metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If the above wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.It's like raping a girl in her own family house and asking for negotiation to let her free.
Moving on...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abbas Admits For the First Time That He Turned Down Peace Offer in 2008
- Thread starter RocketJSquirell
- Start date
Moving on...
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
So your link says there was no peace offer to Abbas.
But then we have Abbas in OPs link who says that he denied the peace offer he got.
Well isn't that funny.
No, my article says there was a peace offer to Abbas, by Olmert who was about to lose an election to Netanyahoo who said any peace offer would be void under his government, did you even bother to read the article, doesn't seem like it.
Shusha
Member
He is just demonstrating why there is no peace and why there can never be peace: the Jewish people are rapists and thieves who have no legitimacy with respect to national self-determination. That is the ideology of the Palestinian government, the Palestinians, the Arabs and many others globally. Until that changes, there will be no peace.
Shusha
Member
Your article also says that the Barak offer included a divided Jerusalem, including the Old City, shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif and 91% of the disputed territory and he wouldn't take it because 91% was not good enough.
Why do you think that offer was rejected?
RocketJSquirell
Member
lyndon - i posted them - try reading the articles. Of coruse, it really does not matter what the terms of the offer were. No offer will ever be acceptable.
Shusha
Member
Not at the moment but easy enough to check.
What are your thoughts on why it wasn't "good enough"? What would be good enough? A small amount of land seems to me to be a very good trade off in light of shared sovereignty of Jerusalem and the Mount. So why wasn't it?
Shusha
Member
Does that mean you agree that the Jewish people have no right to any sort of national sovereignty on their ancestral lands?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Their ancestral lands !
which one do you mean, Germany, Russia , Britain, France, Morocco, Yemen......
RocketJSquirell
Member
Lyndon - you are making false assumptions. 1 there is no military occupation of anywhere by Israel. 2. Jews have lived continuously in Israel for 4,000 year. No one else may make that claim. As always facts matter. It would help if you could respect facts and stop relying on anti-Israel propaganda. .
RocketJSquirell
Member
Feargod - The ancestral land of the Jewish people is Israel. Try to keep up.
Shusha
Member
Lyndon,
It seems to me that even though you have failed to address my questions about why Abbas did not accept a peace treaty, which is also the implied question in the OP, you and Feargod have adequately demonstrated the answer. There is no such thing as a peace treaty which will be acceptable to Abbas, the Palestinians, Arabs and others like you. Because the fundamental issue is not peace, and the fundamental issue is not establishing another Palestinian State. The fundamental issue is the lack of right to self-determination of the Jewish people.
But above, you did not quite answer my question about that right of the Jewish people. You instead named conditions on the expression of sovereignty and self-determination. I am asking a much simpler question: do the Jewish people have the right to self-determination on historical lands?
The conditions you have placed on the board are: military might, "leaving" and the length of time that has passed. Would you say that if those conditions were fulfilled the Jewish people would have an inherent and humanitarian right to sovereign self-determination? Or would you say that even if those conditions were fulfilled, the Jewish people still would not have this right?
(I am making the assumption that you do not dispute the historical connection of the Jewish people to the lands in question. Some people do. If you are one of those, now would be the time to tell me.)
Shusha
Member
Is your comment intended to mean that the Jewish people do, in fact, have rights to national self-determination but that those rights should be exercised with sovereignty over portions of Germany, Russia, Britain, France, Morocco, Yemen, etc? Or do you intend to say that the Jewish people have no rights to national self-determination anywhere? And if its the latter, why? (In other words what is your criteria for the right of a group to self-determination?)