Would it be too much trouble for you to check the facts? It was Sharon who walked out of the table. Arafat accepted the whole deal. But the Israeli government does not want peace, and the US backs them all the way.
I didn't say Israel should bend over and take it. I said they should stick to defending their own soil instead of exacting revenge. (How do you think bulldozing houses, harassing the Palestinian authority, etc. help against the terrorists? Answer is they don't.) Once in a while they do something halfway useful, namely assassinating a Hamas leader, but even then they should capture and arrest the criminals instead of hitting them. And it does absolutely no good to kill the Hamas guys if there are tens of bodies worth of collateral damage. Guess how many of the relatives of innocent killed people turn into terrorists?
The *systematical* party here is the IDF. Though it's not their fault; they're under orders of the government.
I love the way you guys do a quick "goofle" search and the first link you come upon you just quote it and bam you are right. Sheesh.
The article you quoted was one snapshot of that process. For some strange reason I remember following that whole event. I watched every news show I could find on it. I knew my memory was not that bad. At the bottom of that article on the web there is a list of links that layout similar articles. Here are the progression of the headlines.
Desperate Arafat grasps Clinton peace plan
By Alan Philps
(Filed: 22/06/2002)
A quote from this article that you obviously did not read.
"In a frantic attempt to save his political life, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, said he was ready to accept a peace plan drafted by former US president Bill Clinton, 18 months after it was floated."
Notice the dates.
Barak and Arafat ignore Clinton's last peace plea
By Alan Philps, in Jerusalem
(Filed: 21/10/2000)
Hope of peace deal by weekend after Israeli concession
By Ben Fenton in Washington and Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 22/12/2000)
Peace plan sells Jewish birthright, says Israeli Right
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 26/12/2000)
Clinton's Middle East peace initiative fails
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 09/01/2001)
A quote from this article.
"But the senior Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said: "We cannot accept at this stage a road map or declaration of principles." Only a comprehensive agreement, complete with maps, would work.
Abu Ala, the Speaker of the Palestinian parliament, said the Clinton proposals failed to take into account reservations put forward by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader. He said: "These ideas do not offer our people their rights.""
I will not attempt to marginalize you as you did me, please lets not go through this exorcize again.
NaplesX: The confusion came when you wrote "Sharone". Arik Sharon was not prime minister during the "getogether" in the final days of Clintons presidency. Ehud Barak was. The only forthcomming of Sharon I have seen was his comment on some settlements having to be taken away eventually at some point of time.
The last attempt from Clinton resulted in Arafat walking away from the table have been discussed plenty of times here. One of the best records of what went on is found here (although it lacks the palestinian view):
In short: US (or rather Clinton) is to blame for forcing the meeting down the israeli and palstinian throats, not being well enough prepared and taking the Israelis side. The israelis (or rather Barak) for not wanting to meet Arafat face to face and (in my eyes the most importent) not wanting to have a specific, written agreement with Arafat and the palestinians (Arafat) for being to confrontational and not prepared for peace when arriving.
NaplesX: The confusion came when you wrote "Sharone". Arik Sharon was not prime minister during the "getogether" in the final days of Clintons presidency. Ehud Barak was. The only forthcomming of Sharon I have seen was his comment on some settlements having to be taken away eventually at some point of time.
The last attempt from Clinton resulted in Arafat walking away from the table have been discussed plenty of times here. One of the best records of what went on is found here (although it lacks the palestinian view):
In short: US (or rather Clinton) is to blame for forcing the meeting down the israeli and palstinian throats, not being well enough prepared and taking the Israelis side. The israelis (or rather Barak) for not wanting to meet Arafat face to face and (in my eyes the most importent) not wanting to have a specific, written agreement with Arafat and the palestinians (Arafat) for being to confrontational and not prepared for peace when arriving.
Comments
Originally posted by Gon
I went to Google and searched for "clinton sharon arafat". Fifth link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...22/wisr222.xml
Would it be too much trouble for you to check the facts? It was Sharon who walked out of the table. Arafat accepted the whole deal. But the Israeli government does not want peace, and the US backs them all the way.
I didn't say Israel should bend over and take it. I said they should stick to defending their own soil instead of exacting revenge. (How do you think bulldozing houses, harassing the Palestinian authority, etc. help against the terrorists? Answer is they don't.) Once in a while they do something halfway useful, namely assassinating a Hamas leader, but even then they should capture and arrest the criminals instead of hitting them. And it does absolutely no good to kill the Hamas guys if there are tens of bodies worth of collateral damage. Guess how many of the relatives of innocent killed people turn into terrorists?
The *systematical* party here is the IDF. Though it's not their fault; they're under orders of the government.
I love the way you guys do a quick "goofle" search and the first link you come upon you just quote it and bam you are right. Sheesh.
The article you quoted was one snapshot of that process. For some strange reason I remember following that whole event. I watched every news show I could find on it. I knew my memory was not that bad. At the bottom of that article on the web there is a list of links that layout similar articles. Here are the progression of the headlines.
Desperate Arafat grasps Clinton peace plan
By Alan Philps
(Filed: 22/06/2002)
A quote from this article that you obviously did not read.
"In a frantic attempt to save his political life, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, said he was ready to accept a peace plan drafted by former US president Bill Clinton, 18 months after it was floated."
Notice the dates.
Barak and Arafat ignore Clinton's last peace plea
By Alan Philps, in Jerusalem
(Filed: 21/10/2000)
Hope of peace deal by weekend after Israeli concession
By Ben Fenton in Washington and Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 22/12/2000)
Peace plan sells Jewish birthright, says Israeli Right
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 26/12/2000)
Clinton's Middle East peace initiative fails
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
(Filed: 09/01/2001)
A quote from this article.
"But the senior Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said: "We cannot accept at this stage a road map or declaration of principles." Only a comprehensive agreement, complete with maps, would work.
Abu Ala, the Speaker of the Palestinian parliament, said the Clinton proposals failed to take into account reservations put forward by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader. He said: "These ideas do not offer our people their rights.""
I will not attempt to marginalize you as you did me, please lets not go through this exorcize again.
Thanks
The last attempt from Clinton resulted in Arafat walking away from the table have been discussed plenty of times here. One of the best records of what went on is found here (although it lacks the palestinian view):
http://www.themedialine.org/news/new...sp?NewsID=2163
In short: US (or rather Clinton) is to blame for forcing the meeting down the israeli and palstinian throats, not being well enough prepared and taking the Israelis side. The israelis (or rather Barak) for not wanting to meet Arafat face to face and (in my eyes the most importent) not wanting to have a specific, written agreement with Arafat and the palestinians (Arafat) for being to confrontational and not prepared for peace when arriving.
Originally posted by Anders
NaplesX: The confusion came when you wrote "Sharone". Arik Sharon was not prime minister during the "getogether" in the final days of Clintons presidency. Ehud Barak was. The only forthcomming of Sharon I have seen was his comment on some settlements having to be taken away eventually at some point of time.
The last attempt from Clinton resulted in Arafat walking away from the table have been discussed plenty of times here. One of the best records of what went on is found here (although it lacks the palestinian view):
http://www.themedialine.org/news/new...sp?NewsID=2163
In short: US (or rather Clinton) is to blame for forcing the meeting down the israeli and palstinian throats, not being well enough prepared and taking the Israelis side. The israelis (or rather Barak) for not wanting to meet Arafat face to face and (in my eyes the most importent) not wanting to have a specific, written agreement with Arafat and the palestinians (Arafat) for being to confrontational and not prepared for peace when arriving.
well i misspoke that it was sharone. Sorry.