The creation of The State Of Palestine

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Speech, while I applaud your efforts and use of sources, please bare the following in mind:

Arafat, when he started the Oslo process (which actually started without the permission of the then PM Rabin), and the PLO were in shambles, it was after the Gulf War, when they sided with Iraq, and were considered pariahs in most Arab countries as well as western countries. So, this was kind of a life-line to him.

You also need to know that in Israel is was illegal to confer with the PLO since it was defined at the time as a terrorist organization, so, as far as concessions go, when Israel agreed to grant autonomy to the "Palestinians" (I still disagree that such a people existed in history, but since they decided to define themselves as one, so be it), it was a very big concession on their part.

Oslo was designed in stages, it was sold to the Israeli population by the govt. as "Gaza and Jericho first", so, in 1993, when the agreements were signed, and Arafat came into Gaza everyone were ecstatic (I know that firsthand as I was in high-school and everyone was talking about "peace" and the "new middle east"), what is less known is that same day Arafat smuggled weapons and people into Gaza in direct violation of the very same Oslo accords. So it was clear he had no intention of honoring them, so, that renders the entire discussion as moot, since when one side enters an agreement intending to break it, the concessions made by that side are irrelevant.

Despite the clear violations, the Israeli govt. continued with concessions of land, calling the people being killed by the terrorist attacks "victims of peace" (again, I know this firsthand, I was there, this time in the army).

It has been proven time and again that Arafat personally ordered and managed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, many, many times. Actually, each time he was forced to make hard choices, he turned to violence, that happened in 1999, when Barak basically offerred him everything, except minor changes (oh, and no "right of return" which is complete BS, since no refugees ever returned to where they came from - look up WW II for example), and he started the "second intifada" (again, I know, I was there... I was actually in an Arab village shopping for furniture the very same day Sharon went up to the temple mount giving Arafat the perfect excuse), what most people don't remember is that the day before (it was a Thursday) a "Palestinian" policeman murdered his fellow Israeli counter-part (a border-guard soldier) in a joint patrol... (I believe it was in Kalkilia or Tul-Karem).

Even after the fighting continued and escalated with lives lost on both sides, they kept negotiating with Arafat and his people, but nothing helped, since each time we thought it's over, something happened, and it escalated..

The last round of talks was between Olmert and Abu-Mazen and it is well documented that Olmert basically gave almost everything up, including control in parts of Jerusalem (which would probably wouldn't have held up in public opinion in Israel, but he did it anyway), and still Abu-Mazen refused...

It is my personal belief (and it is unsubstantiated - so treat it as such) that they are just not ready to have a state, since that means that they have to start taking care of themselves (i.e. UNRAW has to be disbanded as they have a state now... no longer refugees), it means that they are responsible for whatever they do, it is also means that if a faction attacks Israel, they are responsible for the resulting counter-attack... You should know that when Israel was founded, it had 3 major para-military organizations: Haganna (the bigger, mainstream one), Etzel and Lechi (the last two were the more radical ones, and carried out most actions that were defined as "terrorist"). Now, after the founding of the country, Ben-Gurion ordered the disbanding of all para-military organizations and the creation of the IDF, the Etzel (or Lechi, I keep getting confused) had an arms ship called the Altalena coming in with arms, and the Hagana sunk it, killing several members. That showed everyone that Ben-Gurion meant business. This hasn't been the case in the west-bank or Gaza... each group is allowed to keep their weapons etc... you can't start a state like that...

I hope this addresses what you've raised.

I look forward to a civilized discussion.

Reply to post by ender_shadow

Well said.

I await the response.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ender_shadow

Speech, while I applaud your efforts and use of sources, please bare the following in mind:

Thank you.

Arafat, when he started the Oslo process (which actually started without the permission of the then PM Rabin), and the PLO were in shambles, it was after the Gulf War, when they sided with Iraq, and were considered pariahs in most Arab countries as well as western countries. So, this was kind of a life-line to him.

I understand this. I even posted it saying that the reason Arafat offered these concesions was becuase he wanted to maintain power in Palestine. It dosen't change the fact that he was willing to negoitiate a deal that would leave Palestine with pretty much barely anything that they were asking for in the official deligation in Washington.

You also need to know that in Israel is was illegal to confer with the PLO since it was defined at the time as a terrorist organization, so, as far as concessions go, when Israel agreed to grant autonomy to the "Palestinians" (I still disagree that such a people existed in history, but since they decided to define themselves as one, so be it), it was a very big concession on their part.

Hey, Israel had to offer somthing. But if you look at the bare facts Israel got a better deal from the Oslo Peace Accords and Arafat betrayed his people by conceeding so much.

Oslo was designed in stages, it was sold to the Israeli population by the govt. as "Gaza and Jericho first", so, in 1993, when the agreements were signed, and Arafat came into Gaza everyone were ecstatic (I know that firsthand as I was in high-school and everyone was talking about "peace" and the "new middle east"), what is less known is that same day Arafat smuggled weapons and people into Gaza in direct violation of the very same Oslo accords. So it was clear he had no intention of honoring them, so, that renders the entire discussion as moot, since when one side enters an agreement intending to break it, the concessions made by that side are irrelevant.

Could you please provide me with a link/source. I wasn't aware of this, however after a 15 minute search I have found nothing. I need a verification. Thanks.

It has been proven time and again that Arafat personally ordered and managed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, many, many times. Actually, each time he was forced to make hard choices, he turned to violence, that happened in 1999, when Barak basically offerred him everything, except minor changes (oh, and no "right of return" which is complete BS, since no refugees ever returned to where they came from - look up WW II for example), and he started the "second intifada" (again, I know, I was there... I was actually in an Arab village shopping for furniture the very same day Sharon went up to the temple mount giving Arafat the perfect excuse), what most people don't remember is that the day before (it was a Thursday) a "Palestinian" policeman murdered his fellow Israeli counter-part (a border-guard soldier) in a joint patrol... (I believe it was in Kalkilia or Tul-Karem).

I don't deny that Arafat used terrorism. However I was debating the concessions at the Oslo Peace Accords. I did state that I disliked Arafat. I will say it again. Arafat is a terrible person and a leader, he did not deserve the Noble Peace Prize and I really do dislike him.

The last round of talks was between Olmert and Abu-Mazen and it is well documented that Olmert basically gave almost everything up, including control in parts of Jerusalem (which would probably wouldn't have held up in public opinion in Israel, but he did it anyway), and still Abu-Mazen refused...

I don't like the way you painted Olmert and the concessions he offered. It is fair to say that he did offer large concessions but nothing was signed when it became clear that Israel was heading for elections. But you paint the peace process as clean cut on the Israeli side. I think you would benefit from reading some of the Palestinian Papers.

reply to post by gravitational

Well proto, Arafat was a mess murderer. I don't need to demonize him. His actions did that for himself. But you sound surprised. I wonder why.

I already said I dislike Arafat. You are demonizing him in order to deflect the debate and avoid answering any of my questions.

Jerusalem was never EVER an Arab capital, Jordanian capital let alone a Palestinian capital. So what concessions?

Yes Palestine is not an established state yet. However Jerusalem is a huge concession. Why? Look at the June 1967 borders.

“Look, I want to make peace with you, but you got to give me half of Washington.” What? But Washington was never yours. “Ah you're right.”

Nice attempt to deflect the debate once again. Your anology however is completely out of context and makes no sense.

After all, it was Arafat the mess murderer that began the 2nd intifada in 2000. Need Pictures?

Once again, you are deflecting the debate. Were we talking about the secound intifada? No we were discussing the Oslo Peace Accords and your accusation that my sources are un-reliable.

I have asked you through out this whole thread to offer me sources, evidence and proof to support your contention/s. But since you constantly de-flect the debate I'm not even sure what your contention is. Is it that Ben Ami is an un-reliable source of information? Is it that Arafat is a jerk, so any concessions he offered don't count? Is it that Palestine never had an official state-hood so they should all be driven into Jordan? Please, for the 3rd time, provide me with sources, stop de-railing and de-flecting the debate, adress my statements, arguments and questions, stop going around the argument and actually make an argument that is on-topic

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Arafat was the first President of the Palestinian National Authority.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Now that we all agree Arafat was less then honorable

You also need to be aware that Oslo was just an interim deal, the big concession on Israel's part was to allow Arafat, who was personally responsible for scores of Israeli deaths to even come into the country... and establish a political entity in it? that was almost unthinkable... I guess you can equate it with the US saying to one of it's most bitter enemies "sure, you can get a piece of land here, bring your armed guys with you" Arafat was responsible for the deaths of men, women and children... to sign a deal with him, even that can be considered a hugh concession regardless of actual land.

Sure, here is the link in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org... look at where it says Oslo 2... that was the second part of the agreement, Oslo 1 was Gaza and Jericho only, and was sold to the Israelis as an experiment ("If they can't handle that... we can stop"), actually the entire Oslo thing was approved by the margin of a single vote by the Israeli Knesset with a hugh controversy about political corruption on the part of the "Labor" party...

I think you missed my point, let's assume you and I sign a contract. I have no intention of honoring the contract, so whatever I agree to, is irrelevant, I can say that you own my soul, but since I don't intend to honor my agreement with you, any concession I make is irrelevant... I hope it's clearer...

Actually, the fact that he offerred these concessions WHILE he knew that the elections were coming paints him in a bad light. What he was probably hoping for was that he'd go into elections based on the agreements he'd come to with Abu Mazen and pitch those to the public as part of his platform... he didn't bank on his personal corruption blocking him from running... (he is no on trial for corruption...) I didn't vote for him... I voted for Bibi, not because I like the man, but because he was the lesser evil (and he had people in his party I personally hold in high esteem like Uzi Dayan for example). Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in Palestinian papers, they are completely indoctrinated against Israel... compare them to the Israeli media, which a natural bias towards the left side of the map (Ha'Aretz for example)... those are a bit more reliable in my view... but that's just me. I do read them from time to time though... but I grow tired of being the Satan