I think the most generous read one can give to Arafat is that as an incompetent negotiator outside his own realm, his clumsiness gave the “antis” on the other side all the cover they needed. That is a very generous read indeed
The wiki item does provide this:
Anyway, it is rather damning of Arafat that the best (with great and perhaps undeserved generosity) one can say is that rather than solely blowing the negotiations, he was simply stupid enough to have been left holding the bag publicly.
Squink: there are quite a few other sites that and cite the same general quotes from Clinton, inclining one somewhere where Clinton essentially states that Arafat’s choice ruined Clinton’s legacy as a peacemaker. What is even more interesting, perhaps, is that a much more forceful sentiment was expressed by the Saudis’ ambassador.
[
Why even bother rehashing anything or blaming any dead people? The situation is what it is. The question is what is needed for the future and how to go about achieving it.
Refusing to discuss any topics other than “We won, y’all can go screw”, or diverting the discussion into “Yeah, well, they started it!” culs-de-sac accomplishes nothing except to stoke the very self-righteousness that has extended the killings and pain through too many generations already.
United Nations, 1947, Resolution 181 approves the creation of Israel, the Jewish State IsraPundit has an excellent article on UN resolution 181 that brought into existence the State of Israel. United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled palestine mandate [the 25% that was left of the mandated land, see the History page for details] into a Jewish State and an Arab State.
Here’s the Israeli ambassador to the UN a couple of years ago :
United Nations, New York
29 November 2007
Happy Birthday, Mr. President.
I know these words evoke a different voice and a different precedent. But with all seriousness, Happy Birthday. On this day, 60 years ago, the Jewish state was born out of the historic 1947 General Assembly session, where two extraordinary gifts were given to humanity: the gift of a modern state for the Jewish people and the gift of Israel to the world.
I have just come from a commemorative ceremony at Lake Success, where that United Nations, met 60 years ago. You see, throughout history, nations traditionally have been created through war and conquest. Israel, however, was created by UN decree and by the nations of the world. To be there today - representing my government and my people - was indeed a joyous occasion. So, I wish you all, a Happy Birthday.
The UN partition decision is also referenced here in this document :
THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
May 14, 1948
[FONT=Arial]On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I know you’ll still stick to your own set of facts on this one and continue to duck and dodge answering the question.
[/FONT]
… said “The Butcher of Beirut”.
Oh, well, the citizenry of Israel knew who he was, and what sort of policies he’d follow, when they chose him to be Prime Minister. Put the responsibility where it belongs.
There’s the whole “those who forget (or never learned) history are doomed to repeat it” thing. Coupled with “It’s hard to understand what’s going on if we don’t understand what happened.”
There’s also the fact that Camp David was the best chance to get a functioning, viable, sovereign Palestinian state. And that the same formulas of Camp David, Oslo and most importantly the Clinton Bridging Proposal can and should be used now to achieve the proper result with Abbas, coupled with a complete Israeli settlement freeze.
That’s the whole point, that there was offers on the table good enough to solve this mess, and those offers were discarded. Those offers should be used as a basis to achieve Final Status talks with Fatah and then, whenever Hamas drops it demand for genocide and refusal to recognize Israel (or better yet when the citizens of Gaza slit some Hamas throats and rid themselves of those scum) then Gaza can be incorporated into a Palestinian state.
The mistakes of the past need to be avoided, both Israeli settlement construction and the planned violence and orchestrated violence that was the Second Intifada.
Originally from the J-Post 2002 but no longer archived on their site, from Khaled Abu Toameh:
[
](http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/111P55.htm)
[
](http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/111P55.htm)
From the Atlantic:
[
](In a Ruined Country - The Atlantic)
So as I’ve stated many, many times on this message board, the question of “where we go from here” is simple. Using the Bridging Proposal as a template, land is swapped/annexed so that the PA can have a viable state both economically, agriculturally and with viable water rights. Israel initiates an immediate settlement freeze to anything that would expand the geographic footprint in any of their West Bank villages/towns/whatevers, and the PA agrees to negotiations and does not rely on violence to make up for what they cannot negotiate for. After that a phased withdrawal that guarantees security and compliance will see two sovereign states side by side.
The question of what to do with the Hamas thugs is another matter, but if the West Bank creates a flourishing Palestinian state, hopefully the residents of Gaza themselves will be able to overthrow Hamas and join the WB in peace.
It looks like tomndebb is tired of you using that line over and over again, as you tend to do in debates on this subject. I know I’m tired of reading it and I suspect he is, too.
Dick Dastardly, you’ve already been warned about making personal jabs like this. Don’t do it again.
You might mention the “Never forget, never forgive” thing too. That seems to have a lot more applicability to the situation. So does “There, the past is not only not forgotten, it’s not even past”.
Stopped mattering the next day. Again, the situation is what it is.
Great. The outlines of the two-state solution, along with recognition from the civilized world that it’s the only viable long-term arrangement, have been clear since, well, 1947, too, so that’s nothing new.
So, then, why the vociferous defenses we see so often in this thread (not naming names, no need) of the current Israeli policy of *expanding *settlements into Palestine, then? Along with the bitter complaints of being “pushed around” and “you just don’t understand!”, like petulant adolescents, toward anyone wanting to get Israeli policy back on track?
The reason you can not “name names”, Elvis, is nobody had defended, let alone vociferously defended expanding West Bank settlements into Palestinian territory in this thread.
It’s hard to explain why something that hasn’t actually happened, happened.
Dick, yet again, you commit the same factual error I’ve spend quite some time pointing out. The actual facts of the matter: UNR 181 created nothing. UNR 181 was not implemented. UNR 181 was not agreed to by both parties, making it, as a contract, kinda laughable. UNR 181 was not enforced. UNR 181 did not bear a relationship to the result. UNR 181 did not provide a single boot on the ground to prevent the planned genocide of the nascent Israeli state, nor to actually help create it.
That some called it a justification does not mean that it actually did anything. Which, of course, is why none of your quotes actually address what 181 did and all are either vague mumbling about “creating Israel” (How?) or post hoc justifications. As if the Israeli declaration of independence wouldn’t have been made if 181 wasn’t authored and the Israelis would have just said “okay, we’ll let the Arabs butcher us then.”
Cherrypicking is also odd. Would you credit any statements from an Israeli ambassador as being 100% accurate even if it disagrees with the facts, or just this one statement? Is all of the language in Israel’s declaration of independence 100% gospel truth, or just when it works for your argument?
Nor do a diplomat’s words praising his hosts change reality. Even a basic fact-checking should do to clear up your error. “Israel, however, was created by UN decree”. Did Israel exist after the UN decree? No. Did the UN decree stop the Arab armies from invading? No. Did the state of Isreal cleave to the partition called for in the decree? No. Did the state of interconnected, federated cooperation arise as called for in the decree? No. Was, in point of fact, UNR 181 ever implemented? No.
What then did UNR 181 actually do. You are welcome to answer that with actual actions in actual space-time. Likewise, if you contend that those nations which supported the creation of an Israeli state in 1947 would have felt totally different in 1948 if that vote hadn’t taken place already, cite that. Otherwise, we’re left with the facts that UNR 181 did nothing, accomplished nothing, was ignored, didn’t effect the creation of anything and those who were going to recognize Israel in 1947 would have still done so in 1948 if the vote hadn’t taken place anyways.
The facts, that you are continually trying to deny, is that the sovereign power of the area declared it would drop its claims to sovereignty, some noise was made at the UN that was never enforced, agreed to by both parties, or adhered to. The framework of the partition was, in fact, totally discarded and never put into practice. It had no impact, at all, but was later used as a justification by some for their own self-determination.
If you argue otherwise, please show how UNR 181 was implemented.
Please show how it stopped a single Arab soldier.
Please show how it set up an Israeli government.
Please show how, according to its dictates, two quasi-federated states were created along ethnic majority lines and along specific borders that it called for.
Of course, you can’t do any of that, because you’re wrong.
Your argument is as empty as claiming that it was really the League of Nations that set Israel up since they created a Mandate to be the Jewish National Home.
The question I’ve answered, what, a dozen times now? I note, as well, that you’ve cherrypicked one factual error of yours that you tried to defend (with post-hoc quotes rather than facts) and ignored all the others. Such as the difference between PNA sponsored terrorism and the Haganah and the official Jewish leadership opposing terrorism. Or how both the Palestinians and the Jews pre '48 had groups involved in terrorism, and the partition plan was designed to give both of them territory in a quasi-federated and interlinked state, but you only focus on the Israelis. Or how you are factually incorrect and trying to draw a fallacious analogy when you claim that Israel was recognized as a state even though non-official groups engaged in terrorism but Israel agreed to recognize Palestine as a state as long as its official governing body and military apparatus stopped engaging in and condoning violence.
So even though I’ve already debunked this claim, shown what the actual agreement was, shown that it was most certainly not that “the terror [must] end” but rather that the PA had to stop sponsoring and/or condoning terrorism, shown that Israel was in fact continuing with negotiations during the period you claim that they were saying that there would be no negotiations… you re-state the claim that’s just been debunked.
Okay.
Wrong. Cite and quote it if you claim such a demand exists.
In fact, if folks read they’ll see that borders were not determined at all and were not to be decided until Final Status talks, and that the only injunction was against against severing the integrity of the West Bank and Gaza as a territorial unit. Readers can look through all the protocols attached to the agreement and see that your claim is, well, nowhere in there. There is a protocol for withdrawal of Israel forces from specific areas, but not to refrain from being in any territory in the West Bank that did not already have Israeli housing. In fact, the only bit of the WB that’s mentioned as something Israel has to withdraw from is Jericho. It was handed over to the PNA in 1994.
As for your mistake about Sharon and Gaza, not only was it not taken to avoid peace, it was taken because it was a step called for by Oslo. Lo and behold, I can cite it because I’m right.
[
](MidEast Web - Documents and History - Oslo Declaration of Principles)
But please, try to back up that factual error as well. Show anywhere in Oslo that it says that there will be a settlement freeze.
Of course I’m not exactly being fair to you and I’ll stop you from wasting your time looking and just point out that you’re wrong. The Oslo Interim Agreement puts paid to your glaring factual error that Oslo declared there must be a settlement freeze.
[
](MidEast Web - Documents and History - Oslo Interim agreement)
Again in point of fact, Arafat wanted a clause that prohibited settlement expansion, but it was not included.
Of course, your question, which I’ve shown is nonsensical many times (and which you avoid fixing, and whose mistakes you avoid even mentioning except one that you’ve cherrypicked), which employs a deliberate double standard and asks only about Israel and not about a potential Palestinian state, which deliberately obscures the fact that the official governing body of the proto-Israel state and its official military arm both renounced terrorism and in fact had helped turn in terrorists to the British, and which is based on the fiction that Sharon or anybody else demanded a total cessation of all violence rather than that the PA stop causing and allowing violence… well, yet again, you might want to fix all those errors.
Damn, I must be feeling generous today because I’ll help. Here are some question-answer pairs not based on fiction or fallacy:
“After Israel was created by the events of the 1948 war, should the international community have recognized it even though non-official groups which had been opposed by the official governing body of the proto-Israeli state, had been engaged in terrorism?”
Yes.
“Despite the fact that non-official groups in the Jewish population engaged in terrorism and the most powerful Palestinian leader and President of the Supreme Muslim Council up till '37 also directed his forces towards terrorism prior to the creation of Jewish paramilitary forces and after, as well as allying with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews from the face of the Earth, should UNR 181 have recognized that both Jews and Arabs deserved self-determination and created a plan for a quai-federated state of interlocked territories drawn along ethnic majority lines?”
Yes.
And the real question, the one that’s behind the gotchaya! and context-free, double-standard bearing series of historical errors:
“Should Israel negotiate with and recognize a sovereign Palestinian state if the PNA does not incite, condone or engage in violence and does its best to control its own sovereign territory so that attacks are not launched at Israel?”
Yes.
Please. :rolleyes: No, I’m not indulging you with quotes. As I already said, no need. But that was a valiant attempt to avoid the question and return to your comfortingly bombastic history lectures, I must admit.
For the last time: everyone has been cautioned about personal remarks. There will be more warnings if anyone else does this again.
If you can suggest a more effective way to make the point, please do so. Thanks. A position based on emotion can only be described in emotional terms.
You claim that posters, in this very thread, have not only endorsed continued Israeli settlement in Palestinian territories, but vociferously done so. Now you claim that you can but you will not “indulge” in proving your own claims.
It should be very simple if anybody actually did any such thing.
Except nobody did, which is why you can’t find the quotes.
If FinnAgain’s arguments are that bad, I am sure you can easily rebut them without calling him petulant, juvenile, and bombastic. Same goes for everyone else.
For instance, he is my stance on the Israel expanding into Palestinian claimed territory in general :
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10671973&postcount=14)
From this specific thread, here is my position on Israel expanding onto Palestinian land.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12231933&postcount=306)
I’ve been pretty careful reading this thread and I haven’t noticed anybody supporting expansion of the settlements, let alone vociferously doing so. I could be proven wrong though, perhaps I missed someone’s posts. I’d be curious to see if anybody actually did vociferously support settlement expansion into Palestinian land.
I wasn’t referring to him specifically with the “petulant adolescent” remark, but to an unfortunately large number of posters and their most-illustrative contributions here. Once again, no names needed by anyone who’s stayed with this thing this far. “Bombastic” refers to his “arguments”, as you call them.
That’s pretty much the only way to read the hot objections to Israel being told that it was a bad idea to expand them, isn’t it? Unless the actual objection is simply to Israel being told it’s wrong, period, maybe.
Quote three of those “unfortunately large number” of posters here who have offered “vociferous defenses […] of the current Israeli policy of expanding settlements in Palestine.”
Hell, quote two of them.
One?
As for whether or not my arguments are wrong, you’re welcome to try rebutting them any time. You can start with my factual claims or the logical conclusions I draw from them. Either seems a good place to start. An argument based on false-to-facts claims may be valid but unsound. If my premises are true but my conclusion does not logically flow from them then my argument will be invalid. If my premises are wrong and the conclusion does not flow from them in any case, then my argument is invalid and unsound.
All you have to do is prove that my argument is not sound or invalid.
Dick, Finn, we’re dropping the 40s. It’s been done to death. Let’s talk about the 70s.
And Arafat’s embezzlement of funds, sponsorship of terrorism, and so on.
800 million. That could have built a healthy, clean, and productive Palestine. If it hadn’t been thrown away on hate.
Think about that. Think about what could have been if people had chosen to work towards a better future… instead of stealing it all for themselves.
Fair enough, that was another tangent I was touching on as well. 