or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arafat says YES to Clinton Peace plan. A little late?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arafat says YES to Clinton Peace plan. A little late?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
From the AP:

JERUSALEM Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is prepared to accept a Mideast peace plan put forward by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton in December 2000, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday.

In an interview at his Ramallah headquarters, Arafat told Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar that he would take the Clinton plan without changes, Eldar told The Associated Press on Friday.

"I am prepared to accept it, absolutely," Eldar quoted Arafat as saying, and he endorsed the points of the plan one by one, Eldar said.

Palestinian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.

Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke down without an agreement. According to the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed holy site.

The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original homes.

After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.

Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon. At that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the table.

Now Arafat is willing to sign on to the Clinton plan, Eldar wrote, calling it the first time the Palestinian leader has endorsed it.

Arafat said Israel would receive sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of the compound of the Jewish Temples, Judaism's holiest site.

Also, Arafat said he would be prepared for modifications in the line between Israel and the West Bank and exchanges of territory with Israel, principles the Palestinians have balked at up to now.

The official Palestinian demand has been that Israel must pull back to the 1949 cease-fire line, relinquishing all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem and dismantling all Jewish settlements there.

Arafat did not repeat the demand for the right of return of all the refugees and their families to Israel, Eldar said. Instead, he said, a solution must be found for the 200,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that he was calling on European and other world bodies to help.

Israel has refused to take in large numbers of refugees. Lebanon says there are 350,000 refugees there.

However, Sharon is prepared to offer much less than his predecessor. Sharon insists that all violence must stop before peace talks resume, and then he would propose a long-term interim agreement, during which the Palestinians would maintain control over the areas they now have.

The Palestinians have rejected the idea of another interim accord.


How long did it take him to decide it was a good idea in the first place? Now he has to deal with Sharon who is a hardass and Bush. Bush will not be a tough sell and maybe he will let Clinton do some diplomatic work here, but this isn't Barak we're dealing with now. He should have done the right thing 2 years ago when the going was better.
post #2 of 28
I guess this buries the myth that he already had accepted it.
post #3 of 28
LOL BRussel it does ....

Problem is not for him to accept it - its for his people to stop killing Israeli civilians and for him to understand that violence would not get him anything... its not talking he needs doing its actions he needs to take. and stop the violence. once this is fuly understood by the Palestinians the rest will fall into place and peace will follow....
It really is that simple !
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #4 of 28
So , I guess Bill aint that bad eh?

.....
post #5 of 28
This is a very interesting move. I think Arafat may be coming to realize that fighting Israel will get him nothing but losses.

If I were Sharon and truly interested in the peace and security of my people in Israel, I would embrace Arafat's acceptance and work with what little government there is in Palestine to form a stable state for the Palestinians.

A healthy Palestinian state would do more for cutting back on terrorism than any amount of Arafat saying, "Terrorism is bad, stop it." would.

Here's to hoping this will be the first step in bringing real peace to the troubled region.

[edit]

Is it a coincidence that "Hopeless Bleak Despair" by They Might Be Giants came on while I was writing this post or is God telling me something?

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #6 of 28
[quote]How long did it take him to decide it was a good idea in the first place? Now he has to deal with Sharon who is a hardass and Bush. Bush will not be a tough sell and maybe he will let Clinton do some diplomatic work here, but this isn't Barak we're dealing with now. He should have done the right thing 2 years ago when the going was better.<hr></blockquote>

Think of all the blood that could have been saved ... over 2000 lives and all for nothing ....
in the end we're back to where we were 2 years ago

its so sad !
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #7 of 28


Those that still want to deal with Arafat, truly deserve Arafat. First, get rid of this murderous gangster. Second, reform those PA institutions. Third, have re-elections (without Arafat). Forth, re-negotiate some kind of a settlement. Thats assuming the violence ends.

Its a self-serving bait Arafat has put out. And if Israel and the Americans have any brains at all, they would reject it, and insist that Arafat steps down.

mika.
post #8 of 28
I don't believe anymore in Arafat (and i was not very confident on him before)
post #9 of 28
[quote]Its a self-serving bait Arafat has put out. And if Israel and the Americans have any brains at all, they would reject it, and insist that Arafat steps down.<hr></blockquote>

Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?

The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #10 of 28
quote
Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?


Get real.

Its another ploy to give himself and his corrupt political structures legitimacy. Any agreement under the duress of violence, under international law, is considered null and void. Arafat once he regroups can easily claim that his capitulation to Israel was as a result of her inserting her military forces into the areas under his control. He then can easily continue his guerrilla war against Israel to claim some more victims, and the title of Saladin of the 21st century.

quote
The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly.

I hope it does prove that to them. Sharon shouldn't want peace that badly! Nor should any Israeli.

End to the violence. Elected a new leadership. Reform the PA institutions. And once a legitimate settlement is negotiated, members of the Knesset will vote on it. As will the members of the Arab parliamentary assembly.


mika.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #11 of 28
Mika,

Did I just hear you say the Palestinians would be forced to act "under the duress of violence"?

Unexpected.

Harald

[EDIT: Dodgy grammar]

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #12 of 28
[quote]Arafat once he regroups can easily claim that his capitulation to Israel was as a result of her inserting her military forces into the areas under his control.<hr></blockquote>

And whose fault would that be?

[quote]He then can easily continue his guerrilla war against Israel to claim some more victims, and the title of Saladin of the 21st century.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]End to the violence.<hr></blockquote>

And how will the violence end? Through more Israeli-instigated violence?

That's not an end to violence, mika, that's just an end to Palestinian violence.

[quote]Elected a new leadership. Reform the PA institutions. And once a legitimate settlement is negotiated, members of the Knesset will vote on it. As will the members of the Arab parliamentary assembly.<hr></blockquote>

Elected by who?
Reformed how?
What is "legitimate"?

Why is a peace plan that was fine 2 years ago not good anymore? Why would Israel change stances?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #13 of 28
Or to put it another way, if I might paraphrase Mika,

"Arafat accepts peace plan. The violent bâstard."
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #14 of 28
Whatever... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Let's award him another Nobel peace price.


mika.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #15 of 28
Arafat and Clinton are both bad men who should be ignored.
post #16 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Bait for what?
What does Arafat stand to gain from it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ha ! Grover ... come on.. You know this is so mega obvious ...don't play dumb
Words are cheap for Arafat, he has lied so many times, its a second nature to him - say one thing but do the opposite in reality... he has broken every single agreement he has ever signed (both with Israel and with Arab states)
What does he stand to gain ?
Its so simple , Arafat knows Israel is about to kik some butt in the OT after more then 50 Israelis have been murdered since the beginning of June, He also knows that it wont take much for Sharon to try and expel or kill him ( another big suicide massacre could finally tip the balance) and Bush is so f****** fed up with him that he probably won't come to his aid this time. this is a way for the old fox to play for some time and sympathy, to appear to suddenly embrace peace and be willing to compromise while still instigating extreme violence on the sly... we have been seeing this now for 2 years .. "the PA condemns all forms of terrorism against civilians and calles on the Israelis to return to negotiations" Arafat always says .. but in reality he is just as part of the war and the bombings as Hamas or Islamic jihad are ... Israel has provided plenty of prof to that effect. And if this doesn't explain it enough for you then just try to remember that one of the major terrorist groups responsible for dozens of murders and suicide missions are Arafat's own Tanzim ( a wing of the PA's Fatah movement) AKA -The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Talking like that has been a pattern of Arafat's behavior for ages... the fact you guys don't see through this is amazing to me .


[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
The ONLY way this could benefit Arafat is if Sharon rejects it because it would be proof to him and his cronies that Sharon doesn't really want peace all that badly
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sharon has nothing to reject, nothing has been put on the table, this would disappear like a wave in the ocean. Arafat didn't make an official declaration all he said was in an informal interview to an Israeli left leaning newspaper ...this isn't a political or a diplomatic channel where serious proposals are made ... it looks like such an obvious PR stunt... He knows darn well that if he wants to really end the violence he could do it tomorrow ...

[quote]Originally posted by Harald :
<strong>

"Arafat accepts peace plan. The violent bâstard."
</strong><hr></blockquote>

ha ha ha you're so very funny ....
Arafat can CLAIM to accept anything ... personally me and most other israelis don't give a s*** what he accepts or not , I care about what he DOES ! and more then 50 dead Israelis in 3 weeks is a very good example to HIS ACTIONS (as opposed to his words) .....
Sorry to be a bit too verbose on this, but it seems as though this is the only way to get this into your skull

Lets see Arafat stop funding and sending suicide bombers into Israeli buses and cafes lets see him be a leader and say to his people and the rest of the world stop this bloodshed NOW ! and then actually ACT and do something to make them stop . if he does this and then says 'I accept the Clinton plan then maybe Israelis would start believing him.. maybe.....
Though I'm afraid this would probably never happen , he is too obsessed with the destruction of Israel and with his own ego.
Like mika said it - Our very own 21st century Saladin ....
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #17 of 28
I'm curious? What if they did kick out Arafat, reformed the PA institutions, and stopped the bombing in Israel (which I doubt). What if they do all that, but Israel keeps building settlements? What should the Palestine do then?
post #18 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by Dell_Iron:
<strong>Arafat and Clinton are both bad men who should be ignored.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Clinton a terrorist ?
Interesting comparison. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #19 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>I'm curious? What if they did kick out Arafat, reformed the PA institutions, and stopped the bombing in Israel (which I doubt). What if they do all that, but Israel keeps building settlements? What should the Palestine do then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

look, 80% of Israelis polled are against the settlement policy and support an independent Palestinian state .. they just don't like being killed .. Most supporters of Israel around the world are against the settlement policy and would like to see a political solution that ends with a Palestinian state and the removal of many settlements.
These Clinton proposals we are talking about here were fully accepted by the Israeli government at the time.
If the Palestinians grow up and do these things you say, many Israelis would come out and support them strongly, don't forget that the last PM, Barak, was elected by a landslide specifically to make that final deal with them and don't forget that the only reason Sharon was elected after that was the extreme disillusionment Israelis felt when the Clinton proposals were rejected by Arafat and violence erupted so fiercely. Israel felt that it and the US offered the Palestinians peace on a plater and got a spit in the face in return and that Arafat's real agenda wasn't a solution to the conflict but the destruction or at least the extreme weakening of Israel.

And last but not least - I think the whole world would be justified in pressuring Israel to compromise if the palestinians show some maturity and stop their violence while Israel continues with the occupation.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #20 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>This is a very interesting move. I think Arafat may be coming to realize that fighting Israel will get him nothing but losses.

If I were Sharon and truly interested in the peace and security of my people in Israel, I would embrace Arafat's acceptance and work with what little government there is in Palestine to form a stable state for the Palestinians.

A healthy Palestinian state would do more for cutting back on terrorism than any amount of Arafat saying, "Terrorism is bad, stop it." would.

Here's to hoping this will be the first step in bringing real peace to the troubled region.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Arafat must love people like you. It's all on Sharon now huh?


How do you know when Arafat is lying? Hes speaking English.
post #21 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by rashumon:
<strong>

look, 80% of Israelis polled are against the settlement policy and support an independent Palestinian state .. they just don't like being killed .. Most supporters of Israel around the world are against the settlement policy and would like to see a political solution that ends with a Palestinian state and the removal of many settlements. </strong><hr></blockquote>

If 80% of Isralis are agianst the settlements, why were they built in first place? As far as rest of the world, we have people such as Dick Army who blieve that there shouldn't be a Palestiain state, well, in west bank. Perhaps there is people who blieve there should be a state. Just not where Paestines want it.


[quote]These Clinton proposals we are talking about here were fully accepted by the Israeli government at the time.
If the Palestinians grow up and do these things you say, many Israelis would come out and support them strongly, don't forget that the last PM, Barak, was elected by a landslide specifically to make that final deal with them and don't forget that the only reason Sharon was elected after that was the extreme disillusionment Israelis felt when the Clinton proposals were rejected by Arafat and violence erupted so fiercely. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>

I heard that Palestinians and Israelis continue to negotiate after Clinton proposal, but was stop for the election. Was this true?

[quote]Israel felt that it and the US offered the Palestinians peace on a plater and got a spit in the face in return and that Arafat's real agenda wasn't a solution to the conflict but the destruction or at least the extreme weakening of Israel. [/qb]<hr></blockquote>

I think that's debatable but every one is allow there own opinion.

[quote]And last but not least - I think the whole world would be justified in pressuring Israel to compromise if the palestinians show some maturity and stop their violence while Israel continues with the occupation.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>

The world doesn't want what the Palestinians want. They just want the violence to stop. So if stop, would any one follow up? Would any one care? I know what goes on because of it's on the news. But if it went away who would then care. It was ten years from the Oslo accords, but settlements bloom from there.

[quote][QUOTE] <hr></blockquote>

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Mike Ghost ]

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: Mike Ghost ]</p>
post #22 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
If 80% of Israelis are against the settlements, why were they built in first place? As far as rest of the world, we have people such as Dick Army who believe that there shouldn't be a Palestiain state, well, in west bank. Perhaps there is people who believe there should be a state. Just not where Paestines want it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Have you ever looked at the Clinton proposals ? the Palestinian state according to that would have been established on around 97% of the OT and the rest would be covered by land exchanges .. so there's absolutely no fogginess about where or what kind of state the Palestinians would have, and thats been basically endorsed by the Bush administration as well.

[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I heard that Palestinians and Israelis continue to negotiate after Clinton proposal, but was stop for the election. Was this true?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's half true - In december 2000 Arafat and Barak met again in Taba in Egypt where Barak tried for the last time to get some kind of a deal with Arafat ... he offered him even more then what was on the table at Camp David in September that year but again, Arafat rejected it all and then Israel and the US went into elections....
As usual the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance...

[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
I think that's debatable but every one is allow there own opinion.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well if that is so then I would love it if you could debate it .... for me it's crystal clear !

[quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:
<strong>
The world doesn't want what the Palestinians want. They just want the violence to stop. So if stop, would any one follow up? Would any one care? I know what goes on because of it's on the news. But if it went away who would then care. It was ten years from the Oslo accords, but settlements bloom from there.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What you and so many others fail to see is that one of the main groups who care are Israelis. before Arafat started his new war on Israel there was a massive movement within Israel that supported Palestinian self determination and a removal of the settlements, Israelis and Palestinians are like brothers living side by side, mutually dependent on each other for survival. before the current conflict ignited there were intricate business economic and social ties between the two nations but sadly these have all been destroyed by the fighting... the Palestinians are singularly responsible for the collapse of the israeli peace movement, How can any Israeli care for them when all they are interested in doing is killing as many israelis as they can ?
Where they to renounce violence plenty of Israelis would support their legitimate claims ... but only as long as the accept that Israelis have a right to live in peace and security in their own land.

And I think that the indirect linkage you create between the settlements and the violence is appalling, how can you compare the two ? killing innocents is in no way made moral by linking it to the Israeli settlement policy. and anyway Palestinians and Arabs have been busy killing Israelis and Jews long before the occupation ever took place .....so even from a pragmatic point of view I can't see how the two issues are ralated....

The bottom line is this: If Palestinians renounce violence as a political tool for extracting concessions from Israel they will get their state and they will be helped by the rest of the world financially and politicaly. if they don't all they are achieving (along with killing lots of innocent palestinians and Israelis) is a deterioration in their status on all fronts !
Its very simple !
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #23 of 28
An interesting editorial from <a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=179035&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=179035" target="_blank">Haaretz</a> where the initial Arafat interview was published on Friday... I think this explains very well the general feeling among Israelis.
[quote]

<strong>Eitorial: Arafat is not convincing</strong>

On the face of it, Yasser Arafat's remarks published in his interview to Ha'aretz on Friday should make us feel hopeful. The Palestinian leader expressed readiness to accept the peace proposal made by former U.S. president Bill Clinton, came out in support of the advertisement against suicide bombings published by a group of Palestinian intellectuals, and expressed the wish to pay personal condolence calls on the families of Israeli victims of terrorism. However, the lesson that the Israeli public has learned over the past 21 months from Arafat's behavior is that one cannot trust his word, since there is an intolerable gap between what he says and what he does.

The interview appeared on the same day as the reports of the shocking attack on the settlement of Itamar in which five people were murdered, including a mother and her three children. The report followed on the heels of two harsh terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. When the Israeli public weighs Arafat's declaration against the events, it is not difficult to decide which has the decisive impact on the reality of everyday living: Since October 2000, the Palestinians have been waging an indiscriminate war of terror against Israeli civilians. This cruel method of operation has the backing or the tacit approval of Arafat, who considers it a legitimate means of bargaining with Israel over the terms of an agreement. This behavior is a crude and cynical infringement of the Oslo agreements to which Arafat is a signatory.

Even the many Israelis who are harshly critical of their own government for its part in fanning the flames and its lack of readiness to give diplomatic channels a chance, cannot give credit to Arafat for his conciliatory declarations. He has to be judged both by his deeds and his omissions, and these are systematically and unequivocally contradictory to the declarations he made at the week's end.

Moreover, Arafat fails to explain why he rejected the Clinton blueprint in July 2000 and what has supposedly caused him to change his mind now. He is likewise not convincing when he expresses support for the Palestinian intellectuals' initiative against terror attacks. The leader of a nation does not need to add his name to a petition in order to influence public opinion or decision-makers; he has other, much more effective tools at his disposal. His appeals to the terror victims' families can be seen in the same light: Instead of imitating the sincere gesture of King Hussein [who made personal condolence calls on the families of the victims of the Naharayim shooting attack in 1996], he could use his authority and his influence - however limited they may now be - to curb the murderous Palestinian terror attacks, or at least to minimize them.

Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete

Arafat will be judged not only by his deeds but also by the gap between those remarks he addresses to the Israeli public and those intended for his own people. In his speeches to the Palestinians, he sanctifies suicide bombers. And even when he supposedly expresses reservations about terror attacks, he slips in hints to the contrary, such as his repeated reference to the agreement between the prophet Mohammed and the Quresh tribe (with whom the prophet made a treaty and whom he later destroyed), as if to say that making a peace treaty with the Jews would be a mere tactic. This is how the Palestinians interpret Arafat's position and this is also how it is interpreted by Israelis who have lived under a concrete threat to their lives over the past 21 months.<hr></blockquote>
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #24 of 28
[quote] And I think that the indirect linkage you create between the settlements and the violence is appalling, how can you compare the two ? killing innocents is in no way made moral by linking it to the Israeli settlement policy. <hr></blockquote>

This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse. However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow, under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.

To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.

Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relatonship, is not too far fetsched.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #25 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>This is not a moral equivalence statement. Both are immoral but that does not mean that we need to judge one by the other. If we do judge them, though, one is more directly immoral than the other: killing directly is worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Far worse I would say ! and I would expect any rational self respecting moral person to realize that.


[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
However, one is clearly the result, (at least in many Palastinian's eyes), of the other. They are in despair and the settlers continue to grow,</strong><hr></blockquote>

I totally disagree ! Palestinians and Arabs were murdering Israelis long before the occupation ever took place... apart from the 3 times (1948, 1967, 1973) when the Arabs tried to ELIMINATE the state of Israel, there have been numerous massacres and terrorist acts performed against Jews long before 67 when the OT were captured ( As a result of a war inflicted on Israel by the Arabs...).
Few examples:

1929 riots began with the massacre of 20 children and old people in Safed.

1936 riots left 133 Jews dead and 399 injured.

1947 In the first ten days after the United Nations vote in favor of partition, 79 Jews were killed.

Also, don't forget that the Palestinians were treated much worse under Jordanian and Egyptian rule during 1948-1967 and in these cases Palestinians weren't using terror against these occupations.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
under Netenyahu they grew, Oslo, they grew, and they are still growing now.... and the attitude of the settlers very obviously contributes to the feeling of despair: they treat the Palastinians like shiit and think of them literally as less than human.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is wrongly explained by you , Many of the so-called settlements that were ' growing' during the Oslo years were actually neighborhoods of jerusalem and other towns bordering the OT in terms of real land mass the growth was minimal and though it is true that right wing groups still occupy settlements deep inside the OT this is a minority group which do not have the support of israel's main parties or indeed the Israeli public... Its widely accepted in Israeli society that these settlements would have to be removed once a proper deal would be struck between Israel and the PA... Just like most Israelis supported the removal of settlements in the Sinai Peninsula when a peace treaty was made with egypt .... and just to remind all those who doubt Sharon and believe his secret agenda is to maintain control of the OT try not to forget that he was the one responsible for uprooting these settlements back in the early 80s.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
To recognize that these settlements play a real role in the motivations of the Palastinians does NOT mean that one is saying that what they are doing is right . . . it is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Fair enough ... I can agree with that but please note that this is a very fine line we're talking about here... and maybe you don't but there are plenty of people around the world who constantly make that link and use is as a means for justifying terrorism I think you have to be extremely cautious here....or else you end up inadvertently supporting the terrorists and by that intensifying the conflict on the ground.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Clearly though, it is a war, where one side is slowly taking more and more land from the other . . . only taking it through rich land developers and bulldozers backed by the threats of a super advanced army . . .and the other side has, besides despair, nothing but a morality that thinks its ok to kill the infidel when there are no other options . . and nothing that has been signed or done that as stopped the land grab so to make the linkage between the two, as far as a causal relationship, is not too far fetched.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What land grabbing ? Would you call Israel offering Palestinians 97% of the pre 67 OT plus land exchanges for the rest land grabbing ?
this is a complete twisting of the facts ! the fact is Israel offered (more then once) to end the conflict and withdraw from the OT - Arafat and the Palestinian nation rejected the offer and started using violence as a tool for extortions in the negotiations ..... surly this can not be seen to succeed!
if it does the whole world would reap the nasty rewards in countless other conflicts... think of this carefully.....
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
post #26 of 28
I'd like to see some place that has a definitive layout of the Clinton Proposal, and I think an accompanying map would be necessary to sort out claims that the plan is either "very generous" or "divisive because of the settlements still being held".

Anyone have a link??
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
post #27 of 28
Clintons plan is exactly that. The Arabs missed their opportunity to strike a deal. And as much as they like to every time go back in time, they cant. They now need to deal with Sharon. Not Clinton, and not Barak. Sharon. And Sharon is quite correct on insisting that reforms and real accountability take place before any diplomatic negotiations.

Whats the point of ceding more powers to these people if they refuse responsibility for things that are under their control? Lets see them exercise a little responsibility first before we continue in these talks.


mika.

[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #28 of 28
[quote]Originally posted by MozillaMan:
<strong>I'd like to see some place that has a definitive layout of the Clinton Proposal, and I think an accompanying map would be necessary to sort out claims that the plan is either "very generous" or "divisive because of the settlements still being held".

Anyone have a link??</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well this is not an easy request to fulfill .. the actual negotiations details were kept secret and boh sides tell conflicting reports about why and how exactly the talks broke down ( although the american hosts generally support the Israeli description of events)
All we clearly know that in general terms what was offered was an Israeli withdrawal from around 93 -97 percent of the OT and land exchanges for the rest and and its widely accepted that Barak was quite ready to compromise on the issue of Jerusalem....
I remember reading a fascinating story about this a the <a href="http://archives11.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_theme=NWEC&p_product=NW EC&p_perpage=20&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base= camp%20david&p_maxdocs=200&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_ ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=-1qzY&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&%5B+Search+%5D.x=54&%5B+Search+%5D. y=14" target="_blank">Newsweek web site</a> but going back there its become a part of the Archives and it costs for accessing it now .. if any of you out there can get to it .. please copy and paste it for us

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec00/albright_7-25.html" target="_blank">this interview with former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright</a> about the talks is very interesting as well ...
As for a map - I'm sure no definitive maps were ever made public but the image bellow should give you a rough (very rough) impression of what was talked about.


The red areas with thin white pinstripes would become the Palestinian state. This consists of 95% of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. The Golan, including the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, has already been offered to Syria.
The roads marked in red would become safe passage routes for Palestinians traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.
The red areas with slightly thicker white stripes located in the Negev, south of Gaza, has been offered to the Palestinians, as a trade off for the 5% of the West Bank that Israel proposes to annex.
The red areas with thick white stripes located in the Beer Sheva region, and in the Galilee are areas within the present sovereign borders of Israel in which the current population is over 70% Arab.

Note: This map does not address the issue of Jerusalem.

[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arafat says YES to Clinton Peace plan. A little late?