Skip to main content

View Diary: Explosive leaked documents: The Palestine Papers (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  do bring (6+ / 0-)

    the other side.  thanks

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:39:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I did, by posting the NY Times link (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, Corwin Weber

      and quoting the relevant parts. I'm not arguing that the Israelis were right in rejecting the offer (if indeed this offer happened). I'm objecting to not presenting all of the proposed deal, both concessions and demands.

      "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both."-- Justice Louis Brandeis

      by ubertar on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:43:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And now that you've presented them, (9+ / 0-)

        which are more extreme: the concessions or the demands?

        •  I'd say the concessions, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scientician, Corwin Weber

          and if I were in a position to make the decision for the Israeli side, I would have accepted the deal. So I guess I'm not a good advocate for "the other side". I'm not objecting to the offer, only to Heath's incomplete and therefore distorted presentation of it. Is it so hard to acknowledge there were demands made along with the concessions? This kind of crap is why I've been staying away from I/P lately. Present things fairly and we can have a discussion. Deliberately distort, and there's no starting point.

          "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both."-- Justice Louis Brandeis

          by ubertar on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:53:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't that really the pint of the article?? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Terra Mystica

        the demands by both sides, and the gap?

        Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

        by Eiron on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:50:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the article, yes. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Corwin Weber

          the diary, no. The diary doesn't mention or link to the NY Times article. Or do you mean the Al Jazeera article? It's not good enough to have important info in a link. It should be in the body of the diary.

          "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both."-- Justice Louis Brandeis

          by ubertar on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:54:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  one response, because you're not being serious (21+ / 0-)

            and because you're repeating the same point over and over again, in many different comments, which is close to spam.

            This diary was not an account of 'negotiations', because as far as we know no serious negotiations took place. What is significant about the papers is, inter alia, that they show Palesinian representatives offering Israel far more than what international law demands and what their own people would accept, and Israel still responding with flat rejection. That's what is significant, and that's what all the media coverage has focused on.

            Obviously when I say that Palestinians offered Israel 1.9% landswap, that implies that they "demanded" some Israeli territory in exchange for West Bank territory. And when I say that they offered Israel most of E. Jerusalem, that implies that they "demanded" some of it. But that's not what is significant here, because everyone knows what the standard PA negotiation position has been. In any event, you've added your NYTimes link, and made your point, such as it is. Let's move on.

            •  I've only repeated myself (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Corwin Weber

              because the point went unacknowledged, and people kept repeating the same misunderstanding of it. I'll withdraw my request for deletion, but I think you should edit some to reflect the reality of what the offer was (again, assuming it actually happened). You could have easily made your point while presenting it fairly, but you chose to show it through a distorting lens that magnified some things while diminishing others. There was no need to do that, and it only serves to turn off those who would look at the whole picture and who normally don't find themselves on the same side as you, but in this case would agree with you, and leave you preaching to the choir.

              "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both."-- Justice Louis Brandeis

              by ubertar on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 07:19:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site