Even Arab leaders admit it.
Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see.
Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective.
Ok, so let us set that aside.
Now watch this.
In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada.
Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance.
He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises.
The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978.
This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel.
When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias.
The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return.
This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today.
If you value the truth, please share.
Polanski's problem is that he is appealing to two diametrically opposed ideologies whose only intersection is Gaza. One is a Muslim community, many of whom are deeply traditional and illiberal, and the other is the left-of-left, most of whom are radically progressive and ultra-liberal. Once the high passions of Gaza fade, as they surely must, how will these mutually incompatible ideologies be reconciled?
Polanski's problem is that he is appealing to two diametrically opposed ideologies whose only intersection is Gaza. One is a Muslim community, many of whom are deeply traditional and illiberal, and the other is the left-of-left, most of whom are radically progressive and ultra-liberal. Once the high passions of Gaza fade, as they surely must, how will these mutually incompatible ideologies be reconciled?
Is it normal and necessary to hate the ideology, the 'state', that sent hundreds of suicide bombers into Isreal to blow up school buses, wedding parties, barmitzvah? Or that sent young men to slaughter youths at a concert and families in their homes?
Is it possible that your 'hate' is not a very productive policy? But it's easy, there is that.
Is it normal and necessary to hate the ideology, the 'state', that sent hundreds of suicide bombers into Isreal to blow up school buses, wedding parties, barmitzvah? Or that sent young men to slaughter youths at a concert and families in their homes?
Is it possible that your 'hate' is not a very productive policy? But it's easy, there is that.
Where exactly have I resorted to 'law'? Arafat was twice offered the 1967 borders and twice rejected it. Why? He must have known that no number of suicide bombers would ever defeat the Israelis militarily or convince them to pack up and go back to Poland. Other than self-aggrandisement, what did he want to achieve? Curious, btw, how his daughter became a billionaire ...
Where exactly have I resorted to 'law'? Arafat was twice offered the 1967 borders and twice rejected it. Why? He must have known that no number of suicide bombers would ever defeat the Israelis militarily or convince them to pack up and go back to Poland. Other than self-aggrandisement, what did he want to achieve? Curious, btw, how his daughter became a billionaire ...
Apologies, according the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics and the UN, the population of Gaza has declined by around 30000 in the last three years, or 1.3% of the pre-war population. A very significant number and one that should horrify us all, but not a genocide. By contrast, around 10% of the German population died as a result of WWII but no one ever describes that as a genocide.
Apologies, according the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics and the UN, the population of Gaza has declined by around 30000 in the last three years, or 1.3% of the pre-war population. A very significant number and one that should horrify us all, but not a genocide. By contrast, around 10% of the German population died as a result of WWII but no one ever describes that as a genocide.
That's not a map of political boundaries. It's a map drawn in Britain by Protestants to show Biblical regions... You'll notice there's no 'West Bank' but Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Neither is there a Gaza but an indistinct 'Philistina' to show where the Greek/Phoenecian colony had been in the days of the Judges and the Kings.
That's not a map of political boundaries. It's a map drawn in Britain by Protestants to show Biblical regions... You'll notice there's no 'West Bank' but Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Neither is there a Gaza but an indistinct 'Philistina' to show where the Greek/Phoenecian colony had been in the days of the Judges and the Kings.
If the 1967 borders were just and equitable, why was there a war? And why have the Palestinians rejected many offers to return to those borders? It's certainly not a solution that would do for Hamas and its expansionist Iranian sponsors, who are clear that they want the destruction of the Zionist entity.
@deerinthelyt@richimedhurst Ok, erm, in case you didn’t read it right the first time, 40% of Israelis are Arab … and if Ashkenazim are ‘white’ why were they so savagely persecuted by ‘white’ people in Europe? Like, who’s white and who decides? Is it you? Do you decide?
@deerinthelyt@richimedhurst Ok, erm, in case you didn’t read it right the first time, 40% of Israelis are Arab … and if Ashkenazim are ‘white’ why were they so savagely persecuted by ‘white’ people in Europe? Like, who’s white and who decides? Is it you? Do you decide?
@deerinthelyt@richimedhurst You should go to Arnhemland and see how the Aboriginals are made to live and then tell me all about the crimes of white settler colonialism 🤮
Is the people’s elbow your real name? Asking for an antisemite