The Right of Return
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
this shouldn't stop you from answering the question by the way... thats the subject of this thread, as per the OP... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96747 ... and the issue won't go away, you know that...
it can only get much worse until that's solved... and not many people wish that... except perhaps our friend brickhead on this thread, some arch-zionist maniacs and some islamist radicals and other terrorists from both sides etc... choose your camp
it can only get much worse until that's solved... and not many people wish that... except perhaps our friend brickhead on this thread, some arch-zionist maniacs and some islamist radicals and other terrorists from both sides etc... choose your camp
Indeed it is and yours is not even worth 2cents. Every record indicates that the offer of compensation for the refugees was there. It was confirmed by Clinton, by all other participants of the negotiations, it was never denied by Arafat either. The best you could come up with is word parsing and a couple of obscure quotes uttered by obscure "negotiators" in obscure context in the middle of negotiations.
They may have indeed said that in the middle of negotiations and even those quotes don't exclude the possibility of compensation but there is absolutely no doubt that at the end of the day the offer to compensate the refugees was on the table, supported and guaranteed by Israel, the US and the international community and the offer was rejected by Arafat in principle.
So keep trying to rewrite history, you're only making a fool of yourself as you clearly don't have a leg to stand on.
Just because the amount was not discussed or was discussed and is confidential does not mean that it was the sticking point. In fact if it was the sticking point you would have heard about it from Arafat himself, every member of his team, every reporter, every newspaper, every anti-Israeli web site and every antisemite.
The fact is the offer was rejected in principle, not because they could not agree on the amount. It's quite obvious that money was not an object, if not Israel, the international communtiy would have been more than happy to raise as much money as necessary to satisfy even the most absurd Palestinian demands if that meant peace in the Middle East.
Do you actually understand how lame your attempts to find excuses (any excuses no matter how absurd they may be) have become?
the opposite is quite obvious...
putting aside that its a human right we are talking about here, not a falafel, you guys failed cause the approach is wrong from the get-go, and quite possibly on purpose... you love this blame game don't you?...
basically if one wants to buy an option, and there is no market for that option, and nobody will take EoIs, one has to make a qualified offer... and if people scoff, raise the offer... until there is a market...
sorry am talking to you like you were some sort of tool but judging from appearances...
now why would a good guy like you attempt to obfuscate a thread looking from the OP at what would be "just" compensation for people willing to waive their UNGA-sanctioned right of return? what does that achieve?
particularly if as you keep repeating, a proper offer has already been made... just give us the details and we're done!
particularly if as you keep repeating, a proper offer has already been made... just give us the details and we're done!
I'll repeat it once again for you: Just because the amount was not discussed or was discussed and is confidential does not mean that it was the sticking point. If it was the sticking point you would have heard about it from Arafat himself, every member of his team, every reporter, every newspaper, every anti-Israeli web site and every antisemite. The offer was rejected by Arafat in principle, not because they could not agree on the amount.
PS I showed you that the offer was indeed made, it's your turn to demonstrate that it was rejected because the amount was low. That's your assertion and the burden of proof is therefore on you. Without any credible evidence to support your claims you're grasping at straws trying to defend an indefensible position.