitments. But that is both wrong and unfair, particularly given Arafat's poor record on compliance… Did Prime Minister Barak make mistakes in his tactics, his negotiating priorities, and his treatment of Arafat? Absolutely. Did the American side make mistakes in its packaging and presentation of ideas? Absolutely. Are Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton responsible for the failure to conclude a deal? Absolutely not. Both Barak and Clinton were prepared to do what was necessary to reach agreement. Both were up to the challenge. Neither shied away from the risks inherent in confronting history and mythology. Can one say the same about Arafat? Unfortunately, not — and his behavior at Camp David and afterward cannot be explained only by his suspicions that a trap was being set for him
Abu Mazen, one of the lead Palestinian negotiators, said even before the summit the Palestinians ”made clear to the Americans that the Palestinian side is unable to make concessions on anything.“ He also maintained the whole process was some sort of trap.
Now afterwards, when Barak was out- did Sharon do anything like take a ? on the steps of the Temple Mount? No. But Arafat still orders the infitada while asking for another summit. What happens then?
The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank (either 96 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from Israel proper or 94 percent from the West Bank and 3 percent from Israel proper), with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years
Yeah withdraw after six years.....
Thats more than reasonable considering the fact the ? had just ordered an infitada.
"The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, and Arafat initially said that he would accept it as well. But, on January 2, “he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.” He couldnt countenance any Israeli control over Jewish holy spots, nor would he agree to the security arrangements; he wouldn’t even allow the Israelis to fly through Palestinian airspace. He rejected the refugee formula as well.
The reason for Arafat’s rejection of the settlement, according to Ross, was the critical clause in the agreement specifying that the agreement meant the end of the conflict. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, simply could not end it. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross. Ben-Ami agreed with this characterization: “I certainly believe that Arafat is a problem if what we are trying to achieve is a permanent agreement. I doubt that it will be possible to reach an agreement with him.” Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt concurred: “The failure of Camp David is largely attributed to the fact that Arafat did not even negotiate....It didn't matter what he put on the table; he put nothing on the table.” Kurtzer added that he would never understand why Arafat withdrew from the talks without even offering a maximalist position.
Instead, Arafat pursued the path of terror in hope of repositioning the Palestinians as victims in the eyes of the world. “There’s no doubt in my mind,” Ross said, “that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.” -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Damn, you're really making Judah look silly right now.
Great posts you're putting up, very educational......every educated person knows the many war crimes Israel is forcing upon the throats of Palestinians, and people worldwide have said for years Israel has become almost as evil as their oppressors the Nazis were.
Judah's favorite response seems to be "war is war".......he would make a great serial killer. He would be an even better mass murderer. I'm pretty sure he was one in his past life.
? please. Thats not all im saying. Youre just cherry picking but now Im at the crib and i can get into waaaay more detail. Yall ? should know better than to think I was going to let this ? ride...Read it and weep. -
on several occasions many Arab and Palestinian proposals for peace have been offered, only to be rejected by the Israeli side. As early as the 1950s, Nasser expressed interest in a long-term peace arrangement with the State of Israel. In 1978, Anwar Sadat took the initiative and sought peace with Israel, ending in the Camp David Agreement of 1979 which resulted in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. In 1981, both the Saudis and the PLO offered Israel peace, only to berejected. And most recently, in 2002 the Saudi Peace Plan, endorsed by the entire Arab League, has been completely rejected by the Israelis.
It was Israel, not the Palestinians, who had to be pressured by the first Bush administration to enter negotiations with the Palestinians at Madrid in 1991. The earlier rejection of Madrid was just one of many rejections Israel had made in response to Palestinian overtures. In June of 1990, in response to Israel’s unwillingness to meet the PLO, United States Secretary of State James A. Baker stated, “everybody over there should know that the telephone number of the White House is 1-202- 456-1414. When you are serious about peace, call us.” The US even went so far as to delay loan guarantees to Israel in order to bring about Israeli compliance.
It was the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who walked away from Taba.
At Camp David, Ehud Barak presented the following:
No Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, No Right of Return or any return of refugees to Israel Israel’s annexation of large settlement blocs, An Israeli military presence in other areas, Effective Israeli sovereignty over the borders of the future Palestinian state.
These were unreasonable conditions, conditions that no Palestinian leader could accept though Arafat proved willing to negotiate on several of them.
Your a ? liar. Like I said before, you take actual events and distort them to fit your agenda. Now I have time to break that ? down, piece by piece.
This sets the tone for your post and is presented as a fact: on several occasions many Arab and Palestinian proposals for peace have been offered, only to be rejected by the Israeli side.
What alternative history of some alternate universe did you read that ? that Nasser was striving for peace since the 50's? if anything he set the stage for further amalgamation of indigenous and unique cultures, tribes and ethnicities withion the so-called Arab world under the banner of that pan-Arab ? . 60 years later---hows that been working. You idiots love to canonize these inept Arab leaders and blame the results of their ? -ups on Israel.
But anyway back up that ? claim that Nasser expressed (and I would say follow through) on any desire for long term peace. FOH.
On to the next one.
'81 was a clear cut case of your boys starting something they couldnt finish. How you gone make it seem like the Israelis rejected peace when the PLO started shelling civilians up North FIRST. But theres allways an excuse for that type of brutality right? Because theyre victims right? Yeah on purpose. Why would you kick that ? off like that knowing youre outnumbered by more than 2 to 1? Come on son...
Ok the Saudi Peace Plan a/k/a UN Resolution 242 Jr. Its funny how you say the Israelis do this and that but dont state WHY. The resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, not "all" the territories in exchange for peace. ? was ambiguous at best about what the ? the Arab nations were supposed to do beside "PROVIDE NORMAL RELATIONS". Come on son. You act like the rejection of this was some demonic fuckery by Israel and not maybe like, a smart political move not to agree to some specific ? when the otherside is being vague to their end of the bargain. They woulda gave up territory and it'd be the samew ol same ol bombing and ? to try and wear the Israelis down and drive them all the way out. And the Palestinian leadership would be like "oh, were innocent...we cant control those ? terrorists" to the world, and go stir that ? up behind closed doors. Come on son.
Ok so Im confused. Does the U.S> indiscriminately give Israel money even when she behaves badly or do loans and ? get denied as a result of hawkishness. You switch around details to manipulate the rhetoric surrounding your presentation of SCANT facts. Your ? is like 2% facts and 98% conjecture and assumptive rhetoric. How many bodies does Judah have to catch on the IC before you fools realize I see through your tricks.
But anyway....Taba? Are you for real? How is it those "? Jews" faults again when a JOINT STATEMENT was issued: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'." You take a date or an event and then just make up ? around it. I see you.
This last one was my favorite. Boy, your fiction is better than Dean Koontz..
At Camp David, Ehud Barak presented the following:
No Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, No Right of Return or any return of refugees to Israel Israel’s annexation of large settlement blocs, An Israeli military presence in other areas, Effective Israeli sovereignty over the borders of the future Palestinian state.
These were unreasonable conditions, conditions that no Palestinian leader could accept though Arafat proved willing to negotiate on several of them.
Thats not what Barak offered and even if he did what makes more sense to a "Palestinian leader" sincerely concerned about the lives of his people- making a COUNTEROFFER or inciting a ? infitada after the fact and then try to call another summit later. Quit acting like Arafat wasnt playing them hoe ass games. He wasnt willing to negotiate on ONE SINGLE THING. This is on record. You are unbelievably dishonest. -
There will be more to come. Im not done by far. And onlookers, please do not be fooled by people throwing out dates and names and dressing it up with rhetoric and opinion to only pass the whole package off as factual. Check and doublecheck BIASED (on both sides) and UNBIASED sources.
memphis...you done ? up. You see, I was just writing from the heart and memory before from the phone. Now I knew you were a dishonest little manipulator from how you keep misrepresenting my stance in my posts i.e. referring to me as a Zionist or an apologist but I didnt really thoroughly fact check you till now to realize how THOROUGHLY you pass off 2% fact and 98% spin as TRUTH. I am officially serious about this debate and focused on decimating you in an orderly fashion. You will need more than your weak ass Canadian community college conflict cliff notes to defend what Im about to unleash.
People, I repeat...check and double check ALL SOURCES and see who's full of ? and who aint. See whose regurgitating propaganda and who aint. -
[/B]
Your a ? liar. Like I said before, you take actual events and distort them to fit your agenda. Now I have time to break that ? down, piece by piece.
This sets the tone for your post and is presented as a fact: on several occasions many Arab and Palestinian proposals for peace have been offered, only to be rejected by the Israeli side.
What alternative history of some alternate universe did you read that ? that Nasser was striving for peace since the 50's? if anything he set the stage for further amalgamation of indigenous and unique cultures, tribes and ethnicities withion the so-called Arab world under the banner of that pan-Arab ? . 60 years later---hows that been working. You idiots love to canonize these inept Arab leaders and blame the results of their ? -ups on Israel.
But anyway back up that ? claim that Nasser expressed (and I would say follow through) on any desire for long term peace. FOH.
On to the next one.
'81 was a clear cut case of your boys starting something they couldnt finish. How you gone make it seem like the Israelis rejected peace when the PLO started shelling civilians up North FIRST. But theres allways an excuse for that type of brutality right? Because theyre victims right? Yeah on purpose. Why would you kick that ? off like that knowing youre outnumbered by more than 2 to 1? Come on son...
Ok the Saudi Peace Plan a/k/a UN Resolution 242 Jr. Its funny how you say the Israelis do this and that but dont state WHY. The resolution calls on Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the war, not "all" the territories in exchange for peace. ? was ambiguous at best about what the ? the Arab nations were supposed to do beside "PROVIDE NORMAL RELATIONS". Come on son. You act like the rejection of this was some demonic fuckery by Israel and not maybe like, a smart political move not to agree to some specific ? when the otherside is being vague to their end of the bargain. They woulda gave up territory and it'd be the samew ol same ol bombing and ? to try and wear the Israelis down and drive them all the way out. And the Palestinian leadership would be like "oh, were innocent...we cant control those ? terrorists" to the world, and go stir that ? up behind closed doors. Come on son.
Ok so Im confused. Does the U.S> indiscriminately give Israel money even when she behaves badly or do loans and ? get denied as a result of hawkishness. You switch around details to manipulate the rhetoric surrounding your presentation of SCANT facts. Your ? is like 2% facts and 98% conjecture and assumptive rhetoric. How many bodies does Judah have to catch on the IC before you fools realize I see through your tricks.
But anyway....Taba? Are you for real? How is it those "? Jews" faults again when a JOINT STATEMENT was issued: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'." You take a date or an event and then just make up ? around it. I see you.
This last one was my favorite. Boy, your fiction is better than Dean Koontz..
At Camp David, Ehud Barak presented the following:
No Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, No Right of Return or any return of refugees to Israel Israel’s annexation of large settlement blocs, An Israeli military presence in other areas, Effective Israeli sovereignty over the borders of the future Palestinian state.
These were unreasonable conditions, conditions that no Palestinian leader could accept though Arafat proved willing to negotiate on several of them.
Thats not what Barak offered and even if he did what makes more sense to a "Palestinian leader" sincerely concerned about the lives of his people- making a COUNTEROFFER or inciting a ? infitada after the fact and then try to call another summit later. Quit acting like Arafat wasnt playing them hoe ass games. He wasnt willing to negotiate on ONE SINGLE THING. This is on record. You are unbelievably dishonest.
Just like how Israel doesn't want to negotiate on its many many many illegal settlements, huh?
Why should Palestinians negotiate fairly when Israel has NEVER EVER stopped building illegal settlements and ILLEGALLY bulldozing the homes of Palestinians?
While at the same time, Israel is ILLEGALLY stealing water from Palestinians, which the United Nations has condemned as provocative and wrong? I await your answers on that. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Just like how Israel doesn't want to negotiate on its many many many illegal settlements, huh?
Why should Palestinians negotiate fairly when Israel has NEVER EVER stopped building illegal settlements and ILLEGALLY bulldozing the homes of Palestinians?
While at the same time, Israel is ILLEGALLY stealing water from Palestinians, which the United Nations has condemned as provocative and wrong? I await your answers on that.
So I refute you guys ? and all you can do is repeat yourselves? Those are argument tactics women use. Remeber now...I never said Israelis were totally innocent so you cant argue on that premise. Im saying, showing and proving that the Palestinians are far from being innocent victims. Im going to bed now but I promise you i will pick apart EACH AND EVERY MUTHAFUCKIN POST from your boy and now from you sice yo ugly ass keep wanting to talk that stupidity. You should know better by now, son. You aint in my league. Watch.... -
I notice you didn't answer any of my points.
Keep it up though.....you're only lowering your credibility on the IC.
Answer me when you have a good excuse as to why Israel is such an evil nation that loves to steal and terrorize Palestinians. So far you have none, clown.
With spokeswomen like you (Judah), I see clearly now why Israel has a 19% approval rating in the world.
Keep it up bozo. -
Thread recap for late comers:
Predictions on the outcome:
Both will walk away feeling the same as they did when they started. -
Naw, talk to me when you turn 5. How do you expect an answer to that loaded, prejudiced, idiotic question? All I have to say if the scenario you just described is true, exactly the way you described it then the every other country in the world is weak and just as guilty of those false allegations you are rendering being that the State of Israel is no bigger than NEW JERSEY. And the term "IC credibility" is an oxymoron and is not my motivation or reward. Im not responding to any more ? like this. Challenge me on specific policies and provide sources that so I can expose whether its real or not or shut up.kingblaze84 wrote: »I notice you didn't answer any of my points.
Keep it up though.....you're only lowering your credibility on the IC.
Answer me when you have a good excuse as to why Israel is such an evil nation that loves to steal and terrorize Palestinians. So far you have none, clown.
With spokeswomen like you (Judah), I see clearly now why Israel has a 19% approval rating in the world.
Keep it up bozo. -
The Arab League summit in Beirut unanimously put forth a peace initiative echoing the U.N. consensus, which it has subsequently reaffirmed (most recently at the March 2009 Arab League summit in Doha),while all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), including Iran, “adopted the Arab peace initiative to resolve the issue of Palestine and the Middle East . . . and decided to use all possible means in order to explain and clarify the full implications of this initiative and win international support for its implementation.” In thehands of propagandists for Israel this fact gets transmuted into “all 57 members of the OIC are virulently hostile to Israel.” The Arab League initiative commits it not just to recognize Israel but also to “establish normal relations” once Israel implements the consensus terms for a comprehensive peace.
Furthermore, Iran has not invaded a country in over 260 years, while Israel has fought a war, as Ze’ev Maoz, who served as the Academic Director of the M.A. program of the National Defense College of the IDF has pointed out, Israel has been the aggressor in almost every war they have been in.
"Establish normal relations" is ambiguous and a ? term. Thats the equivalent of Wimpy telling Popeye "I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today". Israel was to IMMEDIATELY fulfill certain and DEFINITE terms, yet all the Arab league has to offer is recognition and and IOU to "establish normal relations"...On what planet is it unreasonable to not feel comfortable with such a deal. Especially when you would are surrounded by Arab nations (whose hostilities would not be abated by said initiative) in a smaller space then you had before. Show me where the Arab League has a track record on being able to deliver on such a promise as establishing normal relations. They cant even manage internal Arab beef but Israel is supposed to be secure that they can prevent the hawks on the Arab side of things from swooping once they smell the blood of concessions? Come on son....
Does the leadership of Iran say threatening ? or not? For whatever the reasons, whether real or imagined, do they talk ? ? And dont quote what Maoz said without citing why the wars happened because thats just deceptive.
Did Maoz mention the Arab revolt of 36-39 which led up to the 48 war? That the uprisers were armed? That they attacked Israeli civilians?
Did Maoz mention the Arabs rejected Resolution 181 which would have been the solution right then and there and instead chose to rally up FIVE STATES against Israel? Is Israel a villian or are these 5 states busters for starting ? and getting their ass handed to them by one, itty, bitty non-state?
Did Maoz mention that Israel was going after the Fedayeen? Did Israel not change its policies after the Kafr Qasim massacre? YES. Did they punish those responsible? YES, although they coulda got more time in al fairness. Did they pay reperations? YES. Do Palestinian leaders mete out any form of punishment or legislation when their military attacks civilians? HELL NO.
And tell me who struck the first blow in all the other four wars, ESPECIALLy THE 2 LEBANESE wars? Who started the infitadas?
You need to face the facts that these surrounding Arabs continuously start fights they know they cant win and sacrifice their own simply for MANIPULATIVE purposes. They attack civilians, go and hide amongst civilians then cry foul when the IDF rides down on them and some more civilians get hurt. But that ? is calculated! They tried their hand at a legitimate war in 48 and got ? up and been on that ? ? ever since. -
I told you I am done with you. You don't know ? , and havent' refuted one ? thing in this whole thread. Give up now, everyone see's who the zionist dupe is, JUDAS
And like I said. I am done with you. So go ahead and waste your time with attempts to refute what I posted. But you have done nothing of the sort.
