Is Clap an Oscar sock account?
It’s a Nick Griffin wannabe who is desperate to get banned
2000 Camp David Summit
Territory
Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]
Territorial contiguity
The degree to which the West Bank itself would be dis-contiguous is disputed. Noam Chomsky writes that the West Bank would have been divided into three cantons and Palestinian East Jerusalem would have constituted the fourth canton; all 4 cantons would be separated from one another by Israeli territory.[13] Other sources also said that the proposed West Bank would be divided into three cantons.[14][15][16] By contrast, Ehud Barak said the West Bank would only be divided by a wedge of Israeli territory
East Jerusalem
At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans he could not accept giving the Palestinians more than a purely symbolic sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem.
...
Refugees and the right of return
Due to the first Arab-Israeli war, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes inside what is now Israel. These refugees numbered approximately 711,000 to 725,000 at the time. Today, they and their descendants number about four million...
The Israeli negotiators denied that Israel was responsible for the refugee problem, and were concerned that any right of return would pose a threat to Israel's Jewish character. In the Israeli proposal, a maximum of 100,000 refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification
Security arrangements
The Israeli negotiators proposed that Israel be allowed to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border.[30] Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River....Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
"Stated goals of the Oslo Accords were among other things, Palestinian interim Self-Government...and a permanent settlement of unresolved issues within five years...Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian "legitimate and political rights," they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. The Oslo Accords neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern....The first step was a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho[3] and transfer of some powers and responsibilities on civil matters to the interim Palestinian Authority....Then, Israeli troops to withdraw from populated Palestinian areas to pave the way for Palestinian elections to establish the council.....Twenty years later, however, the withdrawal of Israeli troops did not take place, and the Civil Administration still has permanent military presence in more than 80% of the West Bank...Permanent status negotiations about remaining issues would start not later than May 1996 (two years after the signing of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement; Oslo I, Article V) and be concluded before May 1999 (end of 5 year interim period)."
Seems like all Arafat had to do was sign on the dotted line and it was all sorted
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 6 hours, 32 minutes ago
2000 Camp David Summit
Territory
Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]
Territorial contiguity
The degree to which the West Bank itself would be dis-contiguous is disputed. Noam Chomsky writes that the West Bank would have been divided into three cantons and Palestinian East Jerusalem would have constituted the fourth canton; all 4 cantons would be separated from one another by Israeli territory.[13] Other sources also said that the proposed West Bank would be divided into three cantons.[14][15][16] By contrast, Ehud Barak said the West Bank would only be divided by a wedge of Israeli territory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine Arafat returning to his men with a deal like that? It wouldn't have worked anyway as the deal was so ridiculous that Arafat's people back home would have laughed in his face and rejected it.
No wonder he faffed about. He was caught between a rock and a hard place, wanting a deal but being strung along all the way only to be offered a deal he couldn't accept, while at the same time the media reported the matter in a manner where if he said no then him and Palestine would look bad having "rejected a peace deal".
Over the years I've seen many reports blaming Arafat/Palestinians but you never see the details properly laid out. Things like this is why people say the Palestinians just want to kill Jews and aren't interested in peace. If anyone isn't interested in peace I think it's the "other team".
The gammon meltdown about the Palestinian ceasefire March on Remembrance Sunday is hilarious. Such racist idiots.
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
The entire population of the West Bank village of Zanota is moving. They say they have no choice after being harassed and threatened by Israeli settlers.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1720214205473636437?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
If this isn’t ethnic cleansing then what is?
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And just to add, that Ulster is a 9 county province and not just the occupied 6.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And just to add, that Ulster is a 9 county province and not just the occupied 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read Robert Kee's History of Ireland so probably have more of an idea than most.
I know enough to be able determine that there's no equivalence between what the Arabs have gone through in greater Palestine at the hands of the Israelis and what the people of Ulster have gone through at the hands of the British.
Are you doubling down on “Ulster was never catholic”? Where’s Ulster Scots TBBAB when you need him?
Oh sorry, we were talking about loss of land.
So change that to:
I know enough to be able to determine that there's no equivalence between Israel taking land of the Arab people in Palestine, and Britain taking land of the people of Northern Ireland (of course as everybody knows, the majority of the people of northern ireland have always wanted to be part of the UK).
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2023/1103/1414424-ireland-middle-east/
Irish PM says Israel more like revenge than defence
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed Hec 👍 what we have now in Israel and Palestine is if Paisley, as opposed to Hume, was the largest political force in the unionist movement.
Never realised he was so tall
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any equivalence personally, but also don't see any benefit in getting into an argument about it.
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any equivalence personally, but also don't see any benefit in getting into an argument about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial state created at the point of a gun, consequent civil subjugation of the native population, freecrange violence and imprisonment against the minority, creation of violent insurgency etc etc
Control of resources leading to humanitarian crisis, forced removal of native population etc etc
What was your previous username bill Nick?
I brought it up because people thought peace couldn't be achieved in N.I. and it was
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 3797 of 4711
3798 | 3799 | 3800 | 3801 | 3802
posted on 2/11/23
Is Clap an Oscar sock account?
posted on 2/11/23
It’s a Nick Griffin wannabe who is desperate to get banned
posted on 2/11/23
2000 Camp David Summit
Territory
Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]
Territorial contiguity
The degree to which the West Bank itself would be dis-contiguous is disputed. Noam Chomsky writes that the West Bank would have been divided into three cantons and Palestinian East Jerusalem would have constituted the fourth canton; all 4 cantons would be separated from one another by Israeli territory.[13] Other sources also said that the proposed West Bank would be divided into three cantons.[14][15][16] By contrast, Ehud Barak said the West Bank would only be divided by a wedge of Israeli territory
posted on 2/11/23
East Jerusalem
At the opening of Camp David, Barak warned the Americans he could not accept giving the Palestinians more than a purely symbolic sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem.
...
Refugees and the right of return
Due to the first Arab-Israeli war, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes inside what is now Israel. These refugees numbered approximately 711,000 to 725,000 at the time. Today, they and their descendants number about four million...
The Israeli negotiators denied that Israel was responsible for the refugee problem, and were concerned that any right of return would pose a threat to Israel's Jewish character. In the Israeli proposal, a maximum of 100,000 refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification
Security arrangements
The Israeli negotiators proposed that Israel be allowed to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border.[30] Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River....Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.
posted on 2/11/23
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
posted on 2/11/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
posted on 2/11/23
"Stated goals of the Oslo Accords were among other things, Palestinian interim Self-Government...and a permanent settlement of unresolved issues within five years...Although the agreements recognize the Palestinian "legitimate and political rights," they remain silent about their fate after the interim period. The Oslo Accords neither define the nature of the post-Oslo Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities, nor do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern....The first step was a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho[3] and transfer of some powers and responsibilities on civil matters to the interim Palestinian Authority....Then, Israeli troops to withdraw from populated Palestinian areas to pave the way for Palestinian elections to establish the council.....Twenty years later, however, the withdrawal of Israeli troops did not take place, and the Civil Administration still has permanent military presence in more than 80% of the West Bank...Permanent status negotiations about remaining issues would start not later than May 1996 (two years after the signing of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement; Oslo I, Article V) and be concluded before May 1999 (end of 5 year interim period)."
Seems like all Arafat had to do was sign on the dotted line and it was all sorted
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 6 hours, 32 minutes ago
2000 Camp David Summit
Territory
Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian state initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[8][10] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.[8]
Territorial contiguity
The degree to which the West Bank itself would be dis-contiguous is disputed. Noam Chomsky writes that the West Bank would have been divided into three cantons and Palestinian East Jerusalem would have constituted the fourth canton; all 4 cantons would be separated from one another by Israeli territory.[13] Other sources also said that the proposed West Bank would be divided into three cantons.[14][15][16] By contrast, Ehud Barak said the West Bank would only be divided by a wedge of Israeli territory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine Arafat returning to his men with a deal like that? It wouldn't have worked anyway as the deal was so ridiculous that Arafat's people back home would have laughed in his face and rejected it.
No wonder he faffed about. He was caught between a rock and a hard place, wanting a deal but being strung along all the way only to be offered a deal he couldn't accept, while at the same time the media reported the matter in a manner where if he said no then him and Palestine would look bad having "rejected a peace deal".
Over the years I've seen many reports blaming Arafat/Palestinians but you never see the details properly laid out. Things like this is why people say the Palestinians just want to kill Jews and aren't interested in peace. If anyone isn't interested in peace I think it's the "other team".
posted on 3/11/23
The gammon meltdown about the Palestinian ceasefire March on Remembrance Sunday is hilarious. Such racist idiots.
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
posted on 3/11/23
The entire population of the West Bank village of Zanota is moving. They say they have no choice after being harassed and threatened by Israeli settlers.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1720214205473636437?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw
If this isn’t ethnic cleansing then what is?
posted on 3/11/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And just to add, that Ulster is a 9 county province and not just the occupied 6.
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would say, back to 1994/5 and Rabin/Arafat, and with any negotiation, both sides have to give certain things up. It was the same in Northern Ireland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arabs have already given up 70+% of their country, and are subjected to movement controls and extra-judicial killings in the remainder though.
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation. Ulster was never Catholic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you look carefully at the history of Ireland and reflect on whether “Ulster was never catholic” is entirely accurate 👍.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And just to add, that Ulster is a 9 county province and not just the occupied 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read Robert Kee's History of Ireland so probably have more of an idea than most.
I know enough to be able determine that there's no equivalence between what the Arabs have gone through in greater Palestine at the hands of the Israelis and what the people of Ulster have gone through at the hands of the British.
posted on 3/11/23
Are you doubling down on “Ulster was never catholic”? Where’s Ulster Scots TBBAB when you need him?
posted on 3/11/23
Oh sorry, we were talking about loss of land.
So change that to:
I know enough to be able to determine that there's no equivalence between Israel taking land of the Arab people in Palestine, and Britain taking land of the people of Northern Ireland (of course as everybody knows, the majority of the people of northern ireland have always wanted to be part of the UK).
posted on 3/11/23
What is your time frame?
posted on 3/11/23
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
posted on 3/11/23
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2023/1103/1414424-ireland-middle-east/
Irish PM says Israel more like revenge than defence
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed Hec 👍 what we have now in Israel and Palestine is if Paisley, as opposed to Hume, was the largest political force in the unionist movement.
posted on 3/11/23
Never realised he was so tall
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any equivalence personally, but also don't see any benefit in getting into an argument about it.
posted on 3/11/23
comment by Bill Nick (U23088)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 23 minutes ago
Whilst, arguably, not a direct comparison, it's facile to say that that there is no equivalence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any equivalence personally, but also don't see any benefit in getting into an argument about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial state created at the point of a gun, consequent civil subjugation of the native population, freecrange violence and imprisonment against the minority, creation of violent insurgency etc etc
posted on 3/11/23
Control of resources leading to humanitarian crisis, forced removal of native population etc etc
posted on 3/11/23
What was your previous username bill Nick?
posted on 3/11/23
I brought it up because people thought peace couldn't be achieved in N.I. and it was
Page 3797 of 4711
3798 | 3799 | 3800 | 3801 | 3802