Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

But why did the Palestinians reject the peace deals that gave them almost everything that they wanted. 

There were no such peace deals.

The peace deals were always designed to screw them over and leave them with crumbs.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Me to ChatGPT: What percentage of the West bank was offered to the Palestinians in The 2000, camp david summit with Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat?

ChatGPT:

At the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak reportedly offered the Palestinians between 91-95% of the West Bank along with additional land swaps from within Israel to compensate for the annexation of major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank.

However, the exact details of the offer remain a subject of debate, as no formal written proposal was presented. Additionally, the offer included shared sovereignty or special arrangements for parts of East Jerusalem, including religious sites. The Palestinians, led by Yasser Arafat, did not accept the proposal, citing concerns over the size and quality of the land being offered, sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and other issues such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

The summit ended without an agreement, and the lack of clarity around the details of the proposal has fueled continued controversy and differing interpretations of what was offered.

 

 

 

 

Me to ChatGPT: What was the result of this summit?

ChatGPT: The 2000 Camp David Summit, hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton and attended by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, ended without an agreement on a final-status peace deal. The summit's failure had significant political and social consequences for both sides, as well as for the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Key Results and Consequences:

No Peace Agreement:

• The parties could not agree on critical issues such as borders, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, security arrangements, and settlements.
• The lack of a formal agreement deepened mistrust between the two sides.

Blame and Controversy:

• The U.S. and Israel largely blamed Arafat for the failure, accusing him of rejecting a generous offer and not presenting a counterproposal.
• The Palestinians argued that the Israeli proposal fell short of meeting their minimum requirements for sovereignty, particularly regarding East Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees.

Outbreak of the Second Intifada:

• Shortly after the summit, in September 2000, the Second Intifada (a widespread Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule) broke out, leading to years of violent conflict.
• While the direct link between the summit's failure and the intifada is debated, the breakdown of negotiations contributed to the frustration and unrest.

Political Fallout:

• Ehud Barak's government faced significant criticism in Israel, leading to his political defeat in the 2001 elections to Ariel Sharon.
• Yasser Arafat's leadership was further scrutinized internationally, and his position as a peace partner was undermined.

Clinton's Frustration:

• President Clinton expressed disappointment with the outcome, particularly with Arafat's stance. In his later accounts, he criticized Arafat for missing an opportunity to achieve peace.

Shift in Negotiation Dynamics:

• The summit set a precedent for discussing final-status issues in detail but also revealed how entrenched and irreconcilable the positions of both sides were at the time.
• It contributed to the loss of momentum in the peace process, leading to years of stagnation.

The Camp David Summit remains a pivotal moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often seen as a missed opportunity for peace. It highlighted the deep divisions and the challenges in resolving one of the most protracted conflicts in modern history.

 

 

 

 

Me: How much land was offered in 2008?

ChatGPT: 

In 2008, during the negotiations led by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert reportedly offered the Palestinians approximately 93-94% of the West Bank, along with land swaps equivalent to an additional 5-6% from Israeli territory. This would have effectively given the Palestinians a state with roughly 98% of the West Bank's total area.

Key Details of the Offer:

Land Swaps:

• Olmert proposed annexing major Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank while compensating the Palestinians with land from within Israel.
• The proposed land swaps were intended to make the Palestinian state contiguous and address the realities of large Israeli settlement blocs.

Jerusalem:

• Olmert offered shared sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem.
• The Old City, including its holy sites, would be governed by an international committee comprised of representatives from Israel, Palestine, the United States, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Palestinian Refugees:

• Olmert proposed allowing a limited number of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel as part of a broader solution but did not agree to the "right of return" as framed by the Palestinians.

Outcome:

• Mahmoud Abbas did not accept the offer, and negotiations broke down. Abbas later cited concerns over the lack of a detailed map and reservations about some aspects of the proposal, including the territorial swaps and the arrangement for Jerusalem.
• Olmert's legal and political troubles, including corruption charges that eventually forced his resignation, contributed to the collapse of the talks.

Legacy:

• The 2008 offer is often cited as one of the most comprehensive peace proposals made to the Palestinians. However, like earlier attempts, it failed to bridge the fundamental gaps between the two sides on key final-status issues such as borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees.

[Nivsch]

@Husseinisdoingfine I remember that when I was a kid. The negotiations lasted long time and there were trials even after the 2nd intifada started. Let alone before that. Many many times. Always failed.

I believe that Bibi wanted them to fail, but not at all Olmert and Barak that been called traitors by the Right wingers. And Itzhak Rabin of course the most dedicated prime minister for peace.

Barak and Olmert really wanted that and with them the whole liberal camp. 

Unfortunately the more it failed, the less Israelis kept believing it.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Nivsch

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Israel offers the Palestinians the foundation of a two state solution, offering the Palestinians all this land. Instead of negotiating, they [🇵🇸] launch an Intifada. Despite launching an Intifada, Israeli leaders again offer the West Bank, and leave the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians instead of turning Gaza into the next Singapore or Hong Kong, turn it into a terror base. 

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Nivsch]

11 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Israel offers the Palestinians the foundation of a two state solution, offering the Palestinians all this land. Instead of negotiating, they [🇵🇸] launch an Intifada. Despite launching an Intifada, Israeli leaders again offer the West Bank, and leave the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians instead of turning Gaza into the next Singapore or Hong Kong, turn it into a terror base. 

And Israel left one-sidedly Gaza in 2005 but only got more rockets in return.

If Israel wanted to conquer Gaza it wouldn't bother to invest Billion of dollars in security upper and undergound (novel technology even) fences.

What, again, shows us that each time there is a camp (Liberals vs Messianic) that get more dominant in the decision making processes, and I don't need to tell you which camp is on the driver seat today.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Nivsch

[Raze]

10 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Israel offers the Palestinians the foundation of a two state solution, offering the Palestinians all this land. Instead of negotiating, they [🇵🇸] launch an Intifada. Despite launching an Intifada, Israeli leaders again offer the West Bank, and leave the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians instead of turning Gaza into the next Singapore or Hong Kong, turn it into a terror base. 

 

In Barak’s deal it was 96% of what israel considered the West Bank, that didn’t include settlements, the Dead Sea, or the Jordan valley. Agreeing means israel annexes 10% of the West Bank and keeps temporary control of 12%.

It also required permanent Israeli control of airspace, three Israeli controlled military bases in the West Bank, Israel presence at border crossings, and giving israel the right to invade when they feel necessary.

The deal also didn’t allow Palestinian sovereignty in most of east jeresulem including Palestinian neighborhoods.

It also required letting Israel keep some settlements in the Gaza Strip.

The intifada only began after Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II and Israel settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000, then Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200.

When Israel left the Gaza Strip, they put it under a blockade that in their own words was designed to crush the economy and caused it to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the world , and controlled everything and everyone that got in and out effectively trapping the majority of people inside. So while they did remove Israeli presence from inside Gaza, they still controlled it outside.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Raze

[Nivsch]

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

that didn’t include settlements

Of course you won't evacuate 100K people this is why there is an areas exchanges in the deal. To compensate.

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

It also required permanent Israeli control of airspace, three Israeli controlled military bases in the West Bank, Israel presence at border crossings, and giving israel the right to invade when they feel necessary.

Ask yourself why.

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

The deal also didn’t allow Palestinian sovereignty in most of east jeresulem including Palestinian neighborhoods.

This is de-facto an Arab dominant area all the time.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

The West Bank was carved up into disconnected islands by settlements to ensure that it could never unify into a proper and successful state.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

8 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Of course you won't evacuate 100K people this is why there is an areas exchanges in the deal. To compensate.

Then an exchange would be agreeing to the right of return and letting Palestinians still alive from the Nakba return to Israel 

8 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Ask yourself why.

To remove their ability to defend themselves and have full self determination

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, Raze said:

When Israel left the Gaza Strip, they put it under a blockade that in their own words was designed to crush the economy and caused it to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the world , and controlled everything and everyone that got in and out effectively trapping the majority of people inside. So while they did remove Israeli presence from inside Gaza, they still controlled it outside.

This has truth but oversimplified because much of this blockade was a security necessity. Don't forget you have to secure a terror state from leaking outside.

[Nivsch]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

Then an exchange would be agreeing to the right of return and letting Palestinians still alive from the Nakba return to Israel 

It can be but I meant to give them other areas.

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

To remove their ability to defend themselves and have full self determination

In Israeli perspective is to prevent dangerous terror attacks that can get out of control.

[Nivsch]

@Raze Also Israel has entered 200-400 trucks of basic needs to Gaza in average every day for 18 years. This is aid around the clock.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Nivsch

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Leave and go where? 

Surrounding countries, Europe, Asia, North Africa, America, Israel maybe.

The how can be figured out. See who's willing to take in refugees.

[Raze]

4 minutes ago, Basman said:

Surrounding countries, Europe, Asia, North Africa, America, Israel maybe.

The how can be figured out. See who's willing to take in refugees.

The surrounding countries don’t want to be blamed for enabling ethnic cleansing, they are also poor and can’t handle another huge influx of refugees. 

Europe and America won’t take them.

Israel is the one expelling them.

[Basman]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

The surrounding countries don’t want to be blamed for enabling ethnic cleansing, they are also poor and can’t handle another huge influx of refugees. 

Europe and America won’t take them.

Israel is the one expelling them.

That's a problem.

[Raze]

 

 

[Nivsch]

Major General (Res.) Yom Tov Samia:

"Today's Likud is not the Likud we were accustomed to 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Today's Likud is a crazy entity that has brought in Ben Gvir and Smotrich and is leading us to destruction."

Edited December 30, 2024 by Nivsch

[Twentyfirst]

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaD5-OM7MUChw0UWFWfRHuA5aNHR84tz-&si=q-xYeXAwwhda2ps4

 

[Twentyfirst]

Just now, Twentyfirst said:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaD5-OM7MUChw0UWFWfRHuA5aNHR84tz-&si=q-xYeXAwwhda2ps4

 

There is so much truth drops in this playlist that there is no way you can deny reality. It’s not even an argument anymore. The west has been rotten from the beginning 

[Raze]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-18/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-expose-arbitrary-killings-and-rampant-lawlessness-in-gazas-netzarim-corridor/00000193-da7f-de86-a9f3-fefff2e50000
 

Quote

"One time, guards spotted someone approaching from the south. We responded as if it was a large militant raid. We took positions and just opened fire. I'm talking about dozens of bullets, maybe more. For about a minute or two, we just kept shooting at the body. People around me were shooting and laughing."

But the incident didn't end there. "We approached the blood-covered body, photographed it, and took the phone. He was just a boy, maybe 16." An intelligence officer collected the items, and hours later, the fighters learned the boy wasn't a Hamas operative – but just a civilian. 

"That evening, our battalion commander congratulated us for killing a terrorist, saying he hoped we'd kill ten more tomorrow," the fighter adds. "When someone pointed out he was unarmed and looked like a civilian, everyone shouted him down. The commander said: 'Anyone crossing the line is a terrorist, no exceptions, no civilians. Everyone's a terrorist.'

 

Quote

An officer in Division 252's command recalls when the IDF spokesperson announced their forces had killed over 200 militants. "Standard procedure requires photographing bodies and collecting details when possible, then sending evidence to intelligence to verify militant status or at least confirm they were killed by the IDF," he explains. "Of those 200 casualties, only ten were confirmed as known Hamas operatives. Yet no one questioned the public announcement about killing hundreds of militants."

Quote

Another fighter describes witnessing four unarmed people walking normally, spotted by a surveillance drone. Despite clearly not appearing as militants, a tank advanced and opened fire with its machine gun. "Hundreds of bullets," he recalls. Three died immediately ("the sight haunts me," he says), while the fourth survived and raised his hands in surrender. 

"We put him in a cage set up near our position, stripped off his clothes, and left him there," the soldier recounts. "Soldiers passing by spat on him. It was disgusting. Finally, a military interrogator came, questioned him briefly while holding a gun to his head, then ordered his release." The man had simply been trying to reach his uncles in northern Gaza. "Later, officers praised us for killing 'terrorists.' I couldn't understand what they meant," the fighter says

Quote

This approach isn't limited to Division 252. A Division 99 reservist describes watching a drone feed showing "an adult with two children crossing the forbidden line." They were walking unarmed, seemingly searching for something. "We had them under complete surveillance with the drone and weapons aimed at them – they couldn't do anything," he says. "Suddenly we heard a massive explosion. A combat helicopter had fired a missile at them. Who thinks it's legitimate to fire a missile at children? And with a helicopter?