UN report states Israel is "Apartheid State"

Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-256
Daps
65,142
Reppin
NULL
your input to this thread like most is to post an article with little substance then disagreeing with anyone who takes the obvious position and call them agents. It's played out.

Worrying about me shows your agenda...Attacking the messenger but ignoring the message. You only talking about yourself here.


Here's the reality, the UN report isn't making huge waves because members of the UN are usually under pressure from the US and Israel to keep those reports out or suppressed.

How does it effect the report as whole that people have known since 1947 that Israel is what it's been called? It's being reported on by some newspapers, not all and yet you didn't bother bringing it up in your threads. Oh wait you don't have any.

This report is cool, but it's nothing new and less newsworthy than the US abstaining to veto under Obama.

Nitpicking information based off your own bias viewpoint is what gatekeepers do.


Report comes out and "you say oh you don't say."
The report comes out I say, "and water is wet."

Correction: :francis: "You don't say". My reaction is to this matter. Water is Wet is a statement used by those who don't want or can't discuss the subject because of three things: Bias, lack of knowledge or don't have anything to add to the discussion.


Yet for some reason you want to argue. Everyone is aware of what's going on in Israel and it's not going to get any better under a Trump presidency who has promised to double down on decades of shytty policy supporting Israel.

What's your gripe? :martin:


Did I argue with you? No. I pointing out issues I have with people who don't add anything to the subject but want to come in and make vague statements that have no business in a discussion thread. Example: 50 People were shot in Chicago last weekend. First comments are "water is wet".

:comeon:
 

Dr. Acula

Posts on Dapcity.com
Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
27,067
Reputation
9,422
Daps
144,860
“The United States stands with our ally Israel and will continue to oppose biased and anti-Israel actions across the U.N. system and around the world,” wrote U.S. ambassador Haley.





this is the type of thing that we need that extra 54 billion in military spending for

how can you take issue with trump raising the defense budget, but continue to shill for israel and america's 'protection' of it? it doesnt make sense :ehh:
what if...you think both are wrong? :patrice:

Sadly, Obama was the most hostile to Israel president we've had, and even then he was still giving them billions of dollars :to:.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
48,865
Reputation
7,410
Daps
154,347
Reppin
CookoutGang
You're arguing the difference between a response and a reaction. You still haven't said anything of note. This report does nothing to change what we already knew about Israel and her being forced to resign or retract is a sign that nothing is changing in regards to the US/Israel alliance and the pressures it puts on the UN to protect Israel.

So again, what's your point? Why is this report so important to you?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-256
Daps
65,142
Reppin
NULL
You're arguing the difference between a response and a reaction. You still haven't said anything of note. This report does nothing to change what we already knew about Israel and her being forced to resign or retract is a sign that nothing is changing in regards to the US/Israel alliance and the pressures it puts on the UN to protect Israel.

So again, what's your point? Why is this report so important to you?

The fact that the information is growing about Israel's crimes continues to spread to the masses. They can suppress it and get protection as much as they want but time is running out before the world begins to turn away from Israel.
 

ill

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,234
Reputation
367
Daps
17,297
Reppin
Mother Russia & Greater Israel
@Ill you are going to have to face it.... Racism, Fascism always support and protect themselves.

Your article is biased af and uses one-sided "research". Israel is guilty of some crimes but this article is a gross exaggeration. The author and the sources they quoted completely dismissed legitimate arguments and helped you confirm your biases.
 

Black Nate Grey

The God Emperor of Mankind
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
7,355
Reputation
3,236
Daps
29,968
Please give examples of Palestinians having numerous chances to change their situation...
The PLO (recognized by Arab League, United Nations and Israel as the representative of the Palestinian people) has done dumb shyt, such as when Jordan took them in and they attempted to overthrow them. Wiki Article.

Even Egypt has partnered with Israel to build a blockade at Gaza to stop Hamas and their dumb shyt, which is significant considering the Arab League has been enemies of Israel forever it seems.

In 2000, Clinton held peace talks at Camp David with then leader Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak. Israel made a stupid amount of concessions and Israeli leadership agreed while Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.

main-qimg-8721f32ce5c97129d28e189674ff1d8a-p


main-qimg-1709d325ee103f58edb0f27a78f356d0-p

{Dennis Ross, A Missing Peace c. 2004}
This was before negotiations to split Jerusalem, once those proposals came up however we get:
main-qimg-877cfc3c6ba001190b2b513cbf5c9f48-p

An obscene amount of the West Bank (95%), Divided Jerusalem, control of over pretty much the entire border with Jordan, withdrawal from Gaza strip along with things such as airspace.
They rejected this chance at statehood.

Bill Clinton backs this up in his book "My Life":
========Excerpt: Clinton Book "My Life"=====

... December 23, was a fateful day for the Middle East peace process. After the two sides had been negotiating again for several days at Bolling Air Force Base, my team and I became convinced that unless we narrowed the range of debate, in effect forcing the big compromises up front, there would never be an agreement. Arafat was afraid of being criticized by other Arab leaders; Barak was losing ground to Sharon at home. So I brought the Palestinian and Israeli teams into the Cabinet Room and read them my “parameters” for proceeding. These were developed after extensive private talks with the parties separately since Camp David. If they accepted the parameters within four days, we would go forward. If not, we were through.
I read them slowly so that both sides could take careful notes.
On territory, I recommended 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank for the Palestinians with a land swap from Israel of 1 to 3 percent, and an understanding that the land kept by Israel would include 80 percent of the settlers in blocs. On security, I said Israeli forces should withdraw over a three-year period while an international force would be gradually introduced, with the understanding that a small Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley could remain for another three years under the authority of the international forces. The Israelis would also be able to maintain their early-warning station in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. In the event of an “imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel’s security,” there would be provision for emergency deployments in the West Bank.

The new state of Palestine would be “nonmilitarized,” but would have a strong security force; sovereignty over its airspace, with special arrangement to meet Israeli training and operational needs; and an international force for border security and deterrence.
On Jerusalem, I recommended that the Arab neighborhoods be in Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods in Israel, and that the Palestinians should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram and the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall and the “holy space” of which it is a part with no excavation around the wall or under the Mount at least without mutual consent.


On refugees, I said that the new state of Palestine should be the homeland for refugees displaced in the 1948 war and afterward, without ruling out the possibility that Israel would accept some to the refugees according to its own laws and sovereign decisions, giving priority to the refugee population sin Lebanon. I recommended an international effort to compensate refugees and assist them in finding houses in the new state of Palestine, in the land-swap areas to be transferred to Palestine, in their current host countries, in other willing nations, or in Israel. Both parties should agree that this solution would satisfy United Nations Resolution 194.

Finally, the agreement had to clearly mark the end of the conflict and put an end to all violence. I suggested a new UN resolution saying that this agreement, along with the final release of Palestinian prisoners, would fulfill the requirements of resolutions 242 and 338.

I said these parameters were nonnegotiable and were the best I could do, and I wanted the parties to negotiate a final status agreement within them. After I left, Dennis Ross and other members of our team stayed behind to clarify any misunderstanding, but they refused to hear complaints. I knew the plan was tough for both parties, but it was time – past time – to put up or shut up. The Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return; they had always known they would have to, but they never wanted to admit it. The Israelis would give up East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, but their religious and cultural sites would be preserved; it had been evident for some time that for peace to come, they would have to do that. The Israelis would also give up a little more of the West Bank and probably a larger land swap than Barak’s last best offer, but they would keep enough to hold at least 80 percent of the settlers. And they would get a formal end to the conflict. It was a hard deal, but if they wanted peace, I thought it was fair to both sides

Arafat immediately began to equivocate, asking for “clarifications.” But the parameters were clear; either he would negotiate within them or not. As always, he was playing for more time. I called Mubarak and read him the points. He said they were historic and he could encourage Arafat to accept them.

On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.

I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.

On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake.


[break to new section. Kindle Edition location 19194]

We passed up the Renaissance Weekend again that year so that our family could spend the last New Year’s at Camp David. I still hadn’t heard from Arafat. On New Year’s Day, I invited him to the White House the next day. Before he came, he received Prince Bandar and the Egyptian ambassador at his hotel. One of Arafat’s younger aides told us that they had pushed him hard to say yes. When Arafat came to see me, he asked a lot of questions about my proposal. He wanted Israel to have the Wailing Wall, because of its religious significance, but asserted that the remaining fifty feet of the Western Wall should go to the Palestinians. I told him he was wrong, that Israel should have the entire wall to protect itself from someone using one entrance of the tunnel that ran beneath the wall from damaging the remains of the temples beneath the Haram. The Old City has four quarters: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Armenian. It was assumed that Palestine would get the Muslim and Christian quarters, with Israel getting the other two. Arafat argued that he should have a few blocks of the Armenian quarter because of the Christian churches there. I couldn’t believe he was talking to me about this.

Arafat was also trying to wiggle out of giving up the right of return. He knew he had to but was afraid of the criticism he would get. I reminded him that Israel had promised to take some of the refugees from Lebanon whose families had lived in what was now northern Israel for hundreds of years, but that no Israeli leader would ever let in so many Palestinians that the Jewish character of the state could be threatened in a few decades by the higher Palestinian birthrate. There were not going to be two majority-Arab states in the Holy Land; Arafat had acknowledged that by signing the 1993 peace agreement with its implicit two-state solution. Besides, the agreement had to be approved by Israeli citizens in a referendum. The right of return was a deal breaker. I wouldn’t think of asking the Israelis to vote for it. On the other hand, I thought the Israelis would vote for a final settlement within the parameters I had laid out. If there was an agreement, I even thought Barak might be able to come back and win the election, thought he was running well behind Sharon in the polls, in an electorate frightened by the intifada and angered by Arafat’s refusal to make peace.
At times Arafat seemed confused, not wholly in command of the facts. I had felt for some time that he might not be at the top of his game any longer, after all the years of spending the night in different places to dodge assassins’ bullets, all the countless hours on airplanes, all the endless hours of tension-filled talks. Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman. He had grown used to flying from place to place, giving mother-of-pearl gifts made by Palestinian craftsmen to world leaders and appearing on television with them. It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines and instead he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services. Most of the young people on Arafat’s team wanted him to take the deal. I believe Abu Ala and Abu Mazen also would have agreed but didn’t want to be at odds with Arafat.
...
When he left, I still had no idea what Arafat was going to do. His body language said no, but the deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go. Barak wanted me to come to the region, but I wanted Arafat to say yes to the Israelis on the big issues embodied in my parameters first. In December the parties had met at Bolling Air Force Base for talks that didn’t succeed because Arafat wouldn’t accept the parameters that were hard for him.


Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.

Right before I left office, Arafat, in one of our last conversations, thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a great man I was. “Mr. Chairman,” I replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.” I warned Arafat that he was single-handedly electing Sharon and that he would reap the whirlwind.

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon would be elected prime minister in a landslide.The Israelis had decided that if Arafat wouldn’t take my offer he wouldn’t take anything, and that if they had no partner for peace, it was better to be led by the most aggressive, intransigent leader available. Sharon would take a hard line toward Arafat and would be supported in doing so by Ehud Barak and the United States. Nearly a year after I left office, Arafat said he was ready to negotiate on the basis of the parameters I had presented. Apparently, Arafat had thought the time to decide, five minutes to midnight, had finally come. His watch had been broken a long time.
Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.
...
Later that night in New York City, I spoke to the pro-peace Israel Policy Forum. At the time we still had some hope of making peace. Arafat had said he accepted the parameters with reservations. The problem was that his reservations, unlike Israel’s, were outside the parameters, at least on refugees and the Western Wall, but I treated the acceptance as if it were real, based on his pledge to make peace before I left office.

Clinton blamed Arafat for negotiation failures.

It wasn't the best plan tbh, but it would have given their people a place to live. Again, the original settlement was wrong, but Palestinian leadership have been rejecting compromise after compromise. Both parties are at fault here, though it's heavily skewed on the Israeli side.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-256
Daps
65,142
Reppin
NULL
The PLO (recognized by Arab League, United Nations and Israel as the representative of the Palestinian people) has done dumb shyt, such as when Jordan took them in and they attempted to overthrow them. Wiki Article.

Even Egypt has partnered with Israel to build a blockade at Gaza to stop Hamas and their dumb shyt, which is significant considering the Arab League has been enemies of Israel forever it seems.

Hamas is a Israel creation. Heads of Hamas are on Israel's payroll.



In 2000, Clinton held peace talks at Camp David with then leader Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak. Israel made a stupid amount of concessions and Israeli leadership agreed while Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.

The first map is correct and not the 2nd one. Plus not all land consists of fertile soil. Sand and or dead soil is pointless to grow anything in the area.

main-qimg-8721f32ce5c97129d28e189674ff1d8a-p


main-qimg-1709d325ee103f58edb0f27a78f356d0-p

{Dennis Ross, A Missing Peace c. 2004}

Dennis Ross the Zionist
Dennis Ross tells American Jews, ‘We need to be advocates for Israel’ — and not for Palestinians


This was before negotiations to split Jerusalem, once those proposals came up however we get:
main-qimg-877cfc3c6ba001190b2b513cbf5c9f48-p

An obscene amount of the West Bank (95%), Divided Jerusalem, control of over pretty much the entire border with Jordan, withdrawal from Gaza strip along with things such as airspace.
They rejected this chance at statehood.

Bill Clinton backs this up in his book "My Life":
========Excerpt: Clinton Book "My Life"=====

...
I read them slowly so that both sides could take careful notes. On territory, I recommended 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank for the Palestinians with a land swap from Israel of 1 to 3 percent, and an understanding that the land kept by Israel would include 80 percent of the settlers in blocs. On security, I said Israeli forces should withdraw over a three-year period while an international force would be gradually introduced, with the understanding that a small Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley could remain for another three years under the authority of the international forces. The Israelis would also be able to maintain their early-warning station in the West Bank with a Palestinian liaison presence. In the event of an “imminent and demonstrable threat to Israel’s security,” there would be provision for emergency deployments in the West Bank.

The new state of Palestine would be “nonmilitarized,” but would have a strong security force; sovereignty over its airspace, with special arrangement to meet Israeli training and operational needs; and an international force for border security and deterrence.
On Jerusalem, I recommended that the Arab neighborhoods be in Palestine and the Jewish neighborhoods in Israel, and that the Palestinians should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram and the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall and the “holy space” of which it is a part with no excavation around the wall or under the Mount at least without mutual consent.


On refugees, I said that the new state of Palestine should be the homeland for refugees displaced in the 1948 war and afterward, without ruling out the possibility that Israel would accept some to the refugees according to its own laws and sovereign decisions, giving priority to the refugee population sin Lebanon. I recommended an international effort to compensate refugees and assist them in finding houses in the new state of Palestine, in the land-swap areas to be transferred to Palestine, in their current host countries, in other willing nations, or in Israel. Both parties should agree that this solution would satisfy United Nations Resolution 194.

Finally, the agreement had to clearly mark the end of the conflict and put an end to all violence. I suggested a new UN resolution saying that this agreement, along with the final release of Palestinian prisoners, would fulfill the requirements of resolutions 242 and 338.

I said these parameters were nonnegotiable and were the best I could do, and I wanted the parties to negotiate a final status agreement within them. After I left, Dennis Ross and other members of our team stayed behind to clarify any misunderstanding, but they refused to hear complaints. I knew the plan was tough for both parties, but it was time – past time – to put up or shut up. The Palestinians would give up the absolute right of return; they had always known they would have to, but they never wanted to admit it. The Israelis would give up East Jerusalem and parts of the Old City, but their religious and cultural sites would be preserved; it had been evident for some time that for peace to come, they would have to do that. The Israelis would also give up a little more of the West Bank and probably a larger land swap than Barak’s last best offer, but they would keep enough to hold at least 80 percent of the settlers. And they would get a formal end to the conflict. It was a hard deal, but if they wanted peace, I thought it was fair to both sides

Arafat immediately began to equivocate, asking for “clarifications.” But the parameters were clear; either he would negotiate within them or not. As always, he was playing for more time. I called Mubarak and read him the points. He said they were historic and he could encourage Arafat to accept them.

On the twenty-seventh, Barak’s cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters, and therefore subject to negotiations anyway. It was historic: an Israeli government had said that to get peace, there would be a Palestinian state in roughly 97% of the West Bank, counting the swap, and all of Gaza where Israel also had settlements. The ball was in Arafat’s court.

I was calling other Arab leaders daily to urge them to pressure Arafat to say yes. They were all impressed with Israel’s acceptance and told me they believed Arafat should take the deal. I have no way of knowing what they told him, though the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, later told me he and Crown Price Abdullah had the distinct impression Arafat was going to accept the parameters.

On the twenty-ninth, Dennis Ross met with Abu Ala, whom we all respected, to make sure Arafat understood the consequences of rejection. I would be gone. Ross would be gone. Barak would lose the upcoming election to Sharon. Bush wouldn’t want to jump in after I had invested so much and failed.
I still didn’t believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake.

[break to new section. Kindle Edition location 19194]

We passed up the Renaissance Weekend again that year so that our family could spend the last New Year’s at Camp David. I still hadn’t heard from Arafat. On New Year’s Day, I invited him to the White House the next day. Before he came, he received Prince Bandar and the Egyptian ambassador at his hotel. One of Arafat’s younger aides told us that they had pushed him hard to say yes. When Arafat came to see me, he asked a lot of questions about my proposal. He wanted Israel to have the Wailing Wall, because of its religious significance, but asserted that the remaining fifty feet of the Western Wall should go to the Palestinians. I told him he was wrong, that Israel should have the entire wall to protect itself from someone using one entrance of the tunnel that ran beneath the wall from damaging the remains of the temples beneath the Haram. The Old City has four quarters: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Armenian. It was assumed that Palestine would get the Muslim and Christian quarters, with Israel getting the other two. Arafat argued that he should have a few blocks of the Armenian quarter because of the Christian churches there. I couldn’t believe he was talking to me about this.

Arafat was also trying to wiggle out of giving up the right of return. He knew he had to but was afraid of the criticism he would get. I reminded him that Israel had promised to take some of the refugees from Lebanon whose families had lived in what was now northern Israel for hundreds of years, but that no Israeli leader would ever let in so many Palestinians that the Jewish character of the state could be threatened in a few decades by the higher Palestinian birthrate. There were not going to be two majority-Arab states in the Holy Land; Arafat had acknowledged that by signing the 1993 peace agreement with its implicit two-state solution. Besides, the agreement had to be approved by Israeli citizens in a referendum. The right of return was a deal breaker. I wouldn’t think of asking the Israelis to vote for it. On the other hand, I thought the Israelis would vote for a final settlement within the parameters I had laid out. If there was an agreement, I even thought Barak might be able to come back and win the election, thought he was running well behind Sharon in the polls, in an electorate frightened by the intifada and angered by Arafat’s refusal to make peace.
At times Arafat seemed confused, not wholly in command of the facts. I had felt for some time that he might not be at the top of his game any longer, after all the years of spending the night in different places to dodge assassins’ bullets, all the countless hours on airplanes, all the endless hours of tension-filled talks. Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman. He had grown used to flying from place to place, giving mother-of-pearl gifts made by Palestinian craftsmen to world leaders and appearing on television with them. It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines and instead he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services. Most of the young people on Arafat’s team wanted him to take the deal. I believe Abu Ala and Abu Mazen also would have agreed but didn’t want to be at odds with Arafat.
...
When he left, I still had no idea what Arafat was going to do. His body language said no, but the deal was so good I couldn’t believe anyone would be foolish enough to let it go. Barak wanted me to come to the region, but I wanted Arafat to say yes to the Israelis on the big issues embodied in my parameters first. In December the parties had met at Bolling Air Force Base for talks that didn’t succeed because Arafat wouldn’t accept the parameters that were hard for him.

Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.

Right before I left office, Arafat, in one of our last conversations, thanked me for all my efforts and told me what a great man I was. “Mr. Chairman,” I replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.” I warned Arafat that he was single-handedly electing Sharon and that he would reap the whirlwind.

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon would be elected prime minister in a landslide.The Israelis had decided that if Arafat wouldn’t take my offer he wouldn’t take anything, and that if they had no partner for peace, it was better to be led by the most aggressive, intransigent leader available. Sharon would take a hard line toward Arafat and would be supported in doing so by Ehud Barak and the United States. Nearly a year after I left office, Arafat said he was ready to negotiate on the basis of the parameters I had presented. Apparently, Arafat had thought the time to decide, five minutes to midnight, had finally come. His watch had been broken a long time.
Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions. However, many Palestinians and Israelis are still committed to peace. Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David and the six long months that followed.
...
Later that night in New York City, I spoke to the pro-peace Israel Policy Forum. At the time we still had some hope of making peace. Arafat had said he accepted the parameters with reservations. The problem was that his reservations, unlike Israel’s, were outside the parameters, at least on refugees and the Western Wall, but I treated the acceptance as if it were real, based on his pledge to make peace before I left office.

Clinton blamed Arafat for negotiation failures.

It wasn't the best plan tbh, but it would have given their people a place to live. Again, the original settlement was wrong, but Palestinian leadership have been rejecting compromise after compromise. Both parties are at fault here, though it's heavily skewed on the Israeli side.


You quoted Clinton......:mjlol: a known liar and theft.
 

Black Nate Grey

The God Emperor of Mankind
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
7,355
Reputation
3,236
Daps
29,968
@thekingsmen

I was under the impression Hamas was a fundamentalist Islamic organization dedicated to the 'liberation' of Palestine, I may be wrong about that. If you have a source on Israel creating Hamas that'd be much appreciated.

I quoted Denis Ross because his was the only map of the negotiations I could find, which you yourself admit are correct, so moot point.

Of course I quoted Clinton, he was-uh- he was there?
He hosted the talks, presented and spoke with the delegations. If you have a more reliable account I would not object to it being presented and will refer to it instead of Bill Clinton's.

Nothing you said disproved or challenged the initial assertion that Israel has provided concessions (which they have), or that the Palestinian leadership have rejected these proposals (which they have).

Palestine's leadership has fukked their people, not as much as the Israeli's, but sufficiently enough they bare a brunt of the blame for the situation. Making poor decisions.

Again Israel can suck my big black cock, but it's a complicated situation.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-256
Daps
65,142
Reppin
NULL
@thekingsmen

I was under the impression Hamas was a fundamentalist Islamic organization dedicated to the 'liberation' of Palestine, I may be wrong about that. If you have a source on Israel creating Hamas that'd be much appreciated.

I quoted Denis Ross because his was the only map of the negotiations I could find, which you yourself admit are correct, so moot point.

Of course I quoted Clinton, he was-uh- he was there?
He hosted the talks, presented and spoke with the delegations. If you have a more reliable account I would not object to it being presented and will refer to it instead of Bill Clinton's.

Nothing you said disproved or challenged the initial assertion that Israel has provided concessions (which they have), or that the Palestinian leadership have rejected these proposals (which they have).

Palestine's leadership has fukked their people, not as much as the Israeli's, but sufficiently enough they bare a brunt of the blame for the situation. Making poor decisions.

Again Israel can suck my big black cock, but it's a complicated situation.


Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel

Robert Dreyfuss wrote a book on it...

In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.
***
In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.


Hamas, Son of Israel by -- Antiwar.com







How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
 
Top