Page 37 of 50 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 495

Thread: So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

  1. Top | #361
    Veteran Member Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    4,416
    Archived
    2,675
    Total Posts
    7,091
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    In lighter news,

    Israel moves to name Golan settlement after Trump
    RAMAT TRUMP, Golan Heights (AP) — The Trump name graces apartment towers, hotels and golf courses. Now it is the namesake of a tiny Israeli settlement in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet convened in this hamlet Sunday to inaugurate a new settlement named after President Donald Trump in a gesture of appreciation for the U.S. leader’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory.

    The settlement isn’t exactly new. Currently known as Bruchim, it is over 30 years old and has a population of 10 people.

    Israel is hoping the rebranded “Ramat Trump,” Hebrew for “Trump Heights,” will encourage a wave of residents to vastly expand it.
    Clearly, a result of Jared "He's Jewish, so he knows!" Kushner's plan for peace in the region.

  2. Top | #362
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post

    No? What's this, Gorgonzola cheese?........................................... ......https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
    What was attractive about that proposal?
    The Palestinians stood to gain much more, around 85% of their claims. Arafat walked away and as usual said "no"
    You're pretty much conceding that if there was something attractive in that offer, you have no idea what it was. And that's not surprising considering Barak's offer to Arafat wasn't revealed publicly and might not have been written down.

    The author of this article from The Irish Times has taken what Palestinian sources reported and what Uri Horowitz, a fellow at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, sussed out and combined them into a general picture of what Barak was offering:

    While Mr Barak's plan was seen by Israelis as "generous", it did not provide for the emergence of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr Barak was ready to withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip but sought to reduce and fragment the West Bank. Israel would retain sovereignty over "Greater Jerusalem", comprising the western Jewish and eastern Arab sectors, plus outlying Arab villages and Jewish settlements. This encompasses 28 per cent of the West Bank. Israel would annex another 9 to 13.5 per cent, lease a further 10 per cent and establish six military bases, staging areas and three early-warning stations in the West Bank. In exchange for Israel's appropriation of at least 47 to 51.5 per cent of the West Bank, Mr Barak offered land in the Negev equivalent to 1 per cent. Israel would retain control of borders and key roads in the West Bank, dividing it into three cantons.

    All movement would be controlled by Israel. Israel would retain control over Palestinian water sources and airspace. Thus, the proposed Palestinian entity would have no territorial contiguity, integrity or sovereignty and no capital in East Jerusalem. There the Palestinians would administer holy sites, outlying Arab suburbs and, perhaps, the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. In exchange for this entity, Barak demanded that the Palestinians sign a document proclaiming an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
    That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

    I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.

  3. Top | #363
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

    The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.

  4. Top | #364
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    10,249
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    15,955
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

    The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.
    Are you for real? It's the Palestinian version! Muslims are to tell whoppers if it furthers the islamic cause, which this does!

  5. Top | #365
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

    The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.
    Are you for real? It's the Palestinian version! Muslims are to tell whoppers if it furthers the islamic cause, which this does!
    Apparently you didn't read the linked articles.

    The Horowitz article lists the Palestinian and Israeli positions on various points of contention at the Camp David negotiations, as well as the Clinton bridging proposals. The Pressman article discusses the pressures Arafat and Barak faced from factions within their populace and government, and the actions of specific faction leaders like Netanyahu and Barghouti. It presents the talks within the larger context of Israeli and Palestinian politics, not just as Arafat and Barak having a dispute.

    If you're not interested in the history, I'll stop posting links. If you are, check out those two articles. They're pretty informative, the authors are respected historians and political analysts, and you can easily fact check them against other sources.

    ETA: I don't think you read the Robert Malley article that Ehud Barak was complaining about in the article you linked. I posted a link to the full article in a prior thread and I can provide it again if you'd like. Here's an abbreviated version if you're interested.

  6. Top | #366
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    10,249
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    15,955
    Rep Power
    56
    There can never be peace with an enemy that firstly won't negotiate, and secondly an enemy that wants to destroy you because of mainly islamic ideology.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

  7. Top | #367
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    There can never be peace with an enemy that firstly won't negotiate, and secondly an enemy that wants to destroy you because of mainly islamic ideology.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution
    From your link:

    The Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from 29 August to 1 September and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..."[2]
    I don't see the PLO or the Palestinian people listed anywhere as signatories. I do see Egypt and Jordan listed, so I guess you don't know about Anwar Sadat's successful negotiations with Israel or that the Israelis and Jordanians have also made peace.

    We got off onto this side track when I pointed out that a video you posted utilized glaringly obvious propaganda when it showed an alleged list of Two State proposals offered to the Palestinians that didn't include the most significant Two State proposal of them all, but did include things that weren't proposals and weren't presented to the Palestinians. I keep posting information on the actual proposals made over the course of negotiations and you keep trying to reduce the entire issue into an utterly simplistic good guys/bad guys scenario. We're getting nowhere.

    Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Until then I'll just assume you don't know and don't care what was proposed and/or rejected by each party.

  8. Top | #368
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    duplicate

  9. Top | #369
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    23,364
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    120,116
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

    I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.
    Thank you for admitting the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. If that offer was less than half then they're asking for everything.

    And the Palestinians are very good at finding pretexts to blame Israel (although not always correctly--one was when some beachgoers were killed by a Hamas mine) but the reactions follow too quickly on the triggers--it's obvious the attacks were pre-planned awaiting a pretext.

    The real reason for the second intifada is the Palestinians were doing too well. They had to drive a wedge between the people and Israel and they had to crash the economy so the Palestinians didn't have other options.

  10. Top | #370
    Veteran Member Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    4,035
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    8,575
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish View Post
    That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

    I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.
    Thank you for admitting the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. If that offer was less than half then they're asking for everything.

    And the Palestinians are very good at finding pretexts to blame Israel (although not always correctly--one was when some beachgoers were killed by a Hamas mine) but the reactions follow too quickly on the triggers--it's obvious the attacks were pre-planned awaiting a pretext.

    The real reason for the second intifada is the Palestinians were doing too well. They had to drive a wedge between the people and Israel and they had to crash the economy so the Palestinians didn't have other options.
    Misunderstanding the plain language in a post + ignorance + unsupported assertion + another unsupported assertion = typical LP post.

    Support your claims. Pick any one of them. And by support I don't mean post bullshit, lies, and things you made up or imagine must be true because you have faith. I mean present a clear, concise argument with supporting documentation. For example, you could link to an article about beachgoers being killed by a Hamas mine and how that was used as a pretext to blame Israel.

Similar Threads

  1. Trump's "solution" to crime
    By Loren Pechtel in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 07:04 PM
  2. Replies: 419
    Last Post: 12-05-2016, 04:38 AM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 09:44 PM
  4. FAUX Noise; Mixing Equal Portions Of "Stud" & "Bubblehead"
    By Medicine Man in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2016, 08:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •