Why was there an Israel-Gaza war in the first place?

[Daan]

I know President Clinton tried and failed to broker a deal between Arafat and Sharon in the 90's. Arafat, in writing, was guaranteed 98% of what he was asking for, and yet he still refused to sign. The little two faced bastard was seen shaking hands with Sharon, yet all the while knowing he would never agree to any agreement with Israel, unless that agreement included the removal of Israel from the M.E. So you tell me who really wants peace WKD?

Do you have a link or some source for that?


At Camp David in 2000, Arafat was offered a deal by the Israelis that he could never accept and the Israelis had to know that.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
Quote

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

End Quote

Read this book if you're interested in what really happened:

The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process by Clayton Swisher

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Ca...layton+swisher

.

[Daan]

"Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit." Wikipedai

Clinton had promised Arafat that if no deal was reached he would not blame Arafat. Arafat was not to blame. Clinton lied.

.

[ivanbalt]

You are guessing wrong.

I live in a country whose people stood alone for 2 years against the might of Nazi Germany and were unconquered. So believe me, If I was imprisoned in a country that was illegally occupied by another country, I too would fight it with any means available to me... and stick my fingers up to the occupiers.

So suicide bombs, targeting civilians, and using your own women and children as convenient shields and propaganda are the means you would use to fight?

Israel is called the bad guy for what they do to the Palestinians. But no one seems to care what groups like Hamas do to the Palestinians. This shows me that there is no actual concern for the Palestinians, just in removing a Jewish state.

[WKDWZD]

And how many American lives were lost libersting your country during WWII? With anger directed towards Americans over Japan during WWII I'm calling you out as a poster fraud. I have spoken to a few Belgium Nazi sympathizers who are still angry at the US for liberating Belgium.

And with Japan, we weren't going to accept anything but an unconditional surrender. And would never stop fighting due to their samurai convictions.

Flyboy, Britain was never invaded or occupied and consequently never liberated by the US or anyone else.

If you are asking how many American lives were lost as a contingent of the allies in WW2, the simple answer is a small fraction of the British lives, either military, civilian or combined lost in that war.

Regarding you comment on Japan, you merely display your hypocrisy... 98% is okay for Palestinians but not okay for the Japanese... yea, got it flyboy... we know where you're coming from.

[ivanbalt]

Flyboy, Britain was never invaded or occupied and consequently never liberated by the US or anyone else.

If you are asking how many American lives were lost as a contingent of the allies in WW2, the simple answer is a small fraction of the British lives, either military, civilian or combined lost in that war.

Regarding you comment on Japan, you merely display your hypocrisy... 98% is okay for Palestinians but not okay for the Japanese... yea, got it flyboy... we know where you're coming from.

I won't cry for Japan, they got the punishment they deserved. Ask the Chinese or Koreans.

[flyboy56]

I would certainly like to see a copy of the final deal. I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton's but I don't see why he would need to lie about what things went sour.

[WKDWZD]

Clinton had promised Arafat that if no deal was reached he would not blame Arafat. Arafat was not to blame. Clinton lied.

.

Your wasting your breath Daan, he's just another copy and paste hasbarat, I believe he's been here before.

[uche]

And now citizens of Egypt are protesting President Morsi's decision to make all of his orders binding and without dispute. Sounds like the beginnings of another dictatorship. Maybe it is the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas that create unsolvable problems for it's citizens and their neighbors.

No, it's israel' policy (stated behind closed doors and readable in many of their position papers) of dishonestly taking all of the lands in questions and pushing the Palestinians off completely - not caring where they end up. It's Israel's policy of "stealing" (yes stealing) water from under the very feet of palestinians without so much as a thank you. Israel is on it's way to become like the demon that they have vilified for so long, the nazi's. Their leaders are taking them to a place they should not be going. No one should go there. This idea of Israel that no matter what evil they do. What horrors they visit to any one, children women or men, they are justified in the eyes of their god in doing so.

[Daan]

I would certainly like to see a copy of the final deal. I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton's but I don't see why he would need to lie about what things went sour.

A peace agreement from Camp David in 2000 was supposed to be Clinton's great achievement at the end of his Presidency. Clinton failed to pull it off and had to place blame. He could not fault the Israelis so Arafat became the fall guy.

.

[Daan]

Your wasting your breath Daan, he's just another copy and paste hasbarat, I believe he's been here before.

The screen name with the suffix of numbers does remind me of someone.

.

[flyboy56]

I'm saying WKD that Japan never would have accepted a deal that would have given them 98% of what they were asking for because of their samurai doctrination. Do you really think a nation who sends out suicide pilots were going to accept any type of peace offer?No, it was all or nothing for them. Just up until a few years ago pacific islanders were still finding Japanese soldiers who thought the war was still raging.

You failed to mention how many times Britain begged the US to join the fight you ungrateful Brit. While you were fighting to protect one side of your country, the US was fighting to protect the fight on both the west coast and the east coast.

[ivanbalt]

The screen name with the suffix of numbers do remind me of someone.

.

No Koran quotes yet, so it isn't the one who's been here countless times.

[flyboy56]

At least I am backing up my understanding of the facts with references WKD. I can learn something new from posters like Daan who does the same. I will certainly look into your recommended reading Daan. Thanks.

[Daan]

I would certainly like to see a copy of the final deal. I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton's but I don't see why he would need to lie about what things went sour.

Post#21 contained this link that should give you an idea of what Arafat could not accept.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

.

[uche]

Do you have a link or some source for that?


At Camp David in 2000, Arafat was offered a deal by the Israelis that he could never accept and the Israelis had to know that.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
Quote

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

End Quote

Read this book if you're interested in what really happened:

The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process by Clayton Swisher

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Ca...layton+swisher

.

flyboy56,

why don't you address the "fact' revealed in this post? Or, are you only interested in "deflecting the truth" when found on the wrong side of it? Why you changing the subject? Is this post accurate or not?

[ivanbalt]

You failed to mention how many times Britain begged the US to join the fight you ungrateful Brit. While you were fighting to protect one side of your country, the US was fighting to protect the fight on both the west coast and the east coast.

So the US was fighting Germany and Japan during the Battle of Britain? Interesting timeline...

[flyboy56]

I am new to this forum folks. 56 is the year I was born. I am also a Vietnam Era Veteran who is very proud of the service to my country.

[WKDWZD]

I'm saying WKD that Japan never would have accepted a deal that would have given them 98% of what they were asking for because of their samurai doctrination. Do you really think a nation who sends out suicide pilots were going to accept any type of peace offer?No, it was all or nothing for them. Just up until a few years ago pacific islanders were still finding Japanese soldiers who thought the war was still raging.

Japan had already sued for peace days earlier, their only request (condition) was to be allowed to keep their emporer, they had already agreed all other conditions.

You failed to mention how many times Britain begged the US to join the fight you ungrateful Brit. While you were fighting to protect one side of your country, the US was fighting to protect the fight on both the west coast and the east coast.

Not ungrateful flyboy, just correcting your ignorance. Britain had already been fighting for more than 2 years before the US entered the war and was exhausted, still she fought on alongside the US to its conclusion. We lost many times the lives that you did. It is you that is the ungrateful Yank, my friend, lets just get that fact right.

[beeg jacques]

Post#21 contained this link that should give you an idea of what Arafat could not accept.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

.

"Arafat Missed a Historic Opportunity When He Turned Down the Clinton Proposal"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...rafat?page=0,1

Yes. It is true that Arafat did not “reject” the ideas the Clinton administration offered in December 2000. Instead, he pulled a classic Arafat: He did not say yes or no. He wanted it both ways. He wanted to keep talking as if the Clinton proposal was the opening gambit in a negotiation, but he knew otherwise. Arafat knew Clinton’s plan represented the culmination of the American effort. He also knew these ideas were offered as the best judgment of what each side could live with and that the proposal would be withdrawn if not accepted.

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

[flyboy56]

Interesting post beeg.

Well folks, it seems this tit-for-tat on the facts of what happened during the Clinton peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine could go on forever so I will now stop debating this issue. Thanks to all who attempted to clear up the facts with references, I think...