Homage to Herzliya; Homage to Herzliya

Khahahahahaha...KISS MY ASS MOSHE!!!

 

Khahahaha!! No you are wrong!!! On top of all of our land back, we were also getting half of the US!!!
No you're not getting half of the US although you already got half of the UK and France.


You did not give us anything, you wanted to give us transitional control over Gaza and Jericho for five years. You did not give any guarantees that you will not confiscate nor steal land. You also wanted us to be your guard dogs against any of our people that raises his voice in protest against your continuous land theft.

Bill Cllinton's proposal, December 2000:

"The proposals, according to sources, give sovereignty to the Palestinians over several Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem and the Muslim compound atop Haram al-Sharif -- called Temple Mount by Jews. The Israelis would have sovereignty over the site of the Western Wall at the base of the hill.

Sources say the proposals also make the ancient city the capital of both Israel and the as-yet-undeclared Palestinian state.

In return for concessions on Jerusalem, the proposals are said to call for the Palestinians to relax their demand that Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to homes in Israel. The proposals would allow the refugees to settle in the Palestinian state with financial compensations from Israel. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/27/mideast.04/index.html

See Wael, it's that simple - Clinton proposed to give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians and make it the capital of both Israel and the Palestinian state and financial compensation to the refugees. The Israeli government accepted the proposal, Arafat did not.


And of course:
- 94-96% of the West Bank territory of the Palestinian State.
- The land annexed by Israel should be compensated by a land swap of 1-3% in addition to territorial arrangement such as a permanent safe passage.
- the Gaza Strip would be under total Palestinian sovereignty…all settlements will be evacuated.
http://www.fmep.org/documents/clinton_parameters12-23-00.html

 

Sorry, I can't. It's not Kosher.

 

I'm glad we're able to have civil and gentlemanly discussions despite our opposing views.
I didn't expect to have to put my reasons why Israel isn't 100% blameless in writing, since I knew LoZZZer would never abide by my terms. However, since you've already gone first with your admissions, I will reciprocate:

Checkpoint hazings! Oh, how I hate this far too common practice.
NOT all Israeli soldiers would do this, but a checkpoint hazing is when bored young IDF soldiers on duty pass their time by picking one unfortunate Pali civilian to harass- sometimes for hours. For example: They know from their initial (quick) search that he's not carrying any weapons or bombs, but they keep searching anyways, forcing him to take apart his vehicle, piece by piece. Once the car is completely dismantled and lying all over the ground in little parts, they tell the guy he can go. But he can't 'go', since he doesn't know how to reassemble the car. To the soldiers this is funny.

Crimes like this should be punished just as harshly as when soldiers steal from pal civilians, but that's just not the case: I've seen how soldiers aren't afraid to 'tell all the guys' about hazings they've perpetrated, as if it's no big deal. Even if the soldier has no mercy at all towards Arabs, they're still harming their own cause... checkpoint hazings are a good way to turn a working man into a terrorist.

Why not? Because we're not official negotiators. Peace accords formed by us on a message board have zero binding in reality, so we really don't have to bother acting reasonable or sensible.

 

well if thats all you find fault with on israel's side, again, perhaps zizzz was right not to play along after all...... but on another hand this is indeed just an anonymous message board and there is no harm done whatsoever... or is there?


see mate, i actually believe that this medium is pretty powerful just because of that, and IS being monitored by pollsters, "opinion leaders" etc - at least thats what Baron wants to believe! -, and if history's any guide, public opinion, however manipulable, matters in our countries... soooo... the fine details of the negotiations, of course we have no role to play, but the governing principles? with the level of disinformation, lack of education prevailing in the US?... eg, there are dozens of similar examples of the US being caught red-handed but for instance, how many americans know Operation Ajax and understand what it means to the iranians, or how THEY would feel if it'd been done to them? how many know that madeleine albright made a formal apology to the iranians? and whats the apology worth if its been downplayed by the media & governing class so much that the great majority of Americans haven't really heard of it... and those who have can't really deal with the implications of it...


Anyway, fine by me if you prefer to dwell on the disinformation side or just have your fun... its your life after all... shalom

 

as previously discussed, a vague mention of "financial compensation to the refugees" is meaningless http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1505745&highlight=compensation#post1505745 ... Clinton would have needed more time to put a proper package in place along with the Old Powers, and agree the wording of the apologies etc those parties owe the palestinians for plunging them into this misery... this still remains to be done... and no one can reasonably expect the fighting to stop until its done...

 

Blah blah blah, excuses, rationalizations, spin, obfuscation...What else is new?

The bottom line is a financial compensation was on the table and was rejected by Arafat, moreover it was rejected in principle, not because he wanted more money. But don't let some pesky little facts get in the way of your "it's all the great satan's and the little satan's fault" theory.

PS There will be no apology, don't hold your breath. The Israelis want peace and are willing to compromise but that they owe an apology is your personal opinion, from Israel's point of view the Pals have no one to blame but themselves for not accepting a two state solution in 1948, for starting wars, intifadas, carrying out terror attacks, electing Hamas... If they are waiting for an apology they will keep living in misery for the next thousand years. Not that I give a shit.

 

I have to appologize. Rearden and I were talking about the Oslo accord. You Jumped on Camp David.

Anyway,

July 8, 2001


Fictions About the Failure at Camp David

By ROBERT MALLEY

ASHINGTON — A year ago this week, President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat gathered at Camp David for what, in retrospect, many consider a turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations. From right to left, hawks to doves, comes unusual harmony of opinion both here and in Israel: Camp David is said to have been a test that Mr. Barak passed and Mr. Arafat failed. Offered close to 99 percent of their dreams, the thinking goes, the Palestinians said no and chose to hold out for more. Worse, they did not present any concession of their own, adopting a no-compromise attitude that unmasked their unwillingness to live peacefully with a Jewish state by their side.

I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose — and considerable harm — in adding to their real mistakes a list of fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David summit.

Myth 2: Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations.

Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past — whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective.

To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people?

In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third- holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees — for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter — the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a "satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal.

Myth 3: The Palestinians made no concession of their own.

Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel — not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria — ever came close to even considering such compromises.

If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.

The facts do not indicate, however, any lack of foresight or vision on the part of Ehud Barak. He had uncommon political courage as well. But the measure of Israel's concessions ought not be how far it has moved from its own starting point; it must be how far it has moved toward a fair solution.

The Palestinians did not meet their historic responsibilities at the summit either. I suspect they will long regret their failure to respond to President Clinton — at Camp David and later on — with more forthcoming and comprehensive ideas of their own.

Finally, Camp David was not rushed. It was many things — inadequately prepared for, perhaps; too informal, possibly; lacking proper fall-back options, without a doubt — but premature it was not. By the spring of 2000, every serious Israeli, Palestinian and American analyst was predicting an outbreak of Palestinian violence absent a major breakthrough in the peace process. The Oslo process had run its natural course; if anything, tackling the sensitive final status issues came too late, not too soon.

The gloss that is put on the past matters. The way the two sides choose to view yesterday largely will determine how they choose to behave tomorrow. And, if unchallenged, their respective interpretations will gradually harden into divergent versions of reality and unassailable truths — that Yasir Arafat is incapable of reaching a final agreement, for example, or that Israel is intent on perpetuating an oppressive regime. As the two sides continue to debate what went wrong at Camp David, it is important that they get the lessons right.

Robert Malley was special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001. He is joining the Council on Foreign Relations as a senior fellow.

 

What about occupation Rearden?? Home demolation? land anaxation??? economic stranglation??What about settlers???

 

as per the article in my previous post, there was no offer other than a good will type statement - and thats worth zilch - cause Clinton was in no position to commit to any amounts, modalities etc anyway... cause he needs to bring around the Old Powers as well to put together any proper compensation etc package... and he couldn't do that, and bush certainly can't either... => no real offer made


PS if u need me to i can repost the list of massacres committed by zionist forces ad nauseum until u want to sssspit on me again brickhead
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1513305&highlight=spit#post1513305