The Oslo Accord of 1993 granted the Palestinians 22% of their historic nation, the Palestinians agreed to surrender the remaining 78 percent to Israel as part of the Land-for-Peace that Oslo promised. Camp David the follow up to Oslo offered the Palestinians 91% of that 22% the concession was constantly being whittled away. The Palestinian West Bank has 400,000 Israelis squatters living in 200 “settlements" in the area. That’s approximately one settlement per 20km2. So there you have it the 91% offer to Palestine was simply this: 3 separate land allotments , divested of prime agricultural real estate, diminished in water supply, surrounded by armed squatter settlements protected by Israeli troops, a human cage sealed off from its current international borders, and laden with toxic waste dumps. In other words a state destined to fail any moral leader would have rejected them too…..and that’s what Arafat did may his soul rest in peace.

Israel would never offer Palestine a good deal.

Israel has no reason to offer Palestine anything. It has military superiority. It has the nukes. It has the backing of the world's only superpower. It has control of the West Bank, and is continually grabbing land.

You don't give a fair deal to the underdog. You crush him. Which is what Israel is slowly doing.

Israel does have good reasons for comprimise, such as providing good living conditions for it's people, avoiding war, increasing tourism, and the high cost of continuous warfare. My Israeli relatives don't even want to stay there after their military service is over.

I heard that clinton got the Israelis to agree to everything but the right of return and Araft turned it down...

Again, I'm glad he's dead.

I heard that clinton got the Israelis to agree to everything but the right of return and Araft turned it down...

Again, I'm glad he's dead.

Why, can you elaborate?

Israel does have good reasons for comprimise
such as providing good living conditions for it's people,[quote]
The Israeli administration doesn't give two hoots about its own people.

My Israeli relatives don't even want to stay there after their military service is over.

[quote]
avoiding war,

Israel has nothing to fear from war. It has military superiority.


increasing tourism, and the high cost of continuous warfare.

High cost? Israel receives billions of dollars in aid. Also, it benefits from the expropriation of land from Palestinians, and the confiscation of goods and businesses. Oh, and don't forget the establishment of settlements on occupied terroritory.

A peace deal would be disasterous for Israel. It would prevent them from engaging in their typical land grabbing behaviour.


Again, I'm glad he's dead.

You sicken me, Karma. Feeling glad that a man you hardly know is dead really does make me suspect that you aren't all there.

Because he was an incendiary force... the area was more peaceful before he came and its getting better now that he's dead.

He was a cancer upon that region.

I heard that clinton got the Israelis to agree to everything but the right of return and Araft turned it down...
You heard wrong .
Again, I'm glad he's dead.
Im not Arafat was a soldier to the end his peoples struggle came first and he died fighting .

You heard wrong .
If I did, then Clinton lied again. :rolleyes:

lol clinton, Arafat faught for his people's rights, a true freedom fighter.. i would expect a freedom forcing individual like yourself to apreciate that :p

I would have personally put a bullet in his brain. ;)

lol clinton, Arafat faught for his people's rights, a true freedom fighter.. i would expect a freedom forcing individual like yourself to apreciate that

Partially correct. Whether he was a freedom fighter really depends on perspective.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

True, but "an enemy of my enemy is my friend"

"So there you have it the 91% offer to Palestine was simply this: 3 separate land allotments , divested of prime agricultural real estate, diminished in water supply, surrounded by armed squatter settlements protected by Israeli troops", Brian Foley

I have gone over this point several times on this forum. This three piece land deal you speak of was the initial proposal by Israel before the Camp David talks began.


http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3263.jpg

The Taba map represents the final offer extended to the Palestinians even after the second intifada already began to erupt.

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/taba.jpg

As you can see, the offer was a very complete piece of territory controlled by the Palestinians, and not the three intial pieces. The majority of the smaller settlements were to be removed as part of the proposal, the larger ones would stay. Arafat did not pubicly reject the deal based on the land he was given, but on the dispute over Jerusalem and the right of return. Secondly, Arafat rejected the peace deal, but the vast majority of Palestinians when polled accepted it.

"In other words a state destined to fail any moral leader would have rejected them too…..and that’s what Arafat did may his soul rest in peace. ", Brian Foley

I am not sure that you remember the situation before the second intifada, but the corruption in the PLO territories was rampant. Arafat was sucking the life out of his people. This is why he knew he had to restart the violence and reject the peace offer. Arafat needed to be at war in order to control his people. He was beginning to receive extreme international criticism for the tryanical way he ran his government. May his soul rest in peace?

I have gone over this point several times on this forum. This three piece land deal you speak of was the initial proposal by Israel before the Camp David talks began.
And what the Palestinians expected ws a return to the 1967 borders with a Capital in Jerusalem .
The Taba map represents the final offer extended to the Palestinians even after the second intifada already began to erupt.
And that map is why the Palestinians rejected it ! Take a close look at that map and tell me how that geographically fractured border that would constitute the Palestinian state .
As you can see, the offer was a very complete piece of territory controlled by the Palestinians, and not the three intial pieces.
Im sorry but did you miss the terms 'Palestinian autonomous areas' ?
The majority of the smaller settlements were to be removed as part of the proposal, the larger ones would stay.
And what you are deliberately leaving out is those larger settlements constituted %5 of the West Bank scattered all over and each one being considered Israel . Meaning the fracturing of the West Bank into pockets rather than a contigious State .
Arafat did not pubicly reject the deal based on the land he was given, but on the dispute over Jerusalem and the right of return. Secondly, Arafat rejected the peace deal, but the vast majority of Palestinians when polled accepted it.
Bullshit the Palestinians were offered after the Gulf War by the US a State based on the 1967 borders , the right of return , and a capital in East Jerusalem .
I am not sure that you remember the situation before the second intifada, but the corruption in the PLO territories was rampant.
I remember very well thank you .
Arafat was sucking the life out of his people.
Only Israel is sucking the life out of the Palestinians , Arafat was merely a soldier for Palestine .
This is why he knew he had to restart the violence and reject the peace offer.
The 2nd intifada was started by Sharons deliberately provocative visit to the Temple on the Mount .
Arafat needed to be at war in order to control his people. He was beginning to receive extreme international criticism for the tryanical way he ran his government.
No Israel must exist in a state of turmoil , a nation built on a racist ideology , like South Africa before it , can only survive when at war with its neighbours . Racial paranoia fuels its existence and Israels paranoia is the 'hoards of Arabs ' who wish to over run it .
May his soul rest in peace?
Yes , Arafat was a true brave soldier who served his nation and his people well to the end .

"Bullshit the Palestinians were offered after the Gulf War by the US a State based on the 1967 borders , the right of return , and a capital in East Jerusalem .", Brian Foley

Let us take a look at some palestinian polls even after the intifada started.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2001/p2a.html

"58% support continuing negotiations from where they stopped in Taba in January þ2001, and 33% oppose it" (the same taba map I showed you)

"63% support immediate return to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, and 35% oppose it " (Arafat refused to return)

Looks like the Palestinians, even after the intifada restarted found that Taba map pretty fair.....

"Only Israel is sucking the life out of the Palestinians , Arafat was merely a soldier for Palestine .", Brian Foley

Lets see what the Palestinians felt about Arafat.....

"83% believe that corruption exists in PA institutions, and 57% believe that it will increase or remain the same in the future "

"51% believe that people can not criticize the PA without fear "

"Arafat's popularity drops to 33%, compared to 46% in July 2000 in the aftermath of the Camp David Summit "

The only strong support for Arafat and his stand against came immediately after Camp David. The Palestinian people expected Arafat to return for more, which never happened. By July 2000, it was down to 46% when the people realized what they lost. It dropped to 33% by the time this poll was taken. :bugeye:

"Yes , Arafat was a true brave soldier who served his nation and his people well to the end ", Brian Foley

Unfortunately you can not see what was obvious to the Palestinian people who were bombarded with Arafat propaganda. His people feared him, and were eventually greatly dissapointed in his handling of the peace process. If the current peace process is successful, Arafat's legacy of betraying his people will be undeniable....

"The 2nd intifada was started by Sharons deliberately provocative visit to the Temple on the Mount .", Brian Foley

I always find this analysis of the beginning of the 2001 intifada laughable. Arafat had everything to gain by starting violence again. Do you really think a one visit would start it all again without help? Schools were shut down and loud speakers anounced that children should throw stones at Israeli soldiers.Here are two articles describing how Imad Faluji, Arafats communications minister, admitted that Arafat planned the intifada. It is basically like Paul Wolfowitz admitting that WMDs meant nothing in reality. The second article from the washington post that brings up Imad Faluji again.


http://public-integrity.org/publications15.htm

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/z...tline040502.htm

Looks like the Palestinians, even after the intifada restarted found that Taba map pretty fair.....

That is not what the data says.
The data says that the poll interviewees wanted to return to negotiations from where they stopped in Taba - which is not the same as validating the map.


Lets see what the Palestinians felt about Arafat.....

"83% believe that corruption exists in PA institutions, and 57% believe that it will increase or remain the same in the future "

Which does not refute Foley's point about Arafat. This poll is for a very narrow window of time; 19-24 December 2001. If you review the polling data for Arafat over the long haul - and not from a specific snapshot in time - one finds that the Palestinians supported and identified with him. While (paradoxically enough) being tired of corruption in the PA.

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9a.html#arafat

(1) Arafat and Palestinian Domestic Conditions:

* Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years.

* About 80% of Palestinians believe that Arafat has become stronger and more popular due to Israeli threat to expel or assassinate him.

* Two thirds support Arafat’s declaration of state of emergency while 26% oppose it

* 61% support the appointment of Ahmad Qurai (Abu Ala’) as prime minister and 27% oppose it, but only 48% are willing, and 37% unwilling, to give confidence to his government.

* 60% support placing all Palestinian security services under the command of a national security council headed by Arafat.


"Yes , Arafat was a true brave soldier who served his nation and his people well to the end ", Brian Foley

Unfortunately you can not see what was obvious to the Palestinian people who were bombarded with Arafat propaganda. His people feared him, and were eventually greatly dissapointed in his handling of the peace process.

The data says otherwise.


"The 2nd intifada was started by Sharons deliberately provocative visit to the Temple on the Mount .", Brian Foley

I always find this analysis of the beginning of the 2001 intifada laughable.

Unfortunately, it's the truth. Ariel Sharon's inflammatory visit to to the Temple Mount was deliberate. The aftermath was more than he bargained for, however.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy/combatants/israelis.html


POLITICAL LEADERS

- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

Having campaigned on a platform stressing security, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister in February 2001. A member of the Likud Party, he created a broad unity government that includes members of the Labor Party and other smaller secular and religious parties.

The 72-year-old leader has had a long political career and is a controversial figure -- nicknamed "the Bulldozer" by Israelis and "the Butcher" by Palestinians. During his tenure as minister of agriculture from 1977 to 1981, he initiated an extensive expansion of Jewish settlements into the West Bank and Gaza. In 1982, while serving as defense minister, he directed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Sharon was forced to resign in 1983, after an Israeli tribunal found him indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied with Israel. In 1998, he was appointed foreign minister by Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu, and he became the leader of the Likud Party after Netanyahu was defeated by Ehud Barak in the 1999 general election.

On Sept. 28, 2000, Sharon made a controversial visit to the East Jerusalem complex that contains both the Temple Mount, a site holy to Jews, and the Al Aqsa Mosque, considered the third holiest site in Islam. His visit sparked widespread protests among Palestinians, and many analysts point to the incident as the spark for the Palestinian uprising that has become known as the "Al Aqsa Intifada," or the "second intifada."

"* Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years."

This basically validates what I have been saying. If 50% is the highest level of support a politician achieves over five years, then he is not a popular man. In most cases, with a few exceptions, his popularity increased when Israel would attack him. The man became extremely unpopular after what his people believed to be a failure during the peace process.

"Unfortunately, it's the truth. Ariel Sharon's inflammatory visit to to the Temple Mount was deliberate. The aftermath was more than he bargained for, however.",

I am certainly not a fan of Sharon, and his visit was without a doubt meant to strengthen his position before the election. One, however, cannot deny the truth when a member of Arafat's government admits to starting the intifada. The Palestinian people were more concerned about the everyday lives and economics about their situation, not if Sharon visits the temple for 20 mintues. They were told that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was under attack, and that Sharon wanted to rip it down. When loud speakers continue to announce this point, it is no surprise that the Palestinians eventually reacted as they did. It just takes common sense that a visit to the temple could not be the only spark to restart a war.

"That is not what the data says.
The data says that the poll interviewees wanted to return to negotiations from where they stopped in Taba - which is not the same as validating the map."

Agreed to a point. If such a high percentage of people want a return to the map they lost before, a certain percentage probably would except that map. The reason Arafat gave for leaving negotiations was Jerusalem and the right of return. Polls showed the vast majority of Palestinians no longer are concerned over the right of return. Jerusalem was more of a sticking point, but one which I believe the Palestinians would except if Israel did agree to remove the settlements that they agreed too.

bushes popularity rose from about 40% to 49% in 4 years shows how popular he is ?

"* Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years."

This basically validates what I have been saying. If 50% is the highest level of support a politician achieves over five years, then he is not a popular man.

1. Incorrect. In a multi-party questionnaire where other candidates are placed on the ballot, Arafat took first place. That is the definition of "most popular candidate."

2. The *particular* five year period mentioned happened to overlap a period that saw a lot of negative pressure being put upon ordinary Palestinians by the Israeli occupational forces. In such times, it is natural to blame the leader - whether that leader is, or is not, truly at fault.

3. Are you familiar with the rolling 7-year period used by economists? If so, apply the same principle here. You'll see that for most sampling periods, Arafat remained hugely popular with the average person in the street.

4. You seem to think that acheiving "only" a 50% approval rate is somehow a failure. Yet the other popular political groups were Hamas. I know why they scored so well; I'll let you think about it for awhile. Give me your answer, and I'll tell you if you're correct or not.

5. Lastly - and as we might have suspected - your quotation of these polls is from a very narrow timeframe. From a later poll, for example:
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2004/p14epdf.pdf
Poll findings show that 88% are satisfied with Arafat’s contribution
to promoting the status of the Palestinian cause internationally,
86% with his contribution to protecting Palestinian rights in negotiations
with Israel, 86% with his contribution in providing basic services
such as health and education, 65% with his contribution to building
an authority with democratic governance, 65% with his contribution
to building public institutions able to enforce law and order, 54%
with his contribution to ending the occupation of the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip, and 51% with his contribution to fighting corruption
in the PA.

A far different picture than the one you were trying to paint. :rolleyes:
I hate it when people misuse statistics, either deliberately or through carelessness.


In most cases, with a few exceptions, his popularity increased when Israel would attack him. The man became extremely unpopular after what his people believed to be a failure during the peace process.

Also incorrect, and not supported by the data from this poll. I think you need to read it first, before trying to tell others about it, hmm?



"Unfortunately, it's the truth. Ariel Sharon's inflammatory visit to to the Temple Mount was deliberate. The aftermath was more than he bargained for, however.",

I am certainly not a fan of Sharon, and his visit was without a doubt meant to strengthen his position before the election. One, however, cannot deny the truth when a member of Arafat's government admits to starting the intifada.

1. Source?

2. Taking credit for something is not the same thing as actually causing it. Every time a bomb goes off in Israel, a dozen different groups rush to take credit for it - even though that's patently nonsense.

3. The proximate cause of the intifada was Ariel Sharon. You'll excuse me if I trust Frontline and PBS over your unsupported assertions.


"That is not what the data says.
The data says that the poll interviewees wanted to return to negotiations from where they stopped in Taba - which is not the same as validating the map."

Agreed to a point. If such a high percentage of people want a return to the map they lost before,

Even that statement is not what the data says. The report merely says a return to negotations at the point where they stopped in Taba. No mention of a map at all. You might be wise to stop appending your own words here.

The proximate cause of the intifada was Ariel Sharon.

Thank God someone in this world other than myself see's this ! The hard part is trying to convince them of it .........believe me I have tried .

"Incorrect. In a multi-party questionnaire where other candidates are placed on the ballot, Arafat took first place. That is the definition of "most popular candidate.", Sauron

Ridiculous notion. I suppose the 70% that Putin got in votes is testament to his incredible popularity? No it only proves that there is no viable candidate to run against him. If one controls the press and all insititutions that could possibly promote the other candidate, then the populace will have no real information about him. This is why a poll determining the people's opinion about the man who is currently ruling is more accurate.

"The *particular* five year period mentioned happened to overlap a period that saw a lot of negative pressure being put upon ordinary Palestinians by the Israeli occupational forces. In such times, it is natural to blame the leader - whether that leader is, or is not, truly at fault."

"Lastly - and as we might have suspected - your quotation of these polls is from a very narrow timeframe. From a later poll, for example:", Sauron

Good job contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge the fact that Arafat's popularity was low for five years, then you say my poll is in a small time frame. It was over FIVE years his popularity was low.

"A far different picture than the one you were trying to paint.
I hate it when people misuse statistics, either deliberately or through carelessness. "[/I], Sauron

I am talking about a time frame of five years (information you reported), and you then mention a poll right after Arafat's funeral? And you say I misuse stats? Of course its going to be high immediately after his death!!!

"You seem to think that acheiving "only" a 50% approval rate is somehow a failure. Yet the other popular political groups were Hamas"

For one, an approval rate has nothing to do with other political groups, it centers on what the candidate has done himself. Secondly, 50% was the highest he achieved over FIVE years, meaning its was lower for the rest of the time. The poll even listed it at 35%, which is extremely low.



"1. Source?", Sauron

I gave sources earlier in the thread, one of which was the washington post. There is no doubting the man said it, that is not up for debate. Here they are again.


http://public-integrity.org/publications15.htm

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/tv_frontline040502.htm

"You'll excuse me if I trust Frontline and PBS over your unsupported assertions."

Funny you should mention Frontline, considering one of my sources was based on an interview with its producer. A person from Washington asks this question....

Washington: 1) "The Intifida II did not begin with Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. This is according to Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister. "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president and rejected the American conditions."

Tom Roberts answers: "I understand the first point. It is generally accepted by all contemporary observers, that the spark that caused the second intifada was Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is the third holiest Muslim site"

He has nothing no say about that point, because he has no answer. He continues to blame Sharon while trying to avoid point number one. This shows you that Tom Roberts may be to supportive of the Palestinian cause without reviewing all facts.


"Taking credit for something is not the same thing as actually causing it. Every time a bomb goes off in Israel, a dozen different groups rush to take credit for it - even though that's patently nonsense", Sauron

We are talking about a government member of Arafat taking the credit, not some terrorist group trying to make a name for themselves. The difference is vast. Also, Arafat's government had nothing to gain by admitting to this unlike a terrorist group, so it was probably a jubilant slip of the tongue by his cabinet member.


[I]In most cases, with a few exceptions, his popularity increased when Israel would attack him. The man became extremely unpopular after what his people believed to be a failure during the peace process.
”
"Also incorrect, and not supported by the data from this poll. I think you need to read it first, before trying to tell others about it, hmm?",

The siege of Arafats compound was a perfect example of this point. Here is a JEWISH newspaper admitting the siege policy was a failure....

http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1189&subject=30

"Jerusalem Media and Communications Center at the height of the siege indicates that Arafat's popularity increased as Israeli tanks encircled his compound. "

Its simply common sense to realize that Arafat's popularity would rise when he is under attack. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

"Even that statement is not what the data says. The report merely says a return to negotations at the point where they stopped in Taba", Sauron

Now you are dealing with a case of semantics. The map is an essential part of the peace deal, and this is obviously IS the peace deal. Therefore the same thing. The people are returning to both that point, and to that map.

Towards please stop spewing nonsense, every book I have read on this subjects talks about the Sharon visit being the key reason (not the only reason, but the flame to the gas) why the Intifada started. I’m pretty sure you will find many Palestinian leaders who reject that statement, and it’s completely unsupported. Where are the facts here? Are we depending on rumour and innuendo to make our arguments? Let me tell you that shit wouldn’t fly in an essay, and it won’t fly here…so try again.

"I’m pretty sure you will find many Palestinian leaders who reject that statement, and it’s completely unsupported.", Undecided

Of course they would deny it. What I find so hard to believe that Arafat would be willing to restart the violence. He had everything to gain by starting a second intifada when world opinion was against him for refusing to return to peace talks. I sorry, but a key government official admitting to starting the intifada is not innuendo or unsupported, but pretty damning evidence. If Powell, for instance, admitted that he went to Iraq for oil, would you be so willing to discount it?

"Let me tell you that shit wouldn’t fly in an essay, and it won’t fly here…so try again."

Next time I will refer to you what does and does not make an essay, for you are obviously the expert .

Of course they would deny it.

Of course they would, maybe it was not true at all of course. That’s the problem with innuendo one can plausibly deny it, and as a result it cannot be taken seriously as a fixture of evidence, unless that innuendo can be supported by many people with witness accounts under oath etc.

I sorry, but a key government official admitting to starting the intifada is not innuendo or unsupported, but pretty damning evidence. If Powell, for instance, admitted that he went to Iraq for oil, would you be so willing to discount it?

They did that already with Paul O’Neill, and that terrorist guy (forgot his name) discrediting them as much as they could. Now what I am saying is that why only him? Where’s the rest, and I am sure there MUST be a paper trail, this isn’t something one just says and it happens. There HAS to be supporting evidence, a note, something. If not…then no its not credible, am I saying its not true? No, but I cannot take it seriously.

Next time I will refer to you what does and does not make an essay, for you are obviously the expert

Should you feel that way I will not stop you…;)