« Back to story "Carter: Hamas will accept Israel "

Story Comments

Posted by: libsRfunny 1 year, 8 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned10 Replies
- Neutral
  Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Yeah, instead of forcing the Israelis to the peace table, ending the terror on both sides, putting out the ME fire, and turning that region into a symbol of hope - you cons would rather smear the guy who is forcing progress on the stake-holders.
  It would be funny if it weren`t so serious.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  9 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    > ...instead of forcing the Israelis to the peace table, ending the terror...
    Strangely enough, it was the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat who walked out of the peace table at Camp David and started a terrorist war. It makes little sense to "force" the OTHER SIDE to come back, don't you agree?
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    8 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      Actually, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was the one who signed the peace accord and was not assassinated by his own people for doing so.
      Unfortunately, the next Israeli PM destroyed that and continued the apartheid as if no agreement had ever been met.
      The discussions that Arafat walked out on were so one-sided (demanding complete surrender) that his people would have killed him/ignored it and Israel would not have obeyed it anyway.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      7 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        > Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was the one who signed the peace accord...
        Can you show me a link to this important document, if you don't mind? I'm interested to see the PEACE ACCORD signed by Palestinian President Arafat.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        signed by Yassir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993. Indeed it was a sub-clause that the Israeli generals, who took over the negotiations from the diplomats, never meant to implement.
        The next years were not conducive for a continued peace efforts. They were characterized by violent opposition by militant groups on both sides that culminated in the assassination of Itzhak Rabin in 1995 and in Palestinian guerrilla attacks provoking a very harsh Israeli retaliation. But more importantly, the momentum was lost because Israel expanded its settlements in the areas promised to the Palestinians and maintained the same oppressive policies it had exercised in the previous years of occupation.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        In 1999, the Americans were called in to salvage the disintegrating peace process. Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton the same old three rules were revived. Israel was asked to dictate how the peace plan should look in 2000. It was one that had to win at least a minimal Israeli consensus before it would be presented to the Palestinians as a 'take it or leave it' offer. And nothing was learned from the previous attempt to impose an Israeli solution on the Palestinians by threats and force. In all the former attempts this failure to learn from the past had resulted in a vicious cycle of bloodshed and destruction. The same happened again in 2000: 'Pax Americana' instead of reconciliation meant another tragic chapter of violence.
        http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-p...
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Everything was supposed to change after Arafat signed Oslo. But while Israelis saw Oslo as the end of the war, Palestinians saw it merely as the first, conditional step toward peace. Today they still live with no state, no capital in Jerusalem. Israeli forces still occupy much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, requiring Palestinians continually to move through humiliating military checkpoints. Jewish settlements housing 180,000 Israelis dot the territories. Palestinians have seen economic decline, while Israel's GDP initially took off.
        http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        > ...Palestinians saw it [Oslo] merely as the first, conditional step toward peace.
        Apparently, this is the reason that even eight years later Arafat REFUSED to include an "end of hostilities" statement in the final agreement, correct?
        > Today they still live with no state, no capital in Jerusalem.
        No wonder... Both were offered to them in Camp David and later in Taba and consequently rejected by Arafat.
        > Israeli forces still occupy much of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...
        Yes, and it will continue until the Palestinians will force their leadership to stop violence and ask for peace negotiations. They'll have to realize that the Camp David offers were one time deal that will not be repeated. In August, 2000 most Israelis still believed that the Palestinians were genuinely interested in peace. This is not the case anymore.
        ...and a "sub-clause" Arafat and Rabin signed in 1992 in no way was a "peace accord" you initially told us about.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        StarLord1 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        The Oslo Accords were a start. In this, each of Israel and Palestine acknowledged the other's right to exist.
        Look up "Oslo II", too. It's all there - the document that was the foundation of a comprehensive peace treaty, signed by Arafat and Rabin.
        Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated 37 days after signing Oslo II, by an Israeli extremist.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        > The Oslo Accords were a start. In this, each of Israel and Palestine acknowledged the other's right to exist.
        I see that you did not read the Palestinian Charter (Constitution) yet, did you? This is what the Palestinian Constitution says:
        >> Article 21:
        The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
        http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/fd807e46661e36...
        As you can see the Palestinian Constitution and your statement above (each of Israel and Palestine acknowledged the other's right to exist) contradict each other.
        Who of the two is a liar here, the entire Palestinian Natioinal Council that approved and signed the Charter or "Starlord"?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...