All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[sunofdarkchild]

Terrible history you’ve got there:

2000: The Camp David offer was horrible for the Palestinians, it did not give them full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the West Bank and broke Palestinian territory into cantons. A truly sovereign state was never on offer, with Israel demanding the right to deploy troops whenever they wanted. Ben-Ami later stated if he was Palestinian he would have turned down the offer.

2001: the Taba summit ended because of the Israeli elections, where Barak lost by a landslide, partly because the Israeli people thought he was making too many concessions. Sharon ran against the limited concessions given to the Palestinians and ended the chance of peace. It did not end because of Palestinian rejectionism, that’s not disputed by any serious analysis.

2008: Olmert was close to a peace deal and Abbas almost accepted but wasn’t given enough details to accept immediately. Olmert however, was never in the position to offer it due to his government being in crisis. If he wasn’t corrupt, a deal potentially could have been made (Abbas thinks so). It’s not the Palestinian’s fault Olmert was corrupt.

You also forget the Arab offers of peace rejected by Israel, most notably the 1971 offer by Sadat that Israel laughed at. And the Geneva Initiative of 2003, ignored by the Israeli government.

Sorry. The myth of the 'enclaves' has long been debunked. At the start of Camp David Israel's offer was similar to that, but by the time Arafat walked away they were offering a continuous state. Arafat's apologists try to pretend that the initial Israeli position was the final proposal, but the American negotiators, including Deniss Ross and Bill Clinton, have published the exact details of what the final offers were.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Rossmap_7_camp_david.gif

Arafat's refusal to accept a peace proposal has been well-documented, as has the fact that he planned the launch of the Second Intifada.

Israel's refusal to consider Sadat's proposal in 1971 was indeed a huge blunder. However, that was just 4 years after the famous 3 No's of Khartoum, in which the Arab states flatly rejected any neogitaions with, peace with, or recognition of Israel. And afterwards negotiations between Nasser and 2 successive Israeli governments resulted in a peace deal and the Israel withdrawal from the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, which is bigger than Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank combined. One missed opportunity which was followed by a final peace deal. Sadat was different from Nasser, and Israel should have realized that sooner.

The 2003 Geneva initiative is a slightly modified version of the Clinton parameters from 2000-2001 and was never an official plan presented by any side but by people who were not in any positions of power.

The only proposal from the Arab side for the complete end of the conflict is the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which effectively calls on Israel to commit suicide and came from the Arab League/Saudi Arabia, not the Palestinian Authority.

I have worked in the field of Middle Eastern studies for years now. I've seen the games both journalists and historians play. I have also seen things in Israel's history that many of it's supporters would like to deny or forget about. Actually, the people who like to pretend that Israel was some sort of socialist paradise until 1977 would like to forget about. Anyway, during archival research I came across a speech Sadat gave in Egypt in the 70s in which he stated that he did not want to see one more Egyptian soldier hurt in conflict with Israel. I understood at that moment why he reached out and made peace - beyond the geopolitical considerations of wanting to dump the Soviet Union. That's the sort of leader who is needed.

[sunofdarkchild]

Here's the thing about Israel: They definitely have a right to defend themselves, but at what point do you realize that it's overkill to use snipers with live ammunition against people, often children, throwing rocks?

What level of weapon does one have to attack with before it is ok to shoot that person? So rocks (which have killed a number of people) are out. What about if they are slung with slingshots? What about if someone is throwing Molotov Cocktails? What if someone is using kites to drop firebombs on the other side? What if they are throwing pipe bombs? What if they are throwing grenades? What if they are firing guns at the soldiers on the other side of the border, with live bullets? All of these things were done during the demonstrations in Gaza Monday.

Also, one of Hamas' leaders today said that 50 of the people killed were from Hamas and that the other 12 were civilians.

[sunofdarkchild]

At the end of the day it's very clear no one's going to be convincing anyone else here. Everyone has made up their minds as to this conflict. But it annoys me when I see so much about 'shooting unarmed civilians' when there clearly were many armed people involved and report after report of what exactly happened confirms this.

[kidfresh512]

At the end of the day it's very clear no one's going to be convincing anyone else here. Everyone has made up their minds as to this conflict.

Do we agree though for the most part that this particular re ignition of the conflict did not NEED to happen in terms of the embassy being moved before a peace deal was made?

And that doing so made peace even more complicated than it was in the first place because this should have been the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Not handed away free then pick up the pieces later.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I'm not going to pretend I understand a fraction of the stuff that goes on in the Middle East, but if past presidents knew (or were told by foreign policy experts in their administration) that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was a damn bad idea, why did Trump go against the tide, igniting the current firestorm there? I know, I know, rhetorical question, Trump did it to kiss Netenyahu's ass and fulfill a campaign promise to his lemmings whose support is keeping him afloat. Still, to risk inflaming that perpetually volatile situation even more than it already is now was absolute folly, if not blatant negligence on his part.

[sunofdarkchild]

Do we agree though for the most part that this particular re ignition of the conflict did not NEED to happen in terms of the embassy being moved before a peace deal was made?

And that doing so made peace even more complicated than it was in the first place because this should have been the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Not handed away free then pick up the pieces later.

It's difficult to say. The question is did this move cause the violence, or is it just an excuse? And if it didn't, what did? These riots culminated Monday, but they have been going on for months. And they were not accompanied by similar violence within Israel or in the West Bank, or elsewhere in the Middle East (there has been violence in the Middle East, but it has all been clearly unconnected). The demonstrations were meant to culminate on 'Nakba Day.' There's no way to know if this would have happened anyway as a result of the 70th anniversary of Israel/the Nakba or if it was nothing more than an attempt to draw attention to the Palestinians in light of all the other issues in the Middle East and North Korea. Supporters of the move would say that Hamas and those who use the opening of an embassy as an excuse for violence should have a veto. Who is right? To quote that saying about the results of the French Revolution, 'it's too soon to say.'

[Mr. Mastermind]

Sorry. The myth of the 'enclaves' has long been debunked. At the start of Camp David Israel's offer was similar to that, but by the time Arafat walked away they were offering a continuous state. Arafat's apologists try to pretend that the initial Israeli position was the final proposal, but the American negotiators, including Deniss Ross and Bill Clinton, have published the exact details of what the final offers were.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Rossmap_7_camp_david.gif

Arafat's refusal to accept a peace proposal has been well-documented, as has the fact that he planned the launch of the Second Intifada.

The final map offered (but not actually offered as the source says, who would agree to a state they can't even see a proper map of?) includes Israel annexations of territory they are not owed or deserve. The land given to Palestinian's is minor by comparison. The plan (like all major plans actually) doesn't allow the Palestinians to have a proper military, with Israel pushing for Palestine to not be able to make alliances without it's permission. This doesn't sound like a state, more of an autonomous area.

And if Arafat were to accept it, I doubt it would have worked as the Israeli public thought Barak conceded too much. Sharon would have likely ripped it up the moment he got into office.

EDIT: I don't agree with Arafat's behaviour either, he should have made counter-proposals. But to accept a deal of which he wasn't even granted a map and gave almost 10% of the West Bank in exchange for 1% of Israel (alongside very limited sovereignty) would have been absurd, as Ben Ami acknowledges.

Israel's refusal to consider Sadat's proposal in 1971 was indeed a huge blunder. However, that was just 4 years after the famous 3 No's of Khartoum, in which the Arab states flatly rejected any neogitaions with, peace with, or recognition of Israel. And afterwards negotiations between Nasser and 2 successive Israeli governments resulted in a peace deal and the Israel withdrawal from the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, which is bigger than Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank combined. One missed opportunity which was followed by a final peace deal. Sadat was different from Nasser, and Israel should have realized that sooner.

Sadat offered to end the entire conflict. After being ignored and forced into a war he lost, he then exchanged peace with Israel at the price of solidarity with the occupied people of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel would never have accepted his original offer of complete withdrawal from all territories and made him negotiate from weakness.

The 2003 Geneva initiative is a slightly modified version of the Clinton parameters from 2000-2001 and was never an official plan presented by any side but by people who were not in any positions of power.

It was a highly detailed plan the Israeli government should have considered as a blueprint for peace talks. Instead Sharon ignored it.

And again, the Palestinians did not end the Taba summit and the offer by Olmert was never a serious offer for peace due to his government being in crisis

[Mister Mets]

Meanwhile in Oklahoma, Republican gubernatorial candidate Christopher Barnett is trying to blame hackers on a Facebook post he made where he said that the disabled and poor should be euthanized so they can't get food stamps.

Party of sadism at it again.

Joy Reid is a bad influence on him.

[Michael Watkins]

I'm not going to pretend I understand a fraction of the stuff that goes on in the Middle East, but if past presidents knew (or were told by foreign policy experts in their administration) that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was a damn bad idea, why did Trump go against the tide, igniting the current firestorm there? I know, I know, rhetorical question, Trump did it to kiss Netenyahu's ass and fulfill a campaign promise to his lemmings whose support is keeping him afloat. Still, to risk inflaming that perpetually volatile situation even more than it already is now was absolute folly, if not blatant negligence on his part.

I don't think that it has anything to do with wanting to please Netanyahu. That's not how Trump works. It's the image of him doing what Obama (or whoever) didn't. He's about one upmanship.

[BeastieRunner]

So ...

- Trump made personal payment to Cohen in 2017 for the same amount that was paid to Daniels. As in, 45 made the payment, not somebody else.

- Trump Tower transcript is out and Junior told some whoppers. Manafort's notes are going to be interesting once given more context. "Bill browder", "Offshore- Cyprus", & "133m shares" all appear right in line with each other.

[Michael Watkins]

At the end of the day it's very clear no one's going to be convincing anyone else here. Everyone has made up their minds as to this conflict. But it annoys me when I see so much about 'shooting unarmed civilians' when there clearly were many armed people involved and report after report of what exactly happened confirms this.

It annoys me that you only value the lives of the occupying force. Your arguments are similar to those defending police in the shooting of unarmed individuals.

[kidfresh512]

It's difficult to say. The question is did this move cause the violence, or is it just an excuse? And if it didn't, what did? These riots culminated Monday, but they have been going on for months. And they were not accompanied by similar violence within Israel or in the West Bank, or elsewhere in the Middle East (there has been violence in the Middle East, but it has all been clearly unconnected). The demonstrations were meant to culminate on 'Nakba Day.' There's no way to know if this would have happened anyway as a result of the 70th anniversary of Israel/the Nakba or if it was nothing more than an attempt to draw attention to the Palestinians in light of all the other issues in the Middle East and North Korea. Supporters of the move would say that Hamas and those who use the opening of an embassy as an excuse for violence should have a veto. Who is right? To quote that saying about the results of the French Revolution, 'it's too soon to say.'

Ok fair enough we can agree maybe it would have happened because of the date/anniversary anyway, maybe it wouldn't have. But the opening of the embassy CLEARLY sparked intense and violent disapproval. NO allies are with us on it or backing it other than Israel obviously.

What did we get out of this in particular? How does this push us forward to the overall goal of mid east peace? if the trump administration's position is **** a 2 state solution we are all in on Israel only, everyone else gtfo then I can see where this aggressive move helps that......


But if we still want a 2 state solution and we still want to broker an acceptable deal somehow for both how in the world does doing this now help? That's my entire problem with this. What is the overarching plan we are working toward here? What are we trying to negotiate?

[Jackmando7]

MSU paid 500 million for the Nassar stuff.

[sunofdarkchild]

Ok fair enough we can agree maybe it would have happened because of the date/anniversary anyway, maybe it wouldn't have. But the opening of the embassy CLEARLY sparked intense and violent disapproval. NO allies are with us on it or backing it other than Israel obviously.

What did we get out of this in particular? How does this push us forward to the overall goal of mid east peace? if the trump administration's position is **** a 2 state solution we are all in on Israel only, everyone else gtfo then I can see where this aggressive move helps that......


But if we still want a 2 state solution and we still want to broker an acceptable deal somehow for both how in the world does doing this now help? That's my entire problem with this. What is the overarching plan we are working toward here? What are we trying to negotiate?

Not exactly true. Several other countries are following the US lead and opening their own embassies in Jerusalem. Guatemala opened an embassy in Jerusalem today. And several countries in Europe are strongly considering moving their embassies as well. There were delegates from a number of European nations who came to the celebrations for the embassy to show their support. Those nations also blocked the Eu from condemning the move. While it has faced more opposition than support, it has opened the door for other nations to follow suit.

As for how it helps, those who support the move would say that acknowledging reality is a good first step and that playing into delusions for decades has gotten us nowhere. Will it help in the long or short term? I'm not a fortune teller, and I have no idea how serious Trump is about making a peace deal here.

[kidfresh512]

Not exactly true. Several other countries are following the US lead and opening their own embassies in Jerusalem. Guatemala opened an embassy in Jerusalem today. And several countries in Europe are strongly considering moving their embassies as well. There were delegates from a number of European nations who came to the celebrations for the embassy to show their support. Those nations also blocked the Eu from condemning the move. While it has faced more opposition than support, it has opened the door for other nations to follow suit.

The only ones I read about who came despite the EU in general boycotting were Austria, Romania, Hungary, and Czech republic. While I am not downplaying them as allies, I was referring to our main major allies in the EU.

It makes sense from some of the reporting the countries that are deciding to follow trump in this its likely they want to curry favor in their own way by being "supportive of trump". They certainly aren't doing it to follow any kind of mid east peace plan. Cause where is it?