So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Ford]

In lighter news,

Israel moves to name Golan settlement after Trump

RAMAT TRUMP, Golan Heights (AP) — The Trump name graces apartment towers, hotels and golf courses. Now it is the namesake of a tiny Israeli settlement in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet convened in this hamlet Sunday to inaugurate a new settlement named after President Donald Trump in a gesture of appreciation for the U.S. leader’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the territory.

The settlement isn’t exactly new. Currently known as Bruchim, it is over 30 years old and has a population of 10 people.

Israel is hoping the rebranded “Ramat Trump,” Hebrew for “Trump Heights,” will encourage a wave of residents to vastly expand it.

Clearly, a result of Jared "He's Jewish, so he knows!" Kushner's plan for peace in the region.

 

[Arctish]

No? What's this, Gorgonzola cheese?.................................................https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

What was attractive about that proposal?

The Palestinians stood to gain much more, around 85% of their claims. Arafat walked away and as usual said "no"

You're pretty much conceding that if there was something attractive in that offer, you have no idea what it was. And that's not surprising considering Barak's offer to Arafat wasn't revealed publicly and might not have been written down.

The author of this article from The Irish Times has taken what Palestinian sources reported and what Uri Horowitz, a fellow at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, sussed out and combined them into a general picture of what Barak was offering:

While Mr Barak's plan was seen by Israelis as "generous", it did not provide for the emergence of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Mr Barak was ready to withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip but sought to reduce and fragment the West Bank. Israel would retain sovereignty over "Greater Jerusalem", comprising the western Jewish and eastern Arab sectors, plus outlying Arab villages and Jewish settlements. This encompasses 28 per cent of the West Bank. Israel would annex another 9 to 13.5 per cent, lease a further 10 per cent and establish six military bases, staging areas and three early-warning stations in the West Bank. In exchange for Israel's appropriation of at least 47 to 51.5 per cent of the West Bank, Mr Barak offered land in the Negev equivalent to 1 per cent. Israel would retain control of borders and key roads in the West Bank, dividing it into three cantons.

All movement would be controlled by Israel. Israel would retain control over Palestinian water sources and airspace. Thus, the proposed Palestinian entity would have no territorial contiguity, integrity or sovereignty and no capital in East Jerusalem. There the Palestinians would administer holy sites, outlying Arab suburbs and, perhaps, the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. In exchange for this entity, Barak demanded that the Palestinians sign a document proclaiming an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.

 

[Arctish]

Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.

 

[angelo]

Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.

Are you for real? It's the Palestinian version! Muslims are to tell whoppers if it furthers the islamic cause, which this does!

 

[Arctish]

Too late to edit my post so I had to make a new one.

The Horowitz article is here. The link in my previous post goes to an article by Jeremy Pressman, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. Sorry about the mix-up.

Are you for real? It's the Palestinian version! Muslims are to tell whoppers if it furthers the islamic cause, which this does!

Apparently you didn't read the linked articles.

The Horowitz article lists the Palestinian and Israeli positions on various points of contention at the Camp David negotiations, as well as the Clinton bridging proposals. The Pressman article discusses the pressures Arafat and Barak faced from factions within their populace and government, and the actions of specific faction leaders like Netanyahu and Barghouti. It presents the talks within the larger context of Israeli and Palestinian politics, not just as Arafat and Barak having a dispute.

If you're not interested in the history, I'll stop posting links. If you are, check out those two articles. They're pretty informative, the authors are respected historians and political analysts, and you can easily fact check them against other sources.

ETA: I don't think you read the Robert Malley article that Ehud Barak was complaining about in the article you linked. I posted a link to the full article in a prior thread and I can provide it again if you'd like. Here's an abbreviated version if you're interested.

 

[angelo]

There can never be peace with an enemy that firstly won't negotiate, and secondly an enemy that wants to destroy you because of mainly islamic ideology.

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

 

[Arctish]

There can never be peace with an enemy that firstly won't negotiate, and secondly an enemy that wants to destroy you because of mainly islamic ideology.

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

From your link:

The Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from 29 August to 1 September and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..."[2]

I don't see the PLO or the Palestinian people listed anywhere as signatories. I do see Egypt and Jordan listed, so I guess you don't know about Anwar Sadat's successful negotiations with Israel or that the Israelis and Jordanians have also made peace.

We got off onto this side track when I pointed out that a video you posted utilized glaringly obvious propaganda when it showed an alleged list of Two State proposals offered to the Palestinians that didn't include the most significant Two State proposal of them all, but did include things that weren't proposals and weren't presented to the Palestinians. I keep posting information on the actual proposals made over the course of negotiations and you keep trying to reduce the entire issue into an utterly simplistic good guys/bad guys scenario. We're getting nowhere.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Until then I'll just assume you don't know and don't care what was proposed and/or rejected by each party.

 

[Arctish]

duplicate

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.

Thank you for admitting the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. If that offer was less than half then they're asking for everything.

And the Palestinians are very good at finding pretexts to blame Israel (although not always correctly--one was when some beachgoers were killed by a Hamas mine) but the reactions follow too quickly on the triggers--it's obvious the attacks were pre-planned awaiting a pretext.

The real reason for the second intifada is the Palestinians were doing too well. They had to drive a wedge between the people and Israel and they had to crash the economy so the Palestinians didn't have other options.

 

[Arctish]

That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.

Thank you for admitting the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. If that offer was less than half then they're asking for everything.

And the Palestinians are very good at finding pretexts to blame Israel (although not always correctly--one was when some beachgoers were killed by a Hamas mine) but the reactions follow too quickly on the triggers--it's obvious the attacks were pre-planned awaiting a pretext.

The real reason for the second intifada is the Palestinians were doing too well. They had to drive a wedge between the people and Israel and they had to crash the economy so the Palestinians didn't have other options.

Misunderstanding the plain language in a post + ignorance + unsupported assertion + another unsupported assertion = typical LP post.

Support your claims. Pick any one of them. And by support I don't mean post bullshit, lies, and things you made up or imagine must be true because you have faith. I mean present a clear, concise argument with supporting documentation. For example, you could link to an article about beachgoers being killed by a Hamas mine and how that was used as a pretext to blame Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not 85% of what the Palestinians wanted. It's not even half. No wonder Arafat kept saying "no".

I don't know if you're all that interested in reading the stuff I link. I get the feeling you usually aren't. But if you're curious about Mr. Horowitz's article on the start of the Second Intifada, it's here.

Thank you for admitting the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. If that offer was less than half then they're asking for everything.

And the Palestinians are very good at finding pretexts to blame Israel (although not always correctly--one was when some beachgoers were killed by a Hamas mine) but the reactions follow too quickly on the triggers--it's obvious the attacks were pre-planned awaiting a pretext.

The real reason for the second intifada is the Palestinians were doing too well. They had to drive a wedge between the people and Israel and they had to crash the economy so the Palestinians didn't have other options.

Misunderstanding the plain language in a post + ignorance + unsupported assertion + another unsupported assertion = typical LP post.

Support your claims. Pick any one of them. And by support I don't mean post bullshit, lies, and things you made up or imagine must be true because you have faith. I mean present a clear, concise argument with supporting documentation. For example, you could link to an article about beachgoers being killed by a Hamas mine and how that was used as a pretext to blame Israel.

Hamas reported it as an Israeli round. It's just there was no fire in the area and what they showed was not consistent with an Israeli shell. On the other hand, Hamas has mined beaches against IDF infiltration.

 

[Arctish]

Misunderstanding the plain language in a post + ignorance + unsupported assertion + another unsupported assertion = typical LP post.

Support your claims. Pick any one of them. And by support I don't mean post bullshit, lies, and things you made up or imagine must be true because you have faith. I mean present a clear, concise argument with supporting documentation. For example, you could link to an article about beachgoers being killed by a Hamas mine and how that was used as a pretext to blame Israel.

Hamas reported it as an Israeli round. It's just there was no fire in the area and what they showed was not consistent with an Israeli shell. On the other hand, Hamas has mined beaches against IDF infiltration.

So you have no evidence to offer, just another unsupported assertion, and we're supposed to believe you because you say it happened.

 

[angelo]

There can never be peace with an enemy that firstly won't negotiate, and secondly an enemy that wants to destroy you because of mainly islamic ideology.

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

From your link:

The Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 was issued at the conclusion of the 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The summit lasted from 29 August to 1 September and was attended by eight Arab heads of state: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, and Sudan.[1] The resolution called for: a continued state of belligerency with Israel, ending the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, an end to the North Yemen Civil War, and economic assistance for Egypt and Jordan. It is famous for containing (in the third paragraph) what became known as the "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it..."[2]

I don't see the PLO or the Palestinian people listed anywhere as signatories. I do see Egypt and Jordan listed, so I guess you don't know about Anwar Sadat's successful negotiations with Israel or that the Israelis and Jordanians have also made peace.

We got off onto this side track when I pointed out that a video you posted utilized glaringly obvious propaganda when it showed an alleged list of Two State proposals offered to the Palestinians that didn't include the most significant Two State proposal of them all, but did include things that weren't proposals and weren't presented to the Palestinians. I keep posting information on the actual proposals made over the course of negotiations and you keep trying to reduce the entire issue into an utterly simplistic good guys/bad guys scenario. We're getting nowhere.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Until then I'll just assume you don't know and don't care what was proposed and/or rejected by each party.

Ever read anything else except all the anti Israeli biased BS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood

 

[Arctish]

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. And just so you know, I read every link you post in our discussions so if you have a good one with pertinent information provided by a reputable source, please share it.

Also, ad hominems are fallacies, not rebuttals.

 

[angelo]

Think the peaceful Arabs may go for this..............................? Extremely doubtful I'd say, wouldn't you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/unleashing-economic-potential/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Misunderstanding the plain language in a post + ignorance + unsupported assertion + another unsupported assertion = typical LP post.

Support your claims. Pick any one of them. And by support I don't mean post bullshit, lies, and things you made up or imagine must be true because you have faith. I mean present a clear, concise argument with supporting documentation. For example, you could link to an article about beachgoers being killed by a Hamas mine and how that was used as a pretext to blame Israel.

Hamas reported it as an Israeli round. It's just there was no fire in the area and what they showed was not consistent with an Israeli shell. On the other hand, Hamas has mined beaches against IDF infiltration.

So you have no evidence to offer, just another unsupported assertion, and we're supposed to believe you because you say it happened.

You automatically disbelieve anything pro-Israeli anyway, I'm not going to waste my time.

You still haven't looked at that book.

 

[Arctish]

So you have no evidence to offer, just another unsupported assertion, and we're supposed to believe you because you say it happened.

You automatically disbelieve anything pro-Israeli anyway, I'm not going to waste my time.

I automatically disbelieve bullshit once I realize it's bullshit. If that's all you have (and it usually is) then you're right to think I'm not likely to be convinced by something you find compelling.

That doesn't mean you don't have to support your claims.

You still haven't looked at that book.

I read the whole thing, researched the author, and found a more recent article that substantiated one of his claims.

What did you do? Did you look for another source to back Hollingsworth?

 

[Arctish]

Think the peaceful Arabs may go for this..............................? Extremely doubtful I'd say, wouldn't you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/unleashing-economic-potential/

I agree.

Kushner's plan is a half-assed, poorly constructed attempt at extortion. Now that the Trump Administration has cut off aid, they figure they can pressure the Palestinians into surrendering everything, even their rights under international law. Heck, it doesn't even put the payoff money into Palestinian hands. You'd think men with their expertise in payola would know that part is essential.

The plan doesn't end the Occupation. It won't interfere with Netanyahu's plan to make all of the West Bank an indivisible part of Israel. It doesn't guarantee citizenship for non-Jewish Palestinians in Israel (or anywhere else for that matter), or allow them any meaningful participation in the government that dictates the conditions under which they live. It doesn't do a damn thing to resolve the issues that have stymied every peace initiative since the Oslo Accords. And everyone who knows anything about the conflict realizes that.

I'm doubtful anyone thinks that plan has a chance to bring about actual peace, although I do think there are some who believe they can impose it through military might and crushing economic sanctions. Trump would call that success, just like he called the crowd at his Inauguration the biggest one ever.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Some of the information in them is very pertinent to a discussion of the Kushner plan.

 

[angelo]

Think the peaceful Arabs may go for this..............................? Extremely doubtful I'd say, wouldn't you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/unleashing-economic-potential/

I agree.

Kushner's plan is a half-assed, poorly constructed attempt at extortion. Now that the Trump Administration has cut off aid, they figure they can pressure the Palestinians into surrendering everything, even their rights under international law. Heck, it doesn't even put the payoff money into Palestinian hands. You'd think men with their expertise in payola would know that part is essential.

The plan doesn't end the Occupation. It won't interfere with Netanyahu's plan to make all of the West Bank an indivisible part of Israel. It doesn't guarantee citizenship for non-Jewish Palestinians in Israel (or anywhere else for that matter), or allow them any meaningful participation in the government that dictates the conditions under which they live. It doesn't do a damn thing to resolve the issues that have stymied every peace initiative since the Oslo Accords. And everyone who knows anything about the conflict realizes that.

I'm doubtful anyone thinks that plan has a chance to bring about actual peace, although I do think there are some who believe they can impose it through military might and crushing economic sanctions. Trump would call that success, just like he called the crowd at his Inauguration the biggest one ever.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Some of the information in them is very pertinent to a discussion of the Kushner plan.

Of course any plan not conceived by Arab Palestinians is as you say half arsed! Exactly why there can never be peace in Palestine or anywhere else in the Middle East governed by Hamas and the PA unless Israel is willing to commit Hari Kari..
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/mahmoud-abbas-angrily-rejects-50-billion-dollar-aid-package

 

[Arctish]

Think the peaceful Arabs may go for this..............................? Extremely doubtful I'd say, wouldn't you?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/peacetoprosperity/unleashing-economic-potential/

I agree.

Kushner's plan is a half-assed, poorly constructed attempt at extortion. Now that the Trump Administration has cut off aid, they figure they can pressure the Palestinians into surrendering everything, even their rights under international law. Heck, it doesn't even put the payoff money into Palestinian hands. You'd think men with their expertise in payola would know that part is essential.

The plan doesn't end the Occupation. It won't interfere with Netanyahu's plan to make all of the West Bank an indivisible part of Israel. It doesn't guarantee citizenship for non-Jewish Palestinians in Israel (or anywhere else for that matter), or allow them any meaningful participation in the government that dictates the conditions under which they live. It doesn't do a damn thing to resolve the issues that have stymied every peace initiative since the Oslo Accords. And everyone who knows anything about the conflict realizes that.

I'm doubtful anyone thinks that plan has a chance to bring about actual peace, although I do think there are some who believe they can impose it through military might and crushing economic sanctions. Trump would call that success, just like he called the crowd at his Inauguration the biggest one ever.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the links I posted. Some of the information in them is very pertinent to a discussion of the Kushner plan.

Of course any plan not conceived by Arab Palestinians is as you say half arsed! Exactly why there can never be peace in Palestine or anywhere else in the Middle East governed by Hamas and the PA unless Israel is willing to commit Hari Kari..
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/mahmoud-abbas-angrily-rejects-50-billion-dollar-aid-package

Did you read that article? All of it? And did you read the Kushner plan?