In West Bank, barrier threatens Roman terraces

[Ordie]

IIRC, Clinton blames Arafat for the impasse.

But as Climber alluted, he probably did not have the mandate to close the deal.

[Camera]

Clinton tells that the last day of his presidency, Arafat phoned him and told him that he was a great man and a great president. And Clinton answered Arafat that he wasn't. He told Arafat that if he was a great president, he would not let him fail the peace talks.
Clinton was unable to understand how Aeafat could reject the great deal that was offered to him. I think he did not realize that whatever the conditions a deal with Arafat was impossible. Peace was not in his nature.


@Climber: Arafat was not that sick yet.

[GB_FXST]

But as Climber alluted, he probably did not have the mandate to close the deal.

Which begs the questions of 1) who will ever have the moral authority to make a deal, and 2) how will that deal survive what may just be a cult of personality?

As we see with Egypt, survivability is not a trivial matter.

[Ordie]

Peace was not in his nature.

Perhaps being placed in a compromising position wasn't his nature either.
In his career, there was always a 'way out' (Jordan, Beirut, Tunisia).

Ironically....he was literally cornered in his office.

[Camera]

But as Climber alluted, he probably did not have the mandate to close the deal.

I have my own opinion on this question.
When Arafat was finally offered the opportunity to have a Palestinian State, he did not wanted it. He preferred launch another Intifada either than becoming a president of a new Third world country. War was much more romantic choice for this man who saw himself as a revolutionary. He was not made for peace, that's why I said it was not in his nature. That's my opinion.

[Ordie]

Which begs the questions of 1) who will ever have the moral authority to make a deal, and 2) how will that deal survive what may just be a cult of personality?

As we see with Egypt, survivability is not a trivial matter.

1) It takes moral courage. Both Sadat and Rabin paid that price.
2) Only Nixon could go to China.

[Ordie]

I have my own opinion on this question.
When Arafat was finally offered the opportunity to have a Palestinian State, he did not wanted it. He preferred launch another Intifada either than becoming a president of a new Third world country. War was much more romantic choice for this man who saw himself as a revolutionary. He was not made for peace, that's why I said it was not in his nature. That's my opinion.

That's a valid point.
Very much like Che Guevarra who hated running a bureaucracy in Cuba.

[Climber]

I have my own opinion on this question.
When Arafat was finally offered the opportunity to have a Palestinian State, he did not wanted it. He preferred launch another Intifada either than becoming a president of a new Third world country. War was much more romantic choice for this man who saw himself as a revolutionary. He was not made for peace, that's why I said it was not in his nature. That's my opinion.

When finally offered the opportunity he already knew, he always knew, that he wouldn't have the power to enforce it, nor the will, he preferred to survive, and that Fatah survive. He was already very sick with AIDS, and He didn't want to look like they guy who made "the peace" with the yahuds in the history books also.

[EITAN88]

How do you know?
Were you at the talks?

Because Arafat's role in the planning and managment of the Second Intifadah is known to everyone.

[Hollis]

I have my own opinion on this question.
When Arafat was finally offered the opportunity to have a Palestinian State, he did not wanted it. He preferred launch another Intifada either than becoming a president of a new Third world country. War was much more romantic choice for this man who saw himself as a revolutionary. He was not made for peace, that's why I said it was not in his nature. That's my opinion.

There could be more to this story. He made his billions on the violence (3+ billion). His wife lived very well in France.

The conflict was not limited to Palestine and Israel. It was part of the greater battles of the cold war, it has been used by dictators to maintain the oppression of their own people, etc. Arafat was a terrorist for hire. Often with people like him, it was not just himself in control.

The rejection of having a Palestinian state, probably shows that the real goal was never a two state solution. If he was for the Palestinian people, he would have accepted the deal and built from there. The other aspect, the billions in support that the PA/PLO received on a global level would probably diminish to some lesser degree. Arafat wealth and global fame was based on violence.

It has been one of the most successful run propaganda campaigns in out life time.

The other part, he may not have had the control of the PA necessary to become a state. The other terrorist's organization that operated with immunity, validity was based on terrorism. A state solution would have force them to cease their attacks. That could have created a bigger problem, a kind of civil war in Palestine.

To be a states, the state needs to operate by rule of law. The Palestinian people would be given basic human rights, like free speech. So far under Arafat, a Palestinian free speech often ended with being dragged out into the street, shot and hung from a lamp post.

The other consideration is that promoting over 50 years of hate is difficult to reverse.

Probably the other noticeable contribution to maintain the violence, is to watch how it has been used by neighboring countries, including Iran.

If the struggle was for the Liberation of the Palestinian people and their own state, the conflict would have ended long ago. There are and were just to many other parties and states that have a interest in maintaining the conflict. If it was only a cold war issue, it probably should have ended by now.

I think it is important that there is a two State solution. While it may not completely end the violence it would alter how other countries play their part in the continuation of the violence in Israel and Palestine.

[KoTeMoRe]

If you pretend you were right with your non-sensical posts, do provide an answer to post #121: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post6172556



I know some of the best (in Paris) and never had to deal with mediocrity in this regard.








EDIT:
Let's be clear. The procedure in UNESCO might have been legal, but no one on the thread could understand its legal basis. And instead of explaining us its legality, as a lawyer should do, you produced legal BS from your first post on the thread up to now.

Golden. So it is legal, but you could not understand the legality? Please get off your high horse. You knowing the best of Paris Barreau? I somehow doubt that. Especially after telling me lawyers are efficient.

Legal BS? EITAN said UNESCO breached the UN charter, I said no. Guess who's bullsh!ting who?

Mein Teil: What does earning anything have to do with being legally fit to be a UNESCO member? What does the Nobel Prize comitee have to do with the UN? On a side note, the UN did what its members wanted to do. Among them was the US, Russia and the other Permanent members. I can hardly fault the UN as an idea, but I can point to inividua members of the UN who use it for their own political endeavours.

They actually are doeing a better job than both the US and the EU. And so you know there is/was no Issue between the Republic of Albania an Republic of Serbia. Maybe you would have mistaken Kosovo with Albania.

Terribly misguided? For what willing to have a modicum of fairness in this world?

[GB_FXST]

Golden. So it is legal, but you could not understand the legality? Please get off your high horse. You knowing the best of Paris Barreau? I somehow doubt that. Especially after telling me lawyers are efficient.

Legal BS? EITAN said UNESCO breached the UN charter, I said no. Guess who's bullsh!ting who?

Mein Teil: What does earning anything have to do with being legally fit to be a UNESCO member? What does the Nobel Prize comitee have to do with the UN? On a side note, the UN did what its members wanted to do. Among them was the US, Russia and the other Permanent members. I can hardly fault the UN as an idea, but I can point to inividua members of the UN who use it for their own political endeavours.

They actually are doeing a better job than both the US and the EU. And so you know there is/was no Issue between the Republic of Albania an Republic of Serbia. Maybe you would have mistaken Kosovo with Albania.

Terribly misguided? For what willing to have a modicum of fairness in this world?

Who is they?

[Climber]

Who is they?

He either means UN or UNESCO

[KoTeMoRe]

The UN Agencies in the Balkans. Review Mein Teil's post.

[YourImaginaryStalker]

Destroying roman architecture thats just wrong, plus it's still serving a proposing even today which is amazing.