PDA

View Full Version : Yassar Arafat Dies



cueball1950
11-10-2004, 10:28 PM
Go with Gods Speed......................mike

SecaucusFats
11-10-2004, 10:49 PM
Rot in hell you worthless P.O.S.

I hope you get a reception from all the innocent people you had murdered.

Screw Arafat.

SF

highsea
11-11-2004, 03:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Screw Arafat.

SF <hr /></blockquote>I second that.

highsea
11-11-2004, 04:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cueball1950:</font><hr> Go with Gods Speed......................mike <hr /></blockquote>Mike, I know I sound like a jerk, but I wish God could've been a little bit speedier.

Anyway, like DC says,
Peace.

Qtec
11-11-2004, 10:24 AM
If the present situation was all Arafat,s fault, do you now expect a quick settlement now that he is out of the way?

In 93 Arafat and Rabin had an agreement. In 95 rabin was murdered because of that agreement by an Israeli and you think Arafat was the big problem?
Like I always said, its the extemists on BOTH sides that have prevented a peace settlement. Just look at the trouble Sharon has had about withdrawing from the Gaza strip. An illegal occupation I might add.
Since 1995 the Israelis have expanded into Palestinian land and proceeded to build a wall around the Palestinians locking them into a huge prison. Also illegal.
Who does a Palestinian turn to when his land and livleyhood are taken away from him to make place for the wall?
Try and imagine yourself as a Palestinian who had a house and land in Israel before the war. How would you feel about being asked to give it up [ without compensation], because an Israeli lives there now.

You should do some research about Sharon and find out what a nice guy he is!

Q

SecaucusFats
11-11-2004, 10:55 AM
Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat died early Thursday morning after his brain exploded in a Paris hospital.

The Nobel Prize winning serial killer's death was announced by Palestinian officials and the Percy Medical Hospital outside Paris, where Arafat arrived for treatment of a mysterious illness, reputed to be AIDS, nearly two weeks ago. The hospital said the 75-year-old mass murderer died in the early morning hours.

Arafat had been in a coma for several days. His brain exploded on Tuesday, prompting several news reports that the crazed killer was already dead. The brain explosion is technically known as a cerebral hemorrhage.

Arafat, who has killed more Jews than any man since Adolf Hitler, was flown to Paris by the French government for medical treatment. Under French care, his condition rapidly deteriorated, and he went into a coma over a week ago.

His condition launched a flurry of contradictory news reports that he was dead, or brain dead, long before his demise was announced. It also unleashed a clash between his wife Suha and Palestinian officials.

Arafat's carcass will be flown to Cairo for a memorial ceremony and, after that, to the West Bank city of Ramallah, for burial. The arrangements were finalized after Israeli authorities gave the green light for his Ramallah burial.

Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo, Egypt on August 24, 1929, under the name Mohammed al-Hussein. He and several cronies formed the terrorist group Fatah during the 1950s. Fatah began launching guerrilla raids and terrorist attacks into Israel, and joined the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in East Jerusalem under Egyptian patronage in 1964 for the express purpose of eradicating the Jewish state.

After Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Six-Day War of 1967, Arafat led a coup against PLO founding chairman Ahmed Shukiry in 1968. Arafat adopted an authoritarian style of one-man rule and relocated his base to Jordan, from where the PLO and its various factions carried out a series of terrorist attacks, including hijackings in Europe and the Middle East.

Jordan's King Hussein ordered his troops to drive the PLO out in the bloody 1971 confrontation known as Black September. Arafat and the PLO then made their home in Lebanon, again defiantly setting up a state-within-a-state and continuing terror attacks against Israel, including the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

In 1974, Arafat was invited to address the United Nations, which granted observer status to the PLO. Arafat also won pan-Arab recognition of the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative" of the Palestinian people.

In 1975, the PLO presence in Lebanon plunged the nation into a protracted civil war. In June 1982 Israel sent troops to drive the PLO out of Lebanon. Trapped like a rat in the Lebanese capitol of Beirut, Arafat was escorted out and allowed to continue his terrorist attacks from the Arab North African country Tunisia.

Palestinians inside the disputed territories launched an uprising, or "intifada," against Israeli rule in late 1987. Arafat tried to take control of the intifada, but in 1990, he publicly supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

After the US-led coalition forced Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait, Arafat was left out of the historic Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, with Palestinian representatives from the territories attending as part of the Jordanian delegation.

Arafat directed the Palestinian delegates to stall progress in the talks, while sending envoys to Norway for secret, direct negotiations with Israel’s Labor party. This resulted the Oslo agreement of 1993, a seven-year peace treaty in which Israel accepted the PLO as a negotiating partner in exchange for Arafat once again renouncing terror.

In 1994, Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. As part of the Oslo peace accords, he was allowed entry into Gaza and was elected chairman of the new Palestinian Authority in 1996. Rabin was assassinated in 1995, to be replaced as Prime Minister by Peres, then Benjamin Netanyahu, then Ehud Barak.

As the seven-year peace process drew to a close in the year 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Arafat, Barak, and Peres to Camp David outside Washington, to begin final status negotiations. But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem. The agreement, proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, would have given the Palestinians 98 percent of the disputed territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Arafat subsequently initiated a wave of terrorism that has resulted in the murders of 1,032 people in the ensuing 4 years.

During most of the Palestinian uprising, Israeli forces confined Arafat to his Ramallah headquarters, while U.S. president George Bush refused to meet or speak with the terrorist leader. Israeli voters kicked Barak out in 2001, electing Ariel Sharon instead. In 2002, Bush called on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror."

SF

Qtec
11-11-2004, 11:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As the seven-year peace process drew to a close in the year 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Arafat, Barak, and Peres to Camp David outside Washington, to begin final status negotiations. But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem. <hr /></blockquote>


Prove this.

Q

SecaucusFats
11-11-2004, 11:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
As the seven-year peace process drew to a close in the year 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Arafat, Barak, and Peres to Camp David outside Washington, to begin final status negotiations. But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem. <hr /></blockquote>


Prove this.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

No problem.

Dennis Ross interview on the final Barak/Clinton offer to Arafat

For future reference, when someone claims that “Israel destroyed the Oslo peace process,” here is the April 21, 2002 Fox News Sunday interview with United States negotiator Dennis Ross in which he gave a detailed account of the meeting in the White House in January 2001 in which Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton offered an extraordinary final settlement deal to Arafat and Arafat turned it down cold.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton’s final days in office. In the months following Clinton’s failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton’s presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.

Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.

So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can—I might note that we’re proud to able to say that you’re a Fox News contributing analyst.

DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.

HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?

ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn’t. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn’t exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.

After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, “We need to have another summit,” to which we said, “We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You’re prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that.”

He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn’t be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn’t lift a finger.

Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.

HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration…

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: … to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?

ROSS: Absolutely.

HUME: All right.

ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.

HUME: All right. And they were?

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn’t even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can’t—there’s no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let’s take a look at the map. Now, this is what—how the Israelis had created a map based on the president’s ideas. And…

ROSS: Right.

HUME: … what can we—that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect…

ROSS: Right.

HUME: … that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?

ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.

The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don’t accept it, it’s not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.

So that’s why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.

BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he’d get more?

ROSS: Well, exactly.

HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.

ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn’t be a floor for negotiations.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: It couldn’t be a ceiling. It was the roof.

HUME: This was a final offer?

ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.

HUME: This was the solution.

BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?

ROSS: It’s very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.

HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?

ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.

They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you’ve got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun—so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it…

ROSS: Yes.

HUME: … might he not have concluded that the violence was working?

ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There’s no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.

And I think there’s one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn’t available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn’t accept it.

Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.

HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.

SF

Qtec
11-11-2004, 11:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
2002 Fox News Sunday interview <hr /></blockquote>

HaHa

You need to do better than that.

I dont want some guys version, show me some facts.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
2002 Fox News Sunday interview <hr /></blockquote>

HaHa

You need to do better than that.

I dont want some guys version, show me some facts.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Coming from you, this is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read.

Cueless Joey
11-11-2004, 12:07 PM
Arafat is in heaven now.
He has 72 virgins now.
Male or female, I dunno.
Joey~Suspects "mysterious" cause of death is really some "embarassing" disease~

Qtec
11-11-2004, 12:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.

Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn’t. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn’t exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?

ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.
<hr /></blockquote>


Need I say more?

Wally, if the truth was a bolt of lightening and it struck you right between the eyes with a zillion volts......................you wouldnt even notice it.

Q

Cueless Joey
11-11-2004, 12:37 PM
Open a church in Palestinia.
Open another church in Israel.
Let's see which place would welcome you better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
2002 Fox News Sunday interview <hr /></blockquote>

HaHa

You need to do better than that.

I dont want some guys version, show me some facts.

Q <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> You doubt the word of a Democrat, under Clinton, just because he is telling what he saw, developed, experienced and personally put into Arafat's hands becuase it happened to be broadcast on a moderate news service? You are, indeed, politically hopeless. If it had said, CBS or Dan Rather you still woould not have believed it. You are, the juror O.J. had hoped for and got, the, nevermind, you're obviously not listening anyway.
</font color>

Deeman

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 01:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
As the seven-year peace process drew to a close in the year 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Arafat, Barak, and Peres to Camp David outside Washington, to begin final status negotiations. But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem. <hr /></blockquote>





Let's see, with any type of meaningful cooperation with the Clinton Administration and Barak, the Palestinians would have had between 95 and 98% of the barren rock wasteland they wanted (I won't quibble over how much tundra is really needed. Now, they have 1-3% of barren rock wasteland and even that not under their control, his sobbing widow and the other beggar thiefs are arm wrestling in gay Parie over his 4 billion he starved his people to get and young kids are being hustled into strapping c-4 to their chests so the next despot can profit. It a pretty good scam if you can play the long con well.

Dump this piece of trash in the nearest hospital lunch garbage pale, buy his wife an Citron and put the other Palestianian leaders on "Survivor, the middle of the desert version."

Deeman

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr>

You doubt the word of a Democrat, under Clinton, just because he is telling what he saw, developed, experienced and personally put into Arafat's hands becuase it happened to be broadcast on a moderate news service? <hr /></blockquote>

Q only trusts the BBC and the Guardian, the only remaining bastions of unbiased reportage under the sun.

cueball1950
11-11-2004, 02:07 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gifI am totally sorry i made the original post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif I know what he was and acknowledge that. But i cannot hate or pass judgement on a dead person. I figure that God will Judge them all in the end anyway and give out the proper punishment. But i feel a war of the words breaking out here cuz of my original post. Do we really need this bantering back and forth, or the hard feelings that it MAY/will cause between the parties.........................mike

SpiderMan
11-11-2004, 02:10 PM
Q, I normally disagree with ANYTHING "political" you say, but this time .... for whatever reason I also feel the civilized world is spoon-fed a one-sided account of the Arab-Israeli conflict (and the plight of the average Palestinian, who is not entirely to blame for being born poor and ostracized under a fragmented/desperate leadership). And Israel, while technically our ally, has shown itself to be capable of great deceit in the name of self-interest.

SpiderMan

silverbullet
11-11-2004, 02:20 PM
Me too. But...I do not hate someone who has died, their families still grieve.

Deeman2
11-11-2004, 02:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cueball1950:</font><hr> /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gifI am totally sorry i made the original post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif I know what he was and acknowledge that. But i cannot hate or pass judgement on a dead person.

<font color="blue"> Don't be sorry. Debate does not hurt us, it makes us stronger. I do pass judgement on dead people. I still think Stalin, Hitler, Arafat, my uncle Ralph, etc. were bad, evil people despite the fact they are hard as a carp right now. God will deal with them but I have no qualms about speaking badly of the dead, if they were bad. I don't ask God to condenm them as that is not my job, yet. I am applying for the position, however.</font color>

I figure that God will Judge them all in the end anyway and give out the proper punishment. But i feel a war of the words breaking out here cuz of my original post. Do we really need this bantering back and forth, or the hard feelings that it MAY/will cause between the parties.........................mike
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">This is not il will. Cutting people's heads off for Allah is il will. Not talking about things is il will, missing the nine from 6 inches is il will. Mike, it's this or play video poker all day... I listen and respond to Qtec. I may think he's nuts but that's o.k. He probably thinks I was the guy who killed and cut up women and stored them in my locker at school... Oh! Maybe i better stop, the statute of limitations is not so secure these days. Lighten up, my friend. It's only life (of course, not for Arafat). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Deeman

Qtec
11-11-2004, 03:36 PM
Once again I ask you, Show me proof that this deal was ever offered or details of any deal that was offered.
You base your whole argument on one guys opinion of what transpired.So what if he is a Dem. Are you saying that all Dems tell the truth?
Or is he even more reliable because he was a Cinton Dem? Wasnt Clinton the Devil in disguise?

Do you feel yourself flipping and flopping?

The fact is, they only agreed on a 'framework', there were very little details. The article quoted doesnt mean squat.

Q

nhp
11-11-2004, 05:43 PM
Arafat and Sharon are both mass-murderers. There is nothing worth defending about either of these men.

eg8r
11-12-2004, 06:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I dont want some guys version, show me some facts.
<hr /></blockquote> Why the sudden change of heart. The quote is fitting of the type of facts you always pass off, only difference is that his source came from a "fair and balanced" source, not the BBC. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
11-12-2004, 06:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Once again I ask you, Show me proof that this deal was ever offered or details of any deal that was offered.
You base your whole argument on one guys opinion of what transpired.So what if he is a Dem. Are you saying that all Dems tell the truth?
Or is he even more reliable because he was a Cinton Dem? Wasnt Clinton the Devil in disguise?

Do you feel yourself flipping and flopping?

The fact is, they only agreed on a 'framework', there were very little details. The article quoted doesnt mean squat.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Q, I am not going to spend my time searching for documentation but the deal that was offered to Arafat is pretty common knowledge. I don't follow Israeli/Palestinian politics very closely but even I have read this in more than one place. Why do you feel the need to argue the point so vehemently?

SecaucusFats
11-12-2004, 07:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Once again I ask you, Show me proof that this deal was ever offered or details of any deal that was offered.
You base your whole argument on one guys opinion of what transpired.So what if he is a Dem. Are you saying that all Dems tell the truth?
Or is he even more reliable because he was a Cinton Dem? Wasnt Clinton the Devil in disguise?

Do you feel yourself flipping and flopping?

<hr /></blockquote>

Q, I am not going to spend my time searching for documentation but the deal that was offered to Arafat is pretty common knowledge. I don't follow Israeli/Palestinian politics very closely but even I have read this in more than one place. Why do you feel the need to argue the point so vehemently? <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, some poor deluded souls can't help themselves! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif :

http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/head_up_ass.jpg

Qtec
11-12-2004, 07:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q, I am not going to spend my time searching for documentation but the deal that was offered to Arafat is pretty common knowledge. I don't follow Israeli/Palestinian politics very closely but even I have read this in more than one place. <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, if we are going to slam Arafat, lets judge him on the facts, not 'common knowledge'.

[ QUOTE ]
1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo Accords)


The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements is the main agreement signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It was signed on White House lawn amid much fanfare in September 1993.
Many of the declaration's provisions - the inauguration of the Palestinian National Authority, the handover of some land to Palestinian control, and the formation of the Palestinian security forces for example - were implemented.

However, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators failed to move on from these initial provisions to a permanent status agreement on issues including Jerusalem, borders and refugees.

Article V:
Transitional period and permanent status negotiations:
1. The five-year transitional period will begin upon the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. <hr /></blockquote>

Havent the Israelis just started withdrawing from the Gaza Strip 11 years after the agreement?
Arent 80,000 Israelis still in the West Bank in violation of UN resolutions ?

I dont believe Arafat was ever offered any part of Jerusalem. Thats probably why the deal broke down.

Even today ,Sharon cant give up the Gaza strip without huge resistance from his own people. To the hard-liners in Israel, giving up Jerusalem is unthinkable.

This is common knowledge.

Q

highsea
11-12-2004, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>I dont believe Arafat was ever offered any part of Jerusalem. Thats probably why the deal broke down.... To the hard-liners in Israel, giving up Jerusalem is unthinkable.

This is common knowledge.

Q <hr /></blockquote>You didn't follow the news very closely. Just google Clinton Mid-East Peace Plan. Lots of information available.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BBC:</font><hr>Under the new Clinton plan, Israel is called on to make dramatic concessions that have not previously been on the official agenda.

Under the US proposals the old city of Jerusalem would be divided:

Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters to go to a Palestinian state

Jewish quarter to go to Israel

Israeli corridor established through the Armenian quarter from the Jaffa Gate allowing access from the west of Jerusalem to the Jewish quarter

The Haram al-Sharif area or Temple Mount, which includes the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, would go to a Palestinian state

Everything below the lip of the Haram al-Sharif that is within the Jewish quarter, including the Western Wall, would be under Israeli sovereignty

Refugees

In return for Israeli concessions on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and their descendents, about 3.7 million in all, are being asked to give up their claim to a right of return to Israel.

This is potentially the most difficult problem for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

He is under tremendous pressure from all shades of Palestinian opinion, including his own Fatah organisation, not to concede on this issue.

Palestinian negotiators insist that the right of return to Israel has to remain, even if it is not exercised.

Under the Washington plan:

Israel to allow up to 100,000 refugees to return to the Jewish state

Others to be resettled elsewhere with compensation from an international fund.

West Bank and Gaza

The US plan proposes that Israel should cede 95% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip.

In return for taking some West Bank land containing Jewish settlers, Israel has offered the Palestinians more land in the Negev desert.

The Palestinians have outlined several objections to this proposed territorial division:

Israel would be handing back closer to 90% of the West Bank if Jerusalem and the Dead Sea are included in the calculation

The parts of the West Bank that Israel plans to hold on to would break up the area so severely as to make it impossible to build a viable Palestinian state

Israel to keep many of its settlements east of Jerusalem, which Palestinians say would leave Arab East Jerusalem almost cut off from the West Bank
Israel plans to keep hold of three blocks of Jewish settlements in the West Bank:

The Ariel block near Nablus in the north, The Maal Adumim corridor between Jerusalem and Jericho in the centre, and Etzion, near Hebron, in the south.

Under the US plan, an international force would supervise the implementation of the final agreement and Israel would be given three years to withdraw from Palestinian territory.

Israel would be allowed to keep a limited force in the Jordan Valley for another three years, and three early warning stations for 10 years. <hr /></blockquote>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100365.stm

There were more details, corridors were to be created to make the Palestinian lands contiguous, even in Jeruselum. This was to be Clinton's "Legacy". Mid-East Peace. Arafat agreed to this deal in Camp David, but later reneged. A couple years later, he tried to backtrack, but with Sharon, the offer was no longer on the table.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BBC:</font><hr>Arafat 'accepts' Clinton peace plan

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Mr Arafat also says he is now prepared to accept a Middle East peace plan put forward by former US president Bill Clinton in December 2000...<hr /></blockquote>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2057919.stm

Qtec
11-12-2004, 12:37 PM
If you read mypost you will see that I as refering to the Oslo Accord in 93. Something that was actually signed by both parties.

Bill Clinton,s proposal were just that, a 'proposal, never ratified by either party.

[ QUOTE ]
BBC News Online looks at what is known of the proposals put forward by former President Bill Clinton as he made his final bid to broker a deal in the Middle East <hr /></blockquote>

What BC was proposing could never work. There was never a deal for Arafat to say no to because the Israelis would never have accepted it anyway.

The Israelis want peace. The Palestinians want their homes back.
I think the original post was implying that the present situation was because Arafat did not accept the 'deal'. I still contest this.

Q

Qtec
11-12-2004, 12:51 PM
Here,s one for you.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2115857.stm


Dont you think this is racist?

Should the US should be supporting a country who,s laws support racism?

Q

highsea
11-12-2004, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr>Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SF)
As the seven-year peace process drew to a close in the year 2000, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Arafat, Barak, and Peres to Camp David outside Washington, to begin final status negotiations. But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Prove this.<hr /></blockquote>You are trying to change the subject. SF made a post about the Clinton Plan of 2000. You asked for proof. The proof is overwhelming, and is reported in many, sites, Arafat even agreed to it later, as I pointed out.

You wanted proof of this: <font color="red">"But Arafat rejected a deal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state with its capitol in East Jerusalem."</font color>. You have it. F*ck the Oslo Accords, they were not a peace plan. They only laid out the guidelines for talks.

Quit dodging. Arafat rejected a peace plan in 2000 that was agreed on by Barak, Clinton, and Arafat. The plan would have made a separate and contiguous Palestinian State with East Jeruselum as it's capital. Israel would have withdrawn from 95% of the territory it occupies, with most of the other 5% made up for in a land swap and financial compensation. Israel would have allowed 100,000 refugees to return to Israel, the remainder would have had to live in the new Palestinian State or accept financial compensation.

The simple fact that Arafat tried to resurrect this plan 2 years later should show you that it was real.

That was the best deal the Palestinians were going to get. Arafat's advisors recommended that they take it.

The truth is that Arafat was never able to make the transition from terrorist to statesman.

Qtec
11-12-2004, 02:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that Arafat was never able to make the transition from terrorist to statesman.
<hr /></blockquote>
I agree with you on this.




[ QUOTE ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/04/wmid04.xml

Shlomo Ben Ami, the Israeli foreign minister, said it would take a "miracle" for Israelis and Palestinians to sign a lasting peace agreement before Mr Clinton left office. "It's a pity that precious days were lost. It took too long for Mr Arafat to come forward and give what is a conditioned and rather qualified 'yes'," he added, referring to Mr Arafat's positive but conditional response to the Clinton peace initiative.

Mr Arafat's apparent decision to accept the Clinton plan aroused widespread scepticism among Palestinians, who have seen the Washington proposals as a trick designed to ensure Mr Barak's re-election. Both sides are reluctant to be seen as taking responsibility for the failure of the Clinton plan and have gone out of their way to avoid saying no at this stage




From Bill Clinton himself.

* On the Camp David summit in July 2000:
"It was frustrating and profoundly sad. There was little difference between the two sides on how the affairs of Jerusalem would actually be handled; it was all about who got to claim sovereignty." Efforts continued to reach a peace agreement that fall, as Clinton's term drew rapidly to a close: "It was assumed that Palestine would get the Muslim and Christian quarters, with Israel getting the other two. Arafat argued that he should have a few blocks of the Armenian quarter because of the Christian churches there. I couldn't believe he was talking to me about this."
"At times Arafat seemed confused, not wholly in command of the facts. I had felt for some time that he might not be at the top of his game any longer, after all the years of spending the night in different places to dodge assassins' bullets, all the countless hours on airplanes, all the endless hours of tension-filled talks. Perhaps he simply couldn't make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman."
"Arafat never said no; he just couldn't bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall."
<hr /></blockquote>

I guess the truth lies somewhere in between.

Q [ BTW , giving the Palestinians the West Bank is not Israels to give. As far as I know, the WB still legally belongs to Jordan]

Deeman2
11-12-2004, 02:08 PM
Maybe he has now!!!