Comments on: Fatah Convention: Rejuvenation or Division http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/fatah-convention-rejuvenation-or-division/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:07:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: b99 http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/fatah-convention-rejuvenation-or-division/#comment-51972 b99 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:41:03 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=9780#comment-51972 Arafat was not shown any map, not given any concrete geography. Indeed, the rump state of Palestine likely would have contained 95% of Palestinians (exclusive of refugees) and had nothing to do with getting back that much land. (Arafat's official position had always been that Israel must go back to pre-67 borders.) He would not sign on so they called it a rejection. Taba talks were no more or less subterfuge than were Camp David talks - basically demanding surrender by the Palestnians. Arafat was not shown any map, not given any concrete geography. Indeed, the rump state of Palestine likely would have contained 95% of Palestinians (exclusive of refugees) and had nothing to do with getting back that much land. (Arafat’s official position had always been that Israel must go back to pre-67 borders.) He would not sign on so they called it a rejection. Taba talks were no more or less subterfuge than were Camp David talks – basically demanding surrender by the Palestnians.

]]> By: balkas b b http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/fatah-convention-rejuvenation-or-division/#comment-51961 balkas b b Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:11:11 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=9780#comment-51961 b99, i remember that arafat was quoted as saying that, "they got 78%; they'll not get any part of our 22% of expalestine. i do not recall whether the quote apeared before taba negotiations. Seems to me it was. i remember that finkelstein had said ?prior to taba talks, that the clinton-barak 'land' diktat of 95% consisted of the fact that it refered to % of people in new palestine and not to the % of land. also map of the 'offer' had been published, methinks, also before taba but not in US; for obvious reasons. taba 'talks' appear a pure subterfuge just like all previous talks since Israel cld not afford peace in 1897 let alone '42, '47, '67 nor today. for 'zionists' it always had been: no establishemnt of any israel at any cost. tnx b99,
i remember that arafat was quoted as saying that, “they got 78%; they’ll not get any part of our 22% of expalestine.
i do not recall whether the quote apeared before taba negotiations. Seems to me it was.
i remember that finkelstein had said ?prior to taba talks, that the clinton-barak ‘land’ diktat of 95% consisted of the fact that it refered to % of people in new palestine and not to the % of land.
also map of the ‘offer’ had been published, methinks, also before taba but not in US; for obvious reasons.

taba ‘talks’ appear a pure subterfuge just like all previous talks since Israel cld not afford peace in 1897 let alone ’42, ’47, ’67 nor today.
for ‘zionists’ it always had been: no establishemnt of any israel at any cost. tnx

]]> By: b99 http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/fatah-convention-rejuvenation-or-division/#comment-51959 b99 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:50:45 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=9780#comment-51959 Balkas - Fatah, that is Arafat, did not reject the 2000 Clinton-Barak diktat. There was no concrete offer to reject or accept. In fact, talks between Arafat and Barak continued in Taba, Egypt until which time Barak stalked out to campaign for re-election. Israel was, once again, the rejectionist party. Balkas – Fatah, that is Arafat, did not reject the 2000 Clinton-Barak diktat. There was no concrete offer to reject or accept. In fact, talks between Arafat and Barak continued in Taba, Egypt until which time Barak stalked out to campaign for re-election. Israel was, once again, the rejectionist party.

]]> By: balkas b b http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08/fatah-convention-rejuvenation-or-division/#comment-51954 balkas b b Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:24:49 +0000 http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=9780#comment-51954 however, fatah had rejected in 2000 clinton-barak diktat. the next diktat, probably by obama-netanyahu, even if best, wld most likely be rejected. however, we can expect worst yet diktat. The 'negotiations' appear to have been over the moment they were conducted publically. all that is left to talk about is, which side will use which washroom or dining room. abbas is also charading, methinks. So, why not get some money while 'willing to negotiate'? Arafat did it! Both arafat and abbas know [or shld know] there is, as things stand, no pal'n state available. and money buys people just about everywhere. So, why not take it and, at least, eat and make love in style? abbas is not corrupt; he's just stealing money from s'mone. Good for him! tnx however, fatah had rejected in 2000 clinton-barak diktat.
the next diktat, probably by obama-netanyahu, even if best, wld most likely be rejected.
however, we can expect worst yet diktat. The ‘negotiations’ appear to have been over the moment they were conducted publically.
all that is left to talk about is, which side will use which washroom or dining room.
abbas is also charading, methinks. So, why not get some money while ‘willing to negotiate’? Arafat did it! Both arafat and abbas know [or shld know] there is, as things stand, no pal’n state available.
and money buys people just about everywhere. So, why not take it and, at least, eat and make love in style?
abbas is not corrupt; he’s just stealing money from s’mone. Good for him! tnx

]]>