GG Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Actually, there's probably quite a few Jews who would agree with that assessment. Most Europeans, quite a few Americans, in fact probably most of the world's population. 110274[/snapback] The beauty of the old global test. Even though you limeys also have a general distaste for the Continent, I'm especially having a hard time reconciling Chirac's visit to Arafat's bedside while conveniently making alternate plans for Allawi's visit om Friday. Thus, excuse me if the world's (UN's) endorsement of Arafat and beatings on Sharon ring shallow between these ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 There's some truth in that, though I would dispute the assertion that the Palestinians were offered 97% of what they were asking for. Maybe in terms of pure land area it was 97% but there was to be limitations placed on Palestinian statehood and how do you quantify Jerusalem? In addition, some West Bank settlements were to be retained by Israel though they proposed giving up other land by way of exchange (going on memory, the land offered contained a number of toxic waste dumps). 110350[/snapback] Maybe so, but it would have been a good pace to start, right? No one was saying that further negations couldn't happen. Also, wouldn't Arfats people be better of today if he would have took the deal. I bet they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The beauty of the old global test. Even though you limeys also have a general distaste for the Continent, I'm especially having a hard time reconciling Chirac's visit to Arafat's bedside while conveniently making alternate plans for Allawi's visit om Friday. Thus, excuse me if the world's (UN's) endorsement of Arafat and beatings on Sharon ring shallow between these ears. 110371[/snapback] I never actually disagreed with the characterisation of Arafat as a "thug", just stated that Sharon was one also. Given Sharon's history, I don't think that's such an unfair assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Maybe so, but it would have been a good pace to start, right? No one was saying that further negations couldn't happen. Also, wouldn't Arfats people be better of today if he would have took the deal. I bet they would. 110372[/snapback] Yes, it would have been a good place to start. The Palestinians would be better off if they'd taken the deal but the problem was that there was no way he could sell such a deal to his people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 There's some truth in that, though I would dispute the assertion that the Palestinians were offered 97% of what they were asking for. Maybe in terms of pure land area it was 97% but there was to be limitations placed on Palestinian statehood and how do you quantify Jerusalem? In addition, some West Bank settlements were to be retained by Israel though they proposed giving up other land by way of exchange (going on memory, the land offered contained a number of toxic waste dumps). 110350[/snapback] Toxic waste dumps- at last a source of revenue! Thre's nothing else there. Moses picked the only spot in the ME with no oil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I hope it hurts when he dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts