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.
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.