If you don't care for the claims of hasbara-trolls; you may find this useful, Iolo. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/pressman.pdf
Same old repetative BoRat bull $hit. If it was'nt for dum Goy Yanks blind support for Israel (via AIPAC + other pro-zionists ) Israeli's would not have behaved as arrogantly as they do and have respected non-Jewish Palestinians legitimate rights , long ago. The "offer to Arafat " which you are referring to has been exposed as a half-truth /distortion / a lie. Here once again , read and cogitate. - its from a Jewish source/proper kosher. December 12, 2004 Barak's generous offer It's remarkable that, after four years, people are still repeating the myths surrounding the breakdown of the "peace" talks between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. Among Zionists, talk of "Ehud Barak's generous offer" is common currency as if it's true. Among anti-Zionists it's a joke. In fact put "Barak's generous offer" into Google and 934 sites come up (today anyway). I haven't checked them all but the first ten are incredulous about the idea that Barak was somehow being generous about the land that isn't his. Just recently I was told by a fellow blogger that he believes AIPAC's Dennis Ross on the question of what was on offer by Barak. In fairness to the "generosity" argument I have linked to Dennis Ross's article in Facts of Israel. Please read it. The problem with it is, it doesn't state any facts; it just makes some bland assertions that any reader of the mainstream media will have seen many times before. The Arab Media Watch article by Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish linked in the headline above states specific verifiable facts. Here are some quotes from AMW. I can't juxtapose concomitant myths because the Zionists haven't actually gone into any detail, possibly because no-one ever asks them to prove their point. "It was Israel that broke off the negotiations, and the committee headed by former US Senator George Mitchell found no evidence to back the Israeli claim that the Palestinian Authority had planned or launched the Intifada." Barak's "generous" offer * no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, * no control of its external borders, * limited control of its own water resources, and * no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have : * included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; * codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; * meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and * required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for "a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." I'm no mathmetician but 100% of the occupied territories less 15% makes, not Dennis Ross's 97% but 85%. Just an aside here, this is the most irritating thing about people, particularly in the mainstream media, who are so accepting of Zionist mythology when the truth is nearly always in the public domain and often from the mouths or pens of Zionists themselves. Anyway to continue for people who can't work the arithmetic: "In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent. No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place."....... "Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality." Now this is strange. Why on earth did Clinton appoint some people to attend the talks who were not in thrall to Zionist goals? I mean this Malley chap flatly contradicts Dennis Ross. Why did he put Ross and Malley in the same team? I think it was because he needed Dennis Ross to establish what was acceptable from a Zionist point of view and Malley to report back on the actual truth. Since leaving office Clinton has run with the Ross version but then he was prosecuted for perjury so maybe the truth isn't so important to him. Ok the perjury was over sex but what's more important, geopolitics or sex? Anyway, back on track: "On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expecations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks."... ... "In January 2001, the talks moved to Taba, Egypt, where they reportedly continued to make progress. They broke off at the end of January, and were due to resume but Barak canceled a planned meeting with Arafat. Shortly thereafter, Barak lost the election to Ariel Sharon, and the talks have never resumed." So where is the blow-by-blow refutation of the above in a Zionist source and why would anyone prefer to believe AIPAC's Dennis Ross? http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/2004/12/baraks-generous-offer.html ''''
So what's wrong with this proposal, that's exactly why it was considered fair and generous by the entire world at the time. Especially if you take into account the fact that you conveniently 'forgot' that the Palestinian territory was to be swapped for an equitable amount of Israel's land, that passage between Gaza and the WB was to be built and the so-called refugees were to be financially compensated and permitted to return to the WB and Gaza. That said even if for some reason the offer was not perfect, it was more than good enough to negotiate, Arafat could have come up with a counter-offer, perhaps asking for more Israel's land or better land, better compensation for the refugees, quicker implementation of the complete Israeli withdrawal etc. That's of course if Arafat wanted peace, he instead chose to walk out and we both know why - because Arafat, just like you, like other Islamofascists, terrorists and their western supporters don't want peace and don't want a two state solution, you all want Israel off the map.
Yes it does make me weep. To see a country so terrorized that it has to take up strict military policys and get nuclear bombs is sad.
' It looks like you're eith deliberately ignoring or simply/innocently ignorant of the background history of the country you sreferring to was itself created by terrorists gangs . i.e. zIONISTS terror groups , Lehi /Irgun/Stern /Haganah etc. who TERRORIZED indigenous non-Jews , displacing/ethnic cleansing the land which one had a non-jewish majority in oreder to create a Jewish/psuedo/quasi - Jewish state. Please go learn, do some homework, read , read , read from as many sources/sides as you can then perhaps you'll better aware of why you're "weeping". tata..
Wrong again . , the "entire world " wasnt stupid/gullible enough to swallow those lies. It was ONLY Israelis- some diaspora Jews + dumb american Goyim , who believe US/Aipac/Israeli lies. As I've shown , others , including the Rabbis - JewsNotZionists /Anti-Zionists Jews , knew better and never swallowed those lies. ...
Oh ya, i read all the biblical old testament. You got these chosen by God people who go and destroy all these other people because they are disgusting. Get real, back then it was survival of the fittest and still is in a sense. However that was the past And this is today So learn to forgive And dont act gay!
Smarty pants , guess what , the Nazis considered Jews "disgusting ", to justify their genocide . History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. " The only lesson we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Hegel, tata' ..
Thats okay Hitler already did what he did, as did the Israelites. Once again However that was the past, And this is today, So learn to forgive, And dont act gay! I might make a song out of that. And Hitler also failed.
Repeating yourself only prove you're a parrot , nothing else. LOL . btw - Adolf apparently had a 50% success rate. tatty-byeeee... ....
When America honors its Mandate from the American Declaration of Independence “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,”and to have “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” will be a very important step in bringing peace to Middle East, and that includes stopping the Muslim Brotherhood/Saudi war against Syria. America should abolish the Talmudic Noahide codes it adopted in 1991, and stop subsidizing Israeli aggression. Both America and Russia should be ready in case the Israelis try their Samson plan. The Christian Israel people called Palestinians should be evacuated out of the Israeli territory and given land and homes elsewhere.
So how should the Jews avoid it? Should Israel keep existing to save them from next generations of Nazis? Or do you agree with Hitler that jews were 'disgusting'? Do you believe jews are still 'disgusting' and must stop being 'disgusting' to avoid the second Holocaust?
Ya im parroting myself because you dont seem to understand. You cant change the past so whats the point in whining about it? What is tatty-byeeee.... Sounds fruity
Yep, I expected you would not have an answer. It's a typical contradiction in the views of Jew hating neo-nazis, they don't want the Jews to have Israel and yet they don't want the Jews in their countries. What they want is of course clear from their Nazi history and from the total absence of options they leave for the Jews. Well my dear Marlowe, you are not fooling anyone. We all know that while Israel exists you and your ilk can (and do) bark but you can't bite. And yeah, we realize that your frustration makes you bark even louder Keep barking!
7 . US stop protecting Kosovo , Georgia , Saoudia arabia and Quatar , nests and supporters of terrorism in the world 8 . Close all the banks supporters and providers of funds for terrorism , included those helping the western democracy black ops 9 . Stop the cia drug market in afghanistan which nourrish those black box money used like in Paraguay , Venezuela and Syria 10 . Stop brainwashing muslims in guantanamo in order to transform them in Al Quaeda fanatics nuts
In no particular order... 1. Removal of the al-Saud regime from Saudi Arabia, along with its fellow tyrant monarchies in neighboring states. 2. Removal of the Zionist regime from "Israel" and the creation of one state for all people. 3. Removal of NATO presence from the Middle East. 4. Cut funding to "Israel" and the oppressive monarchies (by cutting back on oil purchases). 5. Sanctions against the Zionist regime and al-Saud regime, the Bahraini regime, the Qatari regime, and other dictators in the region. 6. Complete removal of CIA and similar groups presence in the region. Yes, I realize there is a common denominator here.
Demands like these prove the perception that Middle-Easterners refuse to tolerate anyone who is at all different from them.
Put it more simply: get the bully-boys out of other people's countries and leave other people's property alone.
Well old BoRat - as long as Jews like you and Israel continue denying non-Jewish Palestinians legitimate rights , I'll not only continue barking but shall also support every legitimate campaign against Zionism' s - Jewish Racist/supremism. Thou shall NOT steal other people's property. VIVA PALESTINA + Oy-vey. ...
Ah yes. Especially intolerant those flying machines which bombs buildings and kill people. What a uncivilized bunch of savages Middle Easterners are.... To want foreign armies and intelligence agencies who constantly kill our people and destroy our cities and villages out of our region. To want governments who support some of the most brutal regimes on Earth to end the support, and even the removal of said regimes. That is based purely on intolerance. Because they are "different". Thank you for such a well thought out response to my post.
You should go back - read and learn the origins of the conflict. BEFORE the invasions of Europe's Zionist Jews , most midd;le easterners was amongst the most racially tolerant , due to its very long multi-racial history. ...
Do you have a shred of evidence for this? Are you not aware of the 1500 year sectarian war between sunnis and shias and the millions killed because of it? (granted not racial based, but bigotted based) this notion that the middle east was a tolerant place is nonsense. All Kafirs were second class citizens.
