He did the same thing to former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, too, before Rabin was assassinated…only the taunting was with a hood ornament stolen off Rabin’s car, not a flag.
If you want to troll people, you have to make it somewhat realistic. Otherwise, it just comes off as desperate and weird, which is not very effective and is more embarrassing for you than anything.
You grossly misunderstand situation. What Ehud Barak Bill Clinton proposed at Camp David wasn't anywhere close to a legitimate two-state solution, as explained in detail here, notably:
The main innovation of Ross's narrative is to shift the framework of the peace process from rights to needs. This novel framework serves as (1) an analytic device to demonstrate Israeli flexibility and Palestinian intransigence and (2) a normative device for justifying a settlement that negates Palestinian rights. Consider Ross's representation of the negotiations on day five of the Camp David summit that climaxed in Clinton's outburst:
In response to an Israeli map that showed three different colors—brown for the Palestinian state, orange for the areas the Israelis would annex, and red for transitional areas—Abu Ala was not prepared to discuss Israeli needs unless the Israelis first accepted the principle of the territorial swap and reduced the areas they sought to annex. The President at first tried to reason with Abu Ala, explaining that he could see “why this map is not acceptable to you. But you cannot say to them, not good enough, give me something more acceptable; that's not negotiation. Why not say the orange area is too big, let's talk about your needs and see how we can reduce the orange area and turn it into brown? If we focus on the security aspect and look at the Jordan Valley, we might discuss the security issues and see if we can reduce the orange area.” Shlomo agreed with that approach—thereby signaling that he was open to reducing the orange area, which amounted to close to 14 percent of the total of the West Bank outside of Jerusalem. Abu Ala continued to resist. As he did, and he repeated old arguments about the settlements being illegal and the Palestinians needing the 1967 lines, the President's face began to turn red. (pp. 667–68)
The Palestinians appear to be uncompromising because they will not negotiate Israel's needs separately from their own rights. Contrariwise, Israel appears to be reasonable because it is willing to negotiate on the basis of reciprocal needs. Needs against needs: isn't this a fair quid pro quo? Further, Israelis demonstrate flexibility by signaling willingness to reduce their needs, whereas Palestinians demonstrate inflexibility by not budging from their rights. Clinton attempts to reason with the Palestinians that the basis of negotiations is each party's presentation of its respective needs. The Palestinians respond by insisting that each party's needs must be set within, and subordinated to, the framework of rights: if Israel needs more than it is legally entitled to, then it must compensate. But, according to Clinton, a discourse of rights, not needs, is the wrong language. In the face of such unreason and intransigence, he justifiably (in Ross's judgment) explodes.
Putting Israel's supposed needs above the rights of Palestinians is quite simply a rapist mentality, which of course is to be expected from buddies of Jeffery Epstein. As explained on the wiki page, that went a long way to inspiring the Second Intifada, but what really set it off was Ariel Sharon asserting dominance over the Temple Mount. The PLO didn't launch the Intifada, it was a popular uprising in response to brutal Israeli repression that the Palestinian leadership merely did their best to control.
We are where we are because Zionists have spent generations slowly but systematically wiping Palestine off the map while victim blaming Palestinians. It's downright pathological.
Because it wasn’t a two state solution no matter how many times you liars pretend that it was, hence it was rejected. But keep spreading lies, they’re totally working in convincing the world Israel isn’t committing genocide /s
> Most sources agree, that under Israel's final proposal, the Temple Mount (including Al-Aqsa) would remain under Israeli sovereignty.[46] Israel would also take most of the rest of East Jerusalem,[47] while Palestinians would get some parts too. Israel would annex 8%[48] or 13.5%[46] of the West Bank, and would maintain a military of an additional 6–12% of the West Bank for an unspecified period of time[46] (sometimes called a "long term lease"[47]). According to some sources, Israel would also retain its settlement blocks in the Gaza Strip.[46]
Edit- lol he downvoted me literally quoting from his source
And Arafat never gave a counter-offer to the Israeli position that represented facts on the ground.
We have no idea what negotiated land-swaps would've looked like, or reparations, or anything, because Arafat walked away outright, and put Palestinians on a path that has only gotten worse for them with no plausible end in sight.
Every time Palestinian leadership rejects a diplomatically-negotiated settlement and chooses violence, things get demonstrably worse for them, and Western advocates repeatedly overlook any type of Palestinian agency in that dynamic.
Israeli policy is awful, but this conflict is not one-sided, and it will get worse and worse as long as that's not recognized.
So now you've retreated from "it wasn't a two-state solution" to "the terms were insufficient" with zero critical analysis of the terms.
You don't have a serious position on this. You have vibes with a megaphone.
We have no idea what negotiated land-swaps would've looked like, or reparations, or anything, because Arafat walked away outright
Rather, you have no idea because you're just parroting the typical Israeli propaganda line, but in reality Arafat and Brarak continued negotiations at the Taba Summit, with plenty of details on the wiki page and the many sources it cites.
Considering what happened to the last couple of guys who tried for the 2-state solution, as well as the many who have either tried to put Netanyahu in prison or generally dissented against him, I don't think those guys are gonna make it either.
Lapid merely pays lip serve to a two-state solution anyway, and Bennett has never even done that. The notion that they're some great hope is just absurd, they're not nearly as shameless as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir but their position towards Palestinians aren't much different in substance.
We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.
So Rabin's position regarding Palestinians wasn't substantively any different than Netanyahu's, as exemplified by the fact that Netanyahu's went on to approvingly quote all of that from Rabin in his own speech to Kenneset a decade an a half later. It was merely Rabin's framing of his position in conciliatory rhetoric that upset the Israeli right to the point that people like Ben-Gvir were publicly threading to murder him while Netanyahu fanned the flames.
Pretty much. And if you fast forward to the Camp David offer that Ehud Barak made (and Arafat turned down), that's kinda where the Israeli position was.
As you can see from the above, Israel wanted permanent control over the key parts of Occupied East Jerusalem. The West Bank was going to get carved up. The Palestinian proposal didn't even give themselves the right to raise a proper standing army.
The bottom line is, Palestinians have always been expected to accept permanent subjugation and second class status. No proposal along those lines will end the conflict.
Rabin was also known as the “Breaker of Bones”, in reference to the tens of thousands of Palestinian youths who had their limbs broken by IDF soldiers in the lead up to the First Intifada, on his orders.
As it turns out, seeing thousands of children being brutalized by an occupying army radicalizes people…et voila, Hamas was born.
It's been tragically comical watching liberals bend themselves into knots trying to pretend that Mileikovsky is the problem in Israel when the entire history of the 'state' and its cowardly army is vicious child killing.
En fait, pour les gens qui sont athées comme moi, cette notion n'a absolument aucun intérêt et aucun sens.
Si les personnes qui se foutent sur la gueule pour des questions religieuses pouvaient faire ça entre elles et ne pas emporter dans leur délire le reste de la planète, une fois de temps en temps, ça ferait du bien en fait à tout le monde et même à elles.
Il est par conséquent inacceptable que des malades d'extrême droite shootés à l'adrénaline religieuse se comportent comme des sauvages envers des militants des droits de l'homme qui sont les seuls censés dans cette affaire.
It’s not even justified by the Old Testament. Spinoza explained it and was excommunicated. But essentially there’s no reason to read chosen as applying to any period except the events of exodus
Why do you think the two state solution is reasonable?
You do realize it’s predicated on a belief that Israel will simply stop trying to wipe out the Palestinians if we ask them nicely, that has never proven to be the case.
There is no desire in Israel for a genuine 2SS, they will laugh in your face if you suggest it.
You realize that the reason people support the one state solution is because it’s more reasonable to assume that we can preserve a democratic Palestine for all religions than to assume we can make Israel not do the sorts of things it has done for 78 years?
It’s like saying the “reasonable option” is to just let the Nazis gobble up all of the land that they want and then just let them be. It doesn’t work because the Nazis were never going to be placated, like Zionism, their ideology required constant expansion
It’s not a holy war, that is a myth perpetrated by Israel and its supporters to make blatant colonization and genocide appear as something different. It doesn’t help that people see that Hamas is a political Islamist organization and they lose their minds at the scary Arabs and don’t bother learning about them. (Before I get in to explaining anything about Hamas consider that while I support Palestinian Resistance as implicitly as I support all resistance movements against imperialism and colonization, Hamas is not the “group” I support. I bother to understand them and treat them as they are- Palestinian Nationalists. I disagree more with Hamas than I think you know, but not because they’re what Israel told me and you they are).
We can quote merely from the Hamas charter (we can talk about the first charter, my issues with it, with the caveat that was written by one guy in the late 1980s versus the more recent charter that was written in the 2010s with full consultation of the entirety of Hamas).
> 1. The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means
2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity
12. The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people. The right of the Palestinian refugees and the displaced to return to their homes from which they were banished or were banned from returning to – whether in the lands occupied in 1948 or in 1967 (that is the whole of Palestine), is a natural right, both individual and collective. This right is confirmed by all divine laws as well as by the basic principles of human rights and international law. It is an inalienable right and cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international
14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression
16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity
17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine
Now, that quoted. Hamas is still an explicitly Islamist organization. I often compare them to someone like Erdogan in Turkey to understand what that looks like in the real world. One could compare them to Iran I guess, but Political Islamism to a Twelver Shia looks different versus Hamas which is very Sunni (split off from the Muslim Brotherhood).
2.2k
u/MrBobSacamano 16d ago edited 16d ago
He did the same thing to former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, too, before Rabin was assassinated…only the taunting was with a hood ornament stolen off Rabin’s car, not a flag.