Followup on Gaza fatalities

[Loren Pechtel]

Your response has nothing to do with what I said. The wall was a response to the Second Intifada, not a cause of it.

Construction of the wall predates the Second Intifada.

If you care about this subject at all, take your own advice and look to the past.

Quit paying attention to Palestinian propaganda.

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

Even Wikipedia (despite it's substantial bias towards the Palestinians) knows better. Look at the section to the right labeled "Result".

- - - Updated - - -

I've asked this question before and iirc, you were the one I asked.

What were the demands that Israel was willing to meet? Was Israel going to agree to 90% of the entire list, or was it going to fulfill 90% of each demand?

Were the settlers going to be removed from 90% of the West Bank settlements, the PLO going to have control of 90% of the West Bank and Gaza borders, and 90% of the refugees going to be resettled in their former homes in Israel? Or were those demands not going to be met but 27 other demands would be?

I don't think Arafat's list at Camp David was all that long. His bargaining position was basically that Israel abide by the Oslo Accords or offer an equivalent peace agreement.

The discussions were about borders, thus it was about land. The other issues were being left for a later date. Arafat couldn't accept the offer but he didn't want to reject it so they just ran out the clock.

And I note you bring up the "refugees". To allow the "refugees" into Israel is to cause the death of the Jews. Only a fool or a Holocaust supporter would think it is a good idea. The Palestinians and the Arabs know it's a total non-starter, that's why it's always a non-negotiable condition of any peace offer. That ensures Israel will reject the offer and the useful idiots (yeah, I know, the term normally applies to those unwittingly doing Moscow's bidding but it's just as applicable here) will blame Israel for not making peace.

You didn't answer my question. In fact, it looks like you are trying to drag the conversation away from it as fast as you can.

angelo said the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. I would like to know where that 90% figure comes from.

What list of Arafat's demands is he referring to? How many demands were there? If there were more than 10, he should be able to point to a demand that Israel was prepared to meet. Or he should be able to explain how Israel was going to fulfill each demand by 90%, like removing 90% of the settlers or withdrawing 90% of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories.

Think a bit, I did answer it. I said that was was under discussion was only land. That obviously implies it was 90% of the land he was after.

 

[Ford]

Quit paying attention to Palestinian propaganda.

Coming from you, that's hilarious.

 

[Arctish]

Quit paying attention to Palestinian propaganda.

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

Even Wikipedia (despite it's substantial bias towards the Palestinians) knows better. Look at the section to the right labeled "Result".

You and untermensche were talking about Gaza.

Construction of the wall around Gaza began in 1994. The Second Intifada started in 2000.

That link on the right of the Wikipedia page describes the accelerated construction of barriers on Palestinian land in the West Bank. It was not the first wall that Israel built to keep Palestinians isolated and prevent their return to their stolen properties, just the largest.

I've asked this question before and iirc, you were the one I asked.

What were the demands that Israel was willing to meet? Was Israel going to agree to 90% of the entire list, or was it going to fulfill 90% of each demand?

Were the settlers going to be removed from 90% of the West Bank settlements, the PLO going to have control of 90% of the West Bank and Gaza borders, and 90% of the refugees going to be resettled in their former homes in Israel? Or were those demands not going to be met but 27 other demands would be?

I don't think Arafat's list at Camp David was all that long. His bargaining position was basically that Israel abide by the Oslo Accords or offer an equivalent peace agreement.

The discussions were about borders, thus it was about land. The other issues were being left for a later date. Arafat couldn't accept the offer but he didn't want to reject it so they just ran out the clock.

And I note you bring up the "refugees". To allow the "refugees" into Israel is to cause the death of the Jews. Only a fool or a Holocaust supporter would think it is a good idea. The Palestinians and the Arabs know it's a total non-starter, that's why it's always a non-negotiable condition of any peace offer. That ensures Israel will reject the offer and the useful idiots (yeah, I know, the term normally applies to those unwittingly doing Moscow's bidding but it's just as applicable here) will blame Israel for not making peace.

You didn't answer my question. In fact, it looks like you are trying to drag the conversation away from it as fast as you can.

angelo said the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. I would like to know where that 90% figure comes from.

What list of Arafat's demands is he referring to? How many demands were there? If there were more than 10, he should be able to point to a demand that Israel was prepared to meet. Or he should be able to explain how Israel was going to fulfill each demand by 90%, like removing 90% of the settlers or withdrawing 90% of Israeli forces from the Occupied Territories.

Think a bit, I did answer it. I said that was was under discussion was only land. That obviously implies it was 90% of the land he was after.

Please show documentation of this alleged offer of 90% of the land.

Let me be clear: I think you're bullshitting again. I think you remember how the Oslo Accords broke down. I think you remember that Israel refused to continue the transfer of land to PA control after Rabin was murdered for giving up parts of Palestine - an act many Israelis considered a betrayal of Zionism itself. Now you're suggesting his successors were prepared to transfer 90% of the land outside the 1967 borders to the PA, and would do it all at once. That would be quite a remarkable turn of events, and totally at odds with what participants in the Camp David negotiations said Ehud Barak was offering.

So where's your evidence?

 

[angelo]

That is what oppression creates.

It is why the oppression should end, so the Palestinians can create a normal modern state.

With all the same rights as every other state.

They knocked back their own state time after time since even before Camp David during the Clinton administration, when the Israeli government was willing to agree to over 90% of Arafat's demands. The problem is not a " two state solution," two states living side by side. The problem is Islam itself and it's hatred of Jews ever since they rejected and refused to submit to their terrorist prophet 1400 years ago.

Show me the map Israel wanted Arafat to agree to.

You're blinkers are only superseded by your ignorance!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

 

[untermensche]

Show me the map Israel wanted Arafat to agree to.

You're blinkers are only superseded by your ignorance!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

In other words you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You don't even know the map Arafat was asked to approve. You don't know what he said "no" to.

Pathetic anti-Palestinian bigotry!

 

[Arctish]

You're blinkers are only superseded by your ignorance!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

Thank you for providing that link. That article was very interesting. I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you'd like.

At the end of the article the author says "Barak's interview with Morris was a reply to an article by former US negotiator Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in the New York Review of Books". I'm quite certain he means this one in which Malley, a first hand witness to the negotiations, writes about the issues and personality traits that stymied meaningful discussions. It's an article I have used before as a source on the Camp David negotiations. Unfortunately it's paywalled but I might be able to find sections I quoted in other threads. Anyway, it was interesting to read Barak's reaction to Malley's take on the reasons why the talks failed.

 

[angelo]

The talks failed and will always fail in the future is because of the fact that that Arabs/muslims will never accept any jewish, or for that matter, any other people on what they consider " their " land. The Hamas charter states from the river to the sea. But they're ignoring, or choose to admit that jews can trace their history to that land for 4 millennia. While Palestinians didn't exist until 1948!
The Muslims main objection to Jews is written in their fairy tale nonsense called the Quran!