International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

Why are you saying that’s not a legitimate offer of statehood? It was. It wasn’t the deal Arafat wanted, but it was a legitimate offer. I mean was it in the offer somewhere that they couldn’t control their borders

The offer still didn't allow them control over their own borders, water supply, air space and also had Israeli checkpoints, their land carved up into sectors and limited freedom of movement. It wasn't autonomy.

It was basically a BS offer and then when they predictably say no, Israel just claims "We offered 94% of their land and they still said no! All they want is the complete destruction of Israel!" It's propaganda.
 
Last edited:
You’ve been debunked already. Give it a rest. You’re quoting an article not the other bullshit that was offered. Keep gaslighting

Debunked?

So instead of making a deal for a recognized state, Arafat wanted to keep his two fistfuls of nothing.

You keep your head in the sand and praise Palestine for instead of gaining sovereignty, they gained an empire of rubble.
 
Okay, so that's a totally different claim, then, isn't it?

You actually don't believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, you believe that the Palestinians should accept whatever is offered to them on the presumption that maybe it would be a foothold towards an actual state at some future point, depending on the magnanimity of Israel.

I think these are very obviously categorically different things. And, I think if this situation were one that you lived in, and you were offered this deal, you'd likewise reject it.

The point of this though is that it is unfair to say that the palestinians were offered statehood. You can say that they were offered a generous offer, or that it was the best offer they had been offered to that point and the wise strategic move would have been to have taken the offer. Arafat didn't sink the boat just to be a stick in the mud.

But you can't say that what was on the table constituted a dignified statehood with the necessary components that the concept of a state entails like right to return and control of their borders.

And this is only about the details of the actual offer. Another, massive and important aspect was Israel's behavior during these negotiations, specifically the furthering of settlement activities.

What I'm saying is that I believe that it's better to have a starting point with gains than to hold onto nothing.
 
Yes. Full control lf borders and resources was not included. you can make the argument it was a strategic blunder and they'd have eventually gotten a legitimate offer of actual statehood over the long term, but you cant say it was an offer of full, legitimate statehood that was rejected for some other reasons to do with Arafat being unreasonable.

The point of this is to say that the narrative that the Palestinians were offered what they wanted - and, according to @Strychnine , deserve - and this just didn't happen because Arafat was an asshole, is not true.



"Deserves got nothing to do with it..."

I never said that Arafat was a jackhole. Fact of business, I always thought that he was a very pleasant person who did some pretty bad things. You know... Like all of US.

When you're in a leadership position and you're negotiating, you will NEVER get all of what you want. That's just life and baby, that's how it is. You have to make the best deal for the most people.

Arafat did not.
 
What I'm saying is that I believe that it's better to have a starting point with gains than to hold onto nothing.
these people would rather continued suffering to hold out for something completely unreasonable. it's amazing they can still try to argue rejecting the deal was the right path and in the best interests of the palestinian people. because they'd rather the suffering and a big bad israel than an actual implementable path towards sovereignty. how many more generations will suffer holding out for a solution that doesn't exist?
 
Debunked?

So instead of making a deal for a recognized state, Arafat wanted to keep his two fistfuls of nothing.

You keep your head in the sand and praise Palestine for instead of gaining sovereignty, they gained an empire of rubble.


It wasn’t sovereignty , keep gas lighting
 
these people would rather continued suffering to hold out for something completely unreasonable. it's amazing they can still try to argue rejecting the deal was the right path and in the best interests of the palestinian people. because they'd rather the suffering and a big bad israel than an actual implementable path towards sovereignty. how many more generations will suffer holding out for a solution that doesn't exist?

Unreasonable?!?

How is statehood, U.S. recognition (and U.N. to follow), and a start to your own nation unreasonable?
 
The offer still didn't allow them control over their own borders, water supply, air space and also had Israeli checkpoints, their land carved up into sectors and limited freedom of movement. It wasn't autonomy.

It was basically a BS offer and then when they predictably say no, Israel just claims "We offered 94% of their land and they still said no! All they want is the complete destruction of Israel!" It's propaganda.
Exactly, people just see the statistic "Palestineans were offered 94% of their land" and probably think Israel just got some border settlements or something but in reality that deal was nowhere near a functional state, just some bantusans connected via checkpoints..
 


"Deserves got nothing to do with it..."

I never said that Arafat was a jackhole. Fact of business, I always thought that he was a very pleasant person who did some pretty bad things. You know... Like all of US.

When you're in a leadership position and you're negotiating, you will NEVER get all of what you want. That's just life and baby, that's how it is. You have to make the best deal for the most people.

Arafat did not.


You said Palestinians "absolutely" have a right to a state. This is synonymous with "deserve." I quoted you, that's precisely why we're in this exchange. So, yes. Deserve does have everything to do with it.

What I'm saying is that I believe that it's better to have a starting point with gains than to hold onto nothing.

So the Palestinians absolutely have a right to a state, but they also should just shelf this right that you believe they have when they are offered something that isn't the thing they absolutely have a right to, because that's better than nothing.

That's a pretty silly position, mate. It contradicts itself. What does kt mean to absolutely have a right to something that they can't actually expect to claim? I think you'll find that actually isn't what that word means.

Imagine if human rights were adjudicated by this line of "thinking" - oh yes, you were wrongly imprisoned and your freedom is your right, but if the jailer instead of giving you freedom, says that you're allowed to lppk out the window once a week, you should just accept this because it's a start.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top