(om)värderingen av USAs presidenter

[Sven Hedin]

Jag läste iofs en rubrik i Metro som antydde det, men han sa alltså så? Herregud en sån dumjävel.

[Kickan]

[skumrask]

Ursprungligen postat av Ulvena

Som min äldste son så cyniskt konstaterade USA och Israel är väl de enda länder som har rätten att kriga utan att kritik får riktas mot dem.

Nja du, nog har väl åtminstone lite kritik riktats mot dem de senaste åren.

Men jag vet inte, tror inte att det blir så stor kursändring, Hillary sitter vicepresident och det är ju en garant för en oförändrad israelpolitik.

Sedan skall man nog inte ta för mycket fasta på det första sakerna han säger, Israel har rätt att försvara sig bla bla det tycker ju jag också.
Jag skulle inte heller gilla om hamas sköt raketmissiler in i mitt vardagsrum, typ.
Sen när det kommer till den grundläggande historiska orättvisan får man väl skylla på Yasser Arafat, han fick ju nästan allt på ett bräde och tackade nej. Vilket pucko.

[Mröff]

Ursprungligen postat av skumrask

Sen när det kommer till den grundläggande historiska orättvisan får man väl skylla på Yasser Arafat, han fick ju nästan allt på ett bräde och tackade nej. Vilket pucko.

Skulle du kunna utveckla det där resonemanget?

[Östen]

Jag har alltid tyckt att Arafat verkat vara en hyvens karl, han är dessutom till utseendet ruskigt lik min morbror Per-Erik

[skumrask]

Ursprungligen postat av Mröff

Skulle du kunna utveckla det där resonemanget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% (after many years - see section on territory) of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.

...

The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[10][12][13] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[5]

[skumrask]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=179

Spoiler:

[...]from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give. He found it difficult to live without a cause, a struggle, a grievance, and a conflict to define him. Arafat never faced up to what he would have to do—even though we tried repeatedly to condition him. As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably.

[...]

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

[Mröff]

Känner att källorna behöver kollas upp.

1. ^ a b Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. p. 145.
2. ^ 2003 Charles Enderlin book, Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002. Use the Google Book Search form at the bottom of the linked page to find the quotes. Shlomo Ben-Ami quoted on page 195.
3. ^ a b Kenneth Levin (2005), p. 422.
4. ^ Segal, Jerome M. "Ha'aretz - October 1, 2001." The Jewish Peace Lobby. 1 October 2001.

[Mröff]

Ursprungligen postat av skumrask

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=179

Spoiler:

[...]from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give. He found it difficult to live without a cause, a struggle, a grievance, and a conflict to define him. Arafat never faced up to what he would have to do—even though we tried repeatedly to condition him. As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably.

[...]

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

Om han fick det och avböjde är han knasig, men jag kommer inte åt artikeln.

[skumrask]

Ursprungligen postat av Mröff

Känner att källorna behöver kollas upp.

1. ^ a b Eran, Oded. "Arab-Israel Peacemaking." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. p. 145.
2. ^ 2003 Charles Enderlin book, Shattered Dreams: The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002. Use the Google Book Search form at the bottom of the linked page to find the quotes. Shlomo Ben-Ami quoted on page 195.
3. ^ a b Kenneth Levin (2005), p. 422.
4. ^ Segal, Jerome M. "Ha'aretz - October 1, 2001." The Jewish Peace Lobby. 1 October 2001.

Det finns ju hur mycket som helst, jag tog wiki för enkelhetens skull men att Arafat misslyckades miserabelt är ju vida känt. Oavsett om man talar om varierande procensatser mellan 91-98%, samt lite olika villkor för tillbakadragandet. Faktum är att Arafat aldrig ens bemödade sig med att ens komma med ett motbud. Och han fick fredspris- Hah!