• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marking ‘dawn of new Middle East,’ Israel signs historic deals with UAE, Bahrain

Fledermaus said:
Much words... No answer.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

The same answer , the same response.

Jack Hays said:
No sovereign nation has any obligation to commit suicide.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole, so as to justify positions that are neither logical nor factually accurate. Shlomo Ben Ami, one of th chief Israeli negotiators, is on the record as saying he would not have signed the Oslo Accords had he been negotiating on the Palestinian side.

What people, anywhere at anytime, have voluntarily signed, some or all, of their own territory over to another people without having been facing imminent total displacement and dispossession by that people? That's what you are criticizing the Palestinians over.
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, and I explained why Palestine has rejected Israeli pre-conditions. Name ONE "great offer" that Israel made to Palestine. Israel refuses to quit illegal settlement building; that is just one of Israel's pre-conditions to talks-and that is at the heart of the matter. Blame Palestine all you like; the rest of the world knows the reality and the truth.
Click to expand...
You were trying to argue that because of Netanyahu we don’t have peace with the Palestinians, I showed you otherwise in very simple way – the Palestinians rejecting peace with or without Netanyahu, therefore he isn’t the obstacle for peace, Palestinian rejectionism is.

I already mentioned great offers, didn’t you read?

I don’t know about the rest of the world so I won’t pretend like I do, but as for the Arab world there is a dramatic shift, the Palestinian veto is over, there is a trend of normalization with Israel.
 
oneworld2 said:
The same answer , the same response.



Hyperbole, so as to justify positions that are neither logical nor factually accurate. Shlomo Ben Ami, one of th chief Israeli negotiators, is on the record as saying he would not have signed the Oslo Accords had he been negotiating on the Palestinian side.

What people, anywhere at anytime, have voluntarily signed, some or all, of their own territory over to another people without having been facing imminent total displacement and dispossession by that people? That's what you are criticizing the Palestinians over.
Click to expand...
Had the Palestinians gone forward with Oslo, their position now would be much better. That they did not is solely their fault.
 
oneworld2 said:
Hyperbole, so as to justify positions that are neither logical nor factually accurate. Shlomo Ben Ami, one of th chief Israeli negotiators, is on the record as saying he would not have signed the Oslo Accords had he been negotiating on the Palestinian side.
Click to expand...
Shlomo Ben Ami one of the chief Israeli negotiators said these in an interview about Camp David -
https://webhome.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html
Q: What was the Palestinian reaction?
"Disappointing. The lawyer from Oxford said that they would demand compensation for all the years of the occupation. Saeb Erekat also spoke along the same lines in the presence of Clinton. I couldn't restrain myself and I burst out. I told them that the negotiators on behalf of the Zionist movement on the eve of the establishment of the Jewish state didn't behave as nonchalantly [as the Palestinians at Camp David]. I asked them which of the sides here wanted to establish a state - us or them. I felt terribly frustrated that we were making such a creative, flexible move and reaching one of the finest moments of the negotiations, and they couldn't free themselves from their gibes, from the need for vindication, from their victimization. "Still, things continued positively. Clinton went to Arafat and held a very tough talk with him. And then, when Arafat found himself in hardship and felt that he was on the edge of a precipice, he finally made a kind of counterproposal. He told Clinton that he was ready to forgo between 8 and 10 percent of the territory."
Click to expand...
Q: So it was over this that Camp David collapsed, the Palestinian rejection of an American proposal on Jerusalem that you found inadequate?
"No. Camp David collapsed over the fact that they refused to get into the game. They refused to make a counterproposal. No one demanded that they give a positive response to that particular proposal of Clinton's. Contrary to all the nonsense spouted by the knights of the left, there was no ultimatum. What was being asked of the Palestinians was far more elementary: that they put forward, at least once, their own counterproposal. That they not just say all the time `That's not good enough' and wait for us to make more concessions. That's why the president sent [CIA director George] Tenet to Arafat that night - in order to tell him that it would be worth his while to think it over one more time and not give an answer until the morning. But Arafat couldn't take it anymore. He missed the applause of the masses in Gaza.

"At 9 A.M. the next day, Arafat and Barak and Clinton met one more time. We stood outside and prayed that something would somehow come of it: that when Arafat would grasp that this was truly the 11th hour, he would, despite everything, reconsider. But they came out five minutes after they started. It was over."

"But when all is said and done, Camp David failed because Arafat refused to put forward proposals of his own and didn't succeed in conveying to us the feeling that at some point his demands would have an end. One of the important things we did at Camp David was to define our vital interests in the most concise way. We didn't expect to meet the Palestinians halfway, and not even two-thirds of the way. But we did expect to meet them at some point. The whole time we waited to see them make some sort of movement in the face of our far-reaching movement. But they didn't. The feeling was that they were constantly trying to drag us into some sort of black hole of more and more concessions without it being at all clear where all the concessions were leading, what the finish line was."

"What particularly outraged me on that occasion wasn't only the fact that they refused, but the way in which they refused: out of a kind of total contempt, an attitude of dismissiveness and arrogance. At that moment I grasped they are really not Sadat [Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979]. That they were not willing to move toward our position even at the emotional and symbolic level. At the deepest level, they are not ready to recognize that we have any kind of title here."
Click to expand...

continue in next post
 
Q: You say that during this whole period between June and January, in the period when you conceded the Rift Valley and accepted the idea of a territorial swap and divided Jerusalem and handed over the Temple Mount - that the whole movement of the Palestinians toward Israel was in fractions of percentage points. So, all they added to the pledge of 2 percent that they gave Clinton from the outset was 0.34 percent?

"It's hard for me to argue with you. But that is exactly why the criticism we have taken from the left leaves me gaping. I simply don't understand it. It's true that both Barak and I were sort of `outside children' of the left. Neither of us is a professional peace industrialist. But look where we got to. Tell me what more we were supposed to do."
Click to expand...
Q: Are you saying that he is not a partner?

"Arafat is the leader of the Palestinians. I cannot change this fact; it is their disaster. He is so loyal to his truth that he cannot compromise it. But his truth is the truth of the Islamic ethos, the ethos of refugees and victimization. This truth does not allow him to end his negotiations with Israel unless Israel breaks its neck. So in this particular aspect, Arafat is not a partner. Worse, Arafat is a strategic threat; he endangers peace in the Middle East and in the world."
Click to expand...
Q: Your criticism goes beyond Arafat personally to include also the Palestinian national movement as a whole?

"Yes. Intellectually, I can understand their logic. I understand that from their point of view, they ceded 78 percent [of historic (West-)Palestine] at Oslo, so the rest is theirs. I understand that from their point of view, the process is one of decolonization, and therefore they are not going to make a compromise with us, just as the residents of Congo would not compromise with the Belgians. "But when all is said and done, after eight months of negotiations, I reach the conclusion that we are in a confrontation with a national movement in which there are serious pathological elements. It is a very sad movement, a very tragic movement, which at its core doesn't have the ability to set itself positive goals.

"At the end of the process, it is impossible not to form the impression that the Palestinians don't want a solution as much as they want to place Israel in the dock. [Gershom: Ha'aretz own translation ends here. I am continuing from the Hebrew original. I tend to translate as literally as I can, hence the change in style.] More than they want a state of their own, they want to spit out our state. In the deepest sense of the words, their ethos is a negative ethos.

This is the reason why, in contrast to Zionism, they are incapable of compromise. In the sense that they have no image of their future society that it would be worth compromising for. Therefore, from their point of view, the process is not one of reconciliation but of vindication. Of correcting an injustice. Of "appealing" our existence as a Jewish state.
Click to expand...

Shlomo Ben Ami made it crystal clear the palestinians don't want peace, actually more than that they want Israel to commit suicide more than they want a country of their own. These are strong words from Shlomo Ben Ami.
Bare in mind that Shlomo is in the far left.
 
Netanyahu hints at trips to Arab states: ‘I recently visited other countries’
Prime Minister Netanyahu on Saturday hinted that he recently visited several Arab countries, in an apparent reference both to his trip in November to Saudi Arabia and others.

“I recently visited other countries and like I couldn’t say then about the Emirates, I can’t specify right now,” he told officials from his Likud party, according to leaks from the meeting. Netanyahu had been asked about a possible deal with Iraqi Kurds, the Walla news site reported.
Click to expand...
More good news in the way...
 
Jack Hays said:
Had the Palestinians gone forward with Oslo, their position now would be much better. That they did not is solely their fault.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Netanyahu admitted, on video, that he purposely derailed Oslo. Was that the fault of the Palestinians?

Netanyahu; " I actually stopped the Oslo Accord". Argue with that.
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
Rubbish. Netanyahu admitted, on video, that he purposely derailed Oslo. Was that the fault of the Palestinians?

Netanyahu; " I actually stopped the Oslo Accord". Argue with that.
Click to expand...

I already addressed it -
So now we back to Netanyahu again, you paint it like if we remove Netanyahu from the equation we will have peace and doves bringing olive branches but it has nothing to with reality. I already mentioned he didn’t even take part in the negotiations in 2001 and 2008 where Israel gave the Palestinians great offers and they rejected both of them. So without Netanyahu the Palestinians rejected peace time and again, and with Netanyahu they still rejecting peace by putting pre conditions to even sit and negotiate, Netanyahu isn’t the problem here, just like he wasn’t the problem in 48, 2001 and 2008. It Palestinian rejectionism, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
 
Rexedgar said:
Was the bombing of the King David Hotel a terrorist action?
Click to expand...
No, it was 'freedom fighters'. Just like the kidnapping, torture and execution of the 'Sergeant's Affair' was merely 'freedom fighters' doing what they do best-oh and the 'freedom fighters' decided to booby-trap the bodies for good measure.
1610119486000.png
 
Netanyahu removed the joint photo with Trump from his web page. It is interesting that the zionist media of the United States as the main claim to Trump, blame that he did not respond to the "use of chemical weapons by Assad." But Donny had tried. 2 times. Until it was explained to him that his applicators were useless.
I am amused by dreamers, who say that Trump has not unleashed new wars. He tried. But couldn't.
Get used to a world where the Pentagon can't.
 
lol why did trump do so much for Israel and they didnt do anything back!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom