|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Many on this board will gloat over that fact but it contains a lot of pain, suffering, death and saddness.... |
Many?
Really?
Who exactly here do you think is "gloating" over the situation in the Middle East?
Or do you mean gloating overt the fact that you are admitting you are wrong?
"be surprised" is more accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I agree with both points.............never said I didn't.
I have said in the past that -- the right of return must be addressed. Didn't mean that Palestinians MUST be able to return but like the author says, they will be given something in return (cmpensation, territory) for disavowing themselves of this claim.
Yes, Arafat should have said YES. In retrospect it is evident. But there was also Israeli meddling in the decision making process that made saying Yes, problematic. Hard to say YES when Arafat knew that his people didn't want the agreement (for many reasons). I still think he and the Palestinians were wrong not to accept and I wish Arafat had shown leadership , courage , instead of looking at his bank account.............but this is not to say ALWAYS Palestinians reject peace. They only , as any culture, want their pride and historical wrongs addressed on some substantive level...
DD |
No Sari Nussbehia , Mohamad Dihlan and Abu Abbas do want peace. However Arafat , Hamas and holy war group don't want peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Ddeubel wrote:
| Quote: |
| Yes, Arafat should have said YES. In retrospect it is evident. |
That is debatable.
| Quote: |
The Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term. The new Palestine couldn't have had a military and wouldn't have had sovereignty over its air space�Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians' freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed. At least one east-west Israeli-controlled road would slice all the way across the West Bank, and Israel would be entitled to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn't cross the road. Imagine if a mortal enemy of America's�say the Soviet Union during the Cold War�was legally entitled to stop the north-south flow of Americans and American commerce. Don't you think the average American might ask: Wait a minute�who negotiated this deal?
|
http://www.slate.com/id/2064500/ |
Camp David summer of 2000 was an opening offer
what about Taba? Late 2000
What about Bill Clintons' offer Late 2000?
Right of return and not just taking compensation has been a deal breaker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
