Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[lpetrich]

Justin Amash on X: "In this video, ..." / X

In this video, provided to me by a relative on site, you can see the destruction at Saint Porphyrius Orthodox Church in Gaza. The ancient sanctuary remains standing, but the church annex, which includes offices and meeting spaces for the Christian community, collapsed from an Israeli airstrike, killing multiple members of three connected Orthodox Christian families, who are my relatives. They are my dad’s first cousins and their spouses, children, and in-laws. May their memories be eternal.

...
This is my second cousin George being pulled from the rubble at Saint Porphyrius Orthodox Church in Gaza. This beautiful baby committed no crimes, harmed no person. May his memory be eternal.

 

[Arctish]

Barak was reacting to the assassination of his predecessor who was murdered by a Zionist for making the deal. The failure of the Oslo Accords was not because of Arafat, it was because of radical Zionists willing to kill any Israeli Prime Minister who tried to keep them from enacting their version of Zionism.

I seem to remember Arafat uttering the word "No".

If you've got a good source that can provide some context to that alleged uttering, I'd like to read it. Was it done when the Oslo Accords were being worked out? Did it happen when the Israelis tried to back out of the deal? Was he responding to the question "Do you want to just scrap the Accords and start over?" or to something else?

Also, just because Israel offered something doesn't mean Arafat was wrong to reject it. After the Oslo Accords were abandoned Israel offered to carve the West Bank up into tiny enclaves, put armed Jewish settlers into most of them, and completely surround them all with IDF forces. Is that where the "no" was uttered?

If you'd been representing the interests of the Palestinian people it would have been your duty to reject that plan no matter how much support it had from the Israeli side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And there are too many that have slurped down the Koolaid of believing the underdog is always in the right.

I saw multiple posts on here from people who had a hard time believing the brutality of the massacre--that shows blindness to what has been going on for ages.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Just open eyes and stop thinking one side is always in the right and the other is always in the wrong.

I was talking about the brutality of the attack, not right or wrong.

You're showing your bias in trying to make this a both-sides thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What positive moves are you talking about? Please list them.

I already know you're going to talk about the removal of illegal settlements from Gaza as though that was some kind of benevolent gift, but even you have admitted the Israelis only did that when the imprisonment the Gazans was complete.

So. What else?

If nothing else, look at what just happened--Palestinians with work permits were scouting for the attack. Hamas ensured there would be no more work permits for a long time to come.

Everything Israel does that you would consider remotely "good" has at best been a failure, at worst come back to bite them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that they are not really anti-war. They are against Israel defending itself (aka "bombing Arabs") but have had no problem with those same Arabs slaughtering and kidnapping over a 1000 Israeli civilians. Let's not lose sight how this all started, and which side started it. It's like calling for a ceasefire with Japan on December 8th 1941.

Perfect description.

When do you think the fighting started?

Overall, when the Arabs chose war in 1948.

Now, 10/7.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So there was no conflict in May? Or do you think what is happening now is a different conflict, unrelated to the conflict that included Operation Shield and Arrow ?

It looks to me like you and Loren like to claim different starting points depending in which is the most useful for whatever argument you are making at the time.

We are looking at points where there was a big change. Of course you can find some way to blame Israel if you cherry-pick well enough.

I think the conflict has been escalating lately, as I said earlier in the thread. I think it started with terrorism in the early 20th century (the region had been very quiet for centuries under Ottoman rule). IMO the conflict turned into a war when Plan Dalet was enacted. Heck, even the Israelis call that time the War of Independence. The fight between the mostly European colonizers and the local indigenous population steadily intensified through the1960s and 1970s, morphed into something truly pernicious with the State sponsored illegal settlements of the 1980s and the 'fuck you' attitude of the Zionists who occupied them, was almost deescalated by the Oslo Accords but ultimately metastasized into what it is now, where there are surges in violence followed by periods of intermittent murder and disquiet but no real peace.

And so far nobody has addressed the fact that it was the peace of subjugation, not real peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that might have actually worked if Israel had allowed Gaza lettuce, strawberries, flowers, etc. to reach the international markets they were destined for instead of ensuring the crops would wilt and rot at the border whenever the Israelis felt like being assholes.

And once again you fall for Hamas propaganda.

Israel only closed the border when Hamas wanted it closed. They throw a few rounds at the border post, Israel pulls it's people inside out of harm's way and the crossing is closed.

And if the Israelis had allowed the Gazans to develop their natural gas deposits instead of forcing the Gazans to send it all to Israel at bargain prices.

The border is disputed.

And if the Israelis had allowed Palestinian water from Palestinian aquifers on Palestinian land to go to Palestinian communities instead of diverting it to illegal settlements and choking off the supply of water to millions of civilians.

The Palestinians would have enough water if they actually would build the infrastructure. But they prefer to use pipe for rockets rather than water.

And if the Israelis stopped fucking with international humanitarian aid destined for Gaza.

1) They "fuck with it" because they routinely find military stuff hidden inside. The detailed search required takes time.

2) It's going to Hamas anyway.

Instead, they chose to keep attacking Israel almost continuously.
And note that before then there was 2nd Intifada, the terror campaign proclaimed by Arafat after he rejected Ehud Barak's peace proposal. We can pull on this thread, but to what end?

Go ahead and pull on that thread. I am perfectly willing to reopen discussion of the Oslo Accords.

We aren't talking about Oslo.

The only way conflicts like this one ever end is through fair dealings and respecting the rights of ordinary people to live in peace and security in their own homes and to participate in the government that controls their movements, their livelihoods, and their prospects for a better future.

Tell that to the terrorists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
Look at what's been going on for 75 years, not merely now. There is a long pattern of any positive move made by Israel making things worse for them.

I've been watching it over my lifetime, which began even before Plan Dalet was implemented. My view is that Israel has made a lot of negative moves and mistakes in that time, which included the 1967 war in which Israel attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171.

Fog of war happens.

And Israel was wrong in not allowing itself to be destroyed?

So I'm not really up for constructing a balance sheet for you on that subject, and I would rather confine the discussion to the most recent attack on Israel by the Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists. I see Hamas and the Gaza Strip as essentially creations of the Israeli state. No amount of military power is going to solve the problem, because neither Gaza nor the Palestinian population is going to disappear without full scale genocide against that population. Right now, Israel is just thinking about winning the military conflict. Hamas and Iran are thinking about winning the propaganda war, and the Israeli government has swallowed the bait. Israel should be finding ways to stop the cycle of violence and revenge, not perpetuating it. They are never going to kill all the terrorists and be done with it, especially if they can't distinguish terrorists from ordinary Palestinians.

Palestine can't make peace because they are puppets.

...
There is no physical reason those people can't flee. Israel didn't tell them to go very far.

...
It doesn't matter, because Israel is also targeting the south and even locations they've designated as safe corridors. Those who could tried to flee, but Hamas is ordering them to stay. I've seen interviews with some who fled south but are now returning to the north, since they would rather die in their homes than elsewhere. Food, water, and supplies are scarce everywhere. Israel has agreed to allow a miniscule amount of humanitarian aid, but it has even delayed the 20-truck convoy that was supposed to be allowed until the bombed out road can be repaired.

They say what Hamas says to say. There is no honest reporting out of Gaza.

Who is "they"? I'm talking about reports by non-Muslim sources such as Reuters. In fact, Israel just dropped leaflets in northern Gaza informing everyone that they should flee or be considered enemy combatants. Not only is that a terrorist tactic, but, more importantly, it lets Israeli soldiers that they won't be blamed for killing regular civilians, since the terrorists aren't wearing uniforms. There is already a slaughter of Palestinians taking place with the bombings, but it is guaranteed to be worse when the invasion gets going. The more martyrs there are, the more recruits for future terrorist retaliation, if not invasion by Hezbollah and other more dangerous enemies. Iran is already threatening to get more directly involved (although I believe that they, more than anyone, are to blame for starting this).

Anyone reporting out of there says what Hamas tells them to.

And if negotiations don't work they go in guns blazing. It often doesn't end well for the hostages.

Israel is going in with guns blazing first. It is not seriously negotiating for the release of hostages, although Qatar has been trying to act as a go-between. The Palestinian population, who are also hostages, are being treated as enemies to be dealt with as if they were also terrorists.

1) Hamas demands a very high price for hostages. They're going to demand more than Israel can give in this case.

2) This is more about destroying Hamas' ability to repeat 10/7 than the hostages.

...
My answer is to treat the Palestinians like human beings--the same as Israelis. Stop treating them like terrorists and people whose lives don't matter.

Tell Iran that. They're the one oppressing the Palestinians.

At the moment, Iran is not cutting off water, food, shelter, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. You asked me what I would have Israel do, and that is what I would have them do. Treat them like human beings, not enemies. Hamas and other terrorist groups are the enemy.

Which doesn't address the point at all.

Nonsense. They are targeting churches and mosques, because they know that the terrorists often use those sites as human shields. Israel also knows that civilians shelter there, but they target them anyway. It serves the needs of both sides that civilians be caught in the crossfire. And where are people going to hide? They have been ordered to flee south or be treated as enemy combatants, but the south is also under constant bombardment and not much safer. Any building can be targeted. This humanitarian disaster was precipitated by Hamas, but the worst of it is of Israel's making, and they need to own it. Instead, Israel has announced that after the hostilities have ended, they will cut Gaza off completely. The implication is that power and water will not be restored. This is looking increasingly like genocide.

Israel has no reason to target human shields. Israel targets weapons and command.

And you are still ignoring the fact that they have surrender as an option. It's irrelevant if Hamas doesn't permit it.

...
There were civilians everywhere in the area. No, the article says the IDF claims it was a military command center, not a launcher. And, if they use such precision targeting, why did they hit a major church? That's a location where civilians flock to take shelter, hoping that Israel will not bomb it. The IDF doesn't really know what happened, because they admit that they are investigating it.

They are investigating to make sure their initial evaluation was correct--which is what they should do if it's called into question.

However, if it's a command center instead of ammo that doesn't change anything, it's still a valid target.

But the church that was actually hit by the "precision" weaponry was not a valid target. Of course, those who blew up the church might well have suspected that it was a Hamas weapons dump. That's the narrative that Israel spreads everywhere and that you have been repeating here. Every church, school, and hospital--a legitimate military target.

We've seen the images. Israel aimed at the building across the street, the bomb hit in front of the target building. The church is still there.

...
This is about what is happening now, not the past. History also shows that Israel provided humanitarian aid in past conflicts. Now, it is deliberately cutting that aid off. And we already have video footage that shows victims who are clearly civilians--children, women, old people. These are not terrorists. And they need water, food, and medial supplies that Israel is deliberately denying them.

They wouldn't be getting the supplies anyway. Hamas takes what they want, the civilians only get what's left. It's another thing Hamas doesn't let be talked about. (And it's a general problem with aid to war-torn areas, most of it is diverted. Gaza is only different in the degree of press control.)

Besides rationalizing the targeting of places that are considered war crimes to target, you now rationalize withholding humanitarian aid, which is also a war crime. I suppose one could rationalize cutting off water supplies, because Hamas steals the water, too. "Too bad, civilians, but you should have overthrown the armed terrorists running your country. You have only yourself to blame."

So Israel should give in because Hamas abuses the Palestinians??

And anyone who happens to be near it, including children, women, the infirm, the aged, etc. Israel has been just as brutal in the past, so, by your logic, that should have diminished the attacks. Instead, they have never really stopped. This one was just made on a much bigger scale, because that was inevitable over time. Cruelty and lack of restraint doesn't work. By dragging Israel down to their level, the terrorists know it helps to cancel out their own cruelty in the eyes of the public, because the state of Israel is supposed to exercise judgment and restraint when dealing with a civilian population. Scapegoating Palestinians in general as allies of the terrorists shocks Israel's allies, who have to justify their support for Israel's behavior.

What happens depends on how much money/weapons Iran manages to slip in.

...

It only means that that is one possible scenario. We don't actually know what caused the explosion, so the best we can do now is suspend judgment.

No. There's nothing that legitimately should be there that could cause that kind of boom. And the boom was caused by the initial boom, it didn't fall from the sky. (A plane can drop from above MANPAD range and there are no bigger threats. Thus there is zero risk to the plane and thus they will only drop one bomb per target unless they see the first one failed to do the job.) Thus it's clear that the second boom was ordnance (presumably rockets) going up--which inherently makes it a valid target. Military trumps civilian!

Update: Just ran into something I would have realized if I had thought about it: The claim that the initial boom was due to a rocket being intercepted is certainly false. The problem is that Iron Dome is a terminal intercept system--it engages rockets coming back down (predictable targets that are much easier to hit), not rockets in boost phase. Anything Iron Dome shoots down will fall in Israel, not Gaza. (They only engage high-threat inbounds in the first place--a round going into Gaza isn't a threat at all.)

Right. I've said all along that that was the most likely scenario, and the way Iron Dome works suggests that it couldn't have been debris from a defensive missile. However, even those with technical knowledge of the system can't rule it out definitively. I accept that the most likely cause was a terrorist rocket that broke up in flight. However, most of the destruction taking place on the ground is not from misfired rockets. It is from deliberately targeted neighborhoods and buildings in Gaza, many of which have innocent people inside them seeking shelter. The humanitarian tragedy is reaching stunning proportions.

The issue was the hospital. You're trying to derail because you don't want to accept the reality.

And note that this boom clearly proves what we have been saying about the use of civilian things as shields. It would have been a completely valid target if Israel hit it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Update: Just ran into something I would have realized if I had thought about it: The claim that the initial boom was due to a rocket being intercepted is certainly false. The problem is that Iron Dome is a terminal intercept system--it engages rockets coming back down (predictable targets that are much easier to hit), not rockets in boost phase. Anything Iron Dome shoots down will fall in Israel, not Gaza. (They only engage high-threat inbounds in the first place--a round going into Gaza isn't a threat at all.)

Where did you read this? My understanding is that it is a matter of trajectory which should be based on a maximum g-force a missile can sustain. That is at a given velocity, can the missile still turn and be a threat. Whether the missile is going up or down wouldn't necessarily be part of the calculation. Whether Iron Dome uses max g-force based on today's best missile technology or some lower value assuming Hamas couldn't possibly have anything better than x, they do so at their own risk. Beyond that it would be a matter of maximum intercept range.
Do you know "phase" of the missile to be part of it?

It's not a matter of turning. Iron Dome is a dedicated anti-rocket system, optimized for minimum cost per round. It doesn't chase down it's targets, it can only engage sitting ducks (missiles whose motor has burned out and thus are quite predictable.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that they are not really anti-war. They are against Israel defending itself (aka "bombing Arabs") but have had no problem with those same Arabs slaughtering and kidnapping over a 1000 Israeli civilians. Let's not lose sight how this all started, and which side started it. It's like calling for a ceasefire with Japan on December 8th 1941.

Perfect description.

Perfect if you think the 4000+ arabs killed by Israeli rockets are those same arabs that belong to Hamas and perpetrated the horrific attack.


”Thos same Arabs”
Because they’re all the same to you. There are no innocent people whom it would be wrong to kill in Gaza.



Quiet part out loud. And seconded.

That's not how war works.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not just the existence of Israel, it is fait acompli and irreversible. It is how Plaesyimians have been treatd since Israel was formed.

Yeah, they have been brutalized by the Arabs ever since 1948.

Israel absorbed about as many refugees (most of whom had lost everything) as the Arabs (and most of those had their possessions). Yet Israel doesn't have refugee camps because they integrated them rather than use them as pawns.

Look at a map of Israel. Palestinians are herd into small areas of Gaza and the West Bank. The militray occupation in the West Bank is slowly pushing Palestinians off their land. They are in the way of Israeli progress.

After war after war the Arabs started and lost.

In the past Netanyahu has said explicitly Is real will do whatever it wants. He has said Israel has a right to the land because it was given to Jews by god, that is Zionism.

Any other regime and we would be talking about sanctions.

People over here seem to be tone deaf on why the Palestinians are pushing back, but that appears to be changing a little.

The Palestinians are pawns, they aren't choosing anything.

We are now seeing a least some reporting on the underlying causes of the conflict. There are demonstrations supporting Palatinates, of course labeled anti Jew.

1) The underlying cause is Iranian money.

2) Look carefully at the demonstrations. All too many support the massacre.

 

[Arctish]

What positive moves are you talking about? Please list them.

I already know you're going to talk about the removal of illegal settlements from Gaza as though that was some kind of benevolent gift, but even you have admitted the Israelis only did that when the imprisonment the Gazans was complete.

So. What else?

If nothing else, look at what just happened--Palestinians with work permits were scouting for the attack. Hamas ensured there would be no more work permits for a long time to come.

Everything Israel does that you would consider remotely "good" has at best been a failure, at worst come back to bite them.

What do you mean, "if"? There was nothing else, was there?

When you say "every time" you mean that one time. And you completely ignore your own words whenever they get in the way of your current arguments. You have not just admitted the Israelis didn't leave Gaza (they just claimed the containment wall was built on Israeli land), you gave the continuing presence and frequent incursions your full support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rep AOC Discusses Israel-Palestine Conflict On MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan Show - YouTube
AOC stated that she wants (1) Hamas to release its hostages and (2) Israel and the US to do a ceasefire.

A war of self-defense? AOC noted the "asymmetry" of this moment and Israel's "collective punishment". She noted how horrible Hamas's attack was, and continued with saying that war crimes are not an acceptable response of war crimes. She then talked about Israel's blockade of water and electricity to the Gaza Strip.

Chanting "war crimes" doesn't make it so. I have yet to see anything in this conflict that Israel has been accused of that's actually a war crime.

She notes that in debates on the military budget, military-spending advocates talk about the precision and the technological capacities of the weapons that they want. But how is this apparent in Israel's attacks on Gaza? She called it an "indiscriminate bombing campaign", with bombing of civilian centers and churches, and use of white phosphorus.

Just because you don't know the targeting doesn't make it indiscriminate.

And I haven't heard any reports of white phosphorus in this battle--and I see no reason Israel would have used it.

She then asked a very important question. How much has all this death and destruction been at attacking Hamas. That's something I like about AOC - she is sometimes very perceptive, and I'm glad that someone like that is in public office.

She doesn't care what the answer is.

She then mentioned "Leahy laws" - Leahy Law Fact Sheet - United States Department of State

The term “Leahy law” refers to two statutory provisions prohibiting the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). One statutory provision applies to the State Department and the other applies to the Department of Defense.

Then about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that supporting a ceasefire is "taking Hamas's position".

Because it is. A cease-fire leaves them in a position to repeat the massacre.

Though she has worked with CS a lot, she concedes disagreement. She says that we have to break the cycle of violence. She then said that 14 trucks with aid supplies is far from enough.

There is no cycle of violence to break because the Palestinian violence isn't due to Israel rather than due to the money/weapons that keep being provided for war.

MH then noted that all of the supporters of a ceasefire are "people of color". He then asked how much of the rejection of a ceasefire is due to the people being attacked are Arabs or Muslims or people who don't look like them. She then noted that Palestinian issues have not gotten much visibility for a long time. Then noting when back in 2019, Prime Minister Netanyahu banned Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from visiting Israel, with almost no objection from the rest of Congress.

Why should he allow terrorist supporters?

 

[lpetrich]

Rep AOC Discusses Israel-Palestine Conflict On MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan Show - YouTube
AOC stated that she wants (1) Hamas to release its hostages and (2) Israel and the US to do a ceasefire.

A war of self-defense? AOC noted the "asymmetry" of this moment and Israel's "collective punishment". She noted how horrible Hamas's attack was, and continued with saying that war crimes are not an acceptable response of war crimes. She then talked about Israel's blockade of water and electricity to the Gaza Strip.

Chanting "war crimes" doesn't make it so. I have yet to see anything in this conflict that Israel has been accused of that's actually a war crime.

What would Israel have to do for you to consider it a war crime?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Barak was reacting to the assassination of his predecessor who was murdered by a Zionist for making the deal. The failure of the Oslo Accords was not because of Arafat, it was because of radical Zionists willing to kill any Israeli Prime Minister who tried to keep them from enacting their version of Zionism.

I seem to remember Arafat uttering the word "No".

My understanding is that he didn't say yes or no, just walked out.

The thing is either answer would have been a big problem.

"Yes"--would be seen as a betrayal of the Palestinians and would have at best gotten the money sent to other groups (which is what has happened by now anyway) or gotten him assassinated.

"No"--would have exposed that he wasn't prepared to offer peace.

A counter-offer would risk Israel accepting it and putting him in the "yes" position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure, and Ukraine needs to get used to unprovoked Russian militray occupation and colonization, and learn to like it.

Ukraine is more like Israel. And Russia like Iran and its proxies. Think about it. Both want to destroy the other. Russia thinks Ukraine belongs to it by rights, and Iran wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Arab, Muslim "Palestine". They both also love attacking civilians.

Look at a map of Israel. Palestinians are herd into small areas of Gaza and the West Bank. The militray occupation in the West Bank is slowly pushing Palestinians off their land. They are in the way of Israeli progress.

They could have had 97% or so of the "West Bank" had they accepted the peace deal offered to them by Barak and not decided to start the second intifada instead.

Show us the offer.

Show us the proposed boundaries and how they encompassed 97% of the West Bank.

Show us Barak's offer to formally recognize that area as the Palestinian State.

Don't just spin a yarn about how wonderful Ehud Barak's offer was. And don't try to sweep Yitzak Rabin's offer under the rug. Rabin offered to follow the Oslo Accords and was denounced and murdered for it. If you want to convince us that Barak's offer was a better deal for the Palestinians, or even something close to comparable, you'll have to do more than merely proclaim it.

It doesn't even matter what was in the offer. If he didn't like it he could have made a counter offer. He didn't.

Whenever Israel offers concessions, Palestinians respond with violence. Even this latest war Hamas started in a most horrific way comes at the heels of Israel agreeing to let thousands of Gazans to work inside Israel.

What concessions has Israel offered?

If it's "We'll stop murdering you if you stop resisting our efforts to drive you out of Palestine", then yeah, the Palestinians have responded to that one with violence.

Israel pulled entirely out of Gaza, there's no driving out going on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rep AOC Discusses Israel-Palestine Conflict On MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan Show - YouTube
AOC stated that she wants (1) Hamas to release its hostages and (2) Israel and the US to do a ceasefire.

A war of self-defense? AOC noted the "asymmetry" of this moment and Israel's "collective punishment". She noted how horrible Hamas's attack was, and continued with saying that war crimes are not an acceptable response of war crimes. She then talked about Israel's blockade of water and electricity to the Gaza Strip.

Chanting "war crimes" doesn't make it so. I have yet to see anything in this conflict that Israel has been accused of that's actually a war crime.

What would Israel have to do for you to consider it a war crime?

Commit a war crime.

Bombing a force hiding behind civilians is not a war crime. A siege is not a war crime. "Protected" things used for military purpose lose their protection, hitting them is not a war crime.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep AOC Discusses Israel-Palestine Conflict On MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan Show - YouTube
AOC stated that she wants (1) Hamas to release its hostages and (2) Israel and the US to do a ceasefire.

A war of self-defense? AOC noted the "asymmetry" of this moment and Israel's "collective punishment". She noted how horrible Hamas's attack was, and continued with saying that war crimes are not an acceptable response of war crimes. She then talked about Israel's blockade of water and electricity to the Gaza Strip.

Chanting "war crimes" doesn't make it so. I have yet to see anything in this conflict that Israel has been accused of that's actually a war crime.

What would Israel have to do for you to consider it a war crime?

Commit a war crime.

That's not an answer.

Bombing a force hiding behind civilians is not a war crime. A siege is not a war crime. "Protected" things used for military purpose lose their protection, hitting them is not a war crime.

Says who?

 

[Arctish]

Barak was reacting to the assassination of his predecessor who was murdered by a Zionist for making the deal. The failure of the Oslo Accords was not because of Arafat, it was because of radical Zionists willing to kill any Israeli Prime Minister who tried to keep them from enacting their version of Zionism.

I seem to remember Arafat uttering the word "No".

My understanding is that he didn't say yes or no, just walked out.

Provide a link please. I'd like to see what you are using as a source.

The thing is either answer would have been a big problem.

"Yes"--would be seen as a betrayal of the Palestinians and would have at best gotten the money sent to other groups (which is what has happened by now anyway) or gotten him assassinated.

What money? What other groups? What are you talking about?

"No"--would have exposed that he wasn't prepared to offer peace.

So you're just going to pretend the Oslo Accords never happened? That the Palestinians didn't keep up their end of the deal at every step? That's utterly dishonest. And foolish.

History doesn't go away just because you ignore it.

A counter-offer would risk Israel accepting it and putting him in the "yes" position.

The counter offer was "We stick to the plan our people worked out with your people". I believe the Palestinians were ready to take the risk that Israel would accept it.

 

[Toni]

Barak was reacting to the assassination of his predecessor who was murdered by a Zionist for making the deal. The failure of the Oslo Accords was not because of Arafat, it was because of radical Zionists willing to kill any Israeli Prime Minister who tried to keep them from enacting their version of Zionism.

I seem to remember Arafat uttering the word "No".

If you've got a good source that can provide some context to that alleged uttering, I'd like to read it. Was it done when the Oslo Accords were being worked out? Did it happen when the Israelis tried to back out of the deal? Was he responding to the question "Do you want to just scrap the Accords and start over?" or to something else?

Also, just because Israel offered something doesn't mean Arafat was wrong to reject it. After the Oslo Accords were abandoned Israel offered to carve the West Bank up into tiny enclaves, put armed Jewish settlers into most of them, and completely surround them all with IDF forces. Is that where the "no" was uttered?

If you'd been representing the interests of the Palestinian people it would have been your duty to reject that plan no matter how much support it had from the Israeli side.

This is from an account I follow on Twitter.

Angry Staffer
@Angry_Staffer
·
10h

In George Tenet’s (Bill Clinton’s CIA Director) memoir, he says this about Arafat:“Arafat always wanted one more thing, and one more thing was never enough because what he really wanted was for the peace process to be ever-active and eternally unresolved.” 1/2
Quote

Armen Devejian

@daddykool
·
23h
Never forget what Arafat walked away from in July 2000.










https://twitter.com/Angry_Staffer

The idea that Arafat would refuse all deals because he was holding out for strategic advantage rings true.