Nobel Peace Prize
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: Nobel Peace Prize
How about the deal he could have had with Peres? He had most of what he wanted for a peace deal in 01. Our was not happenstance that those meetings concluded in Davos that year. There was going to be Palestinian state announced and at the world's biggest economic summit private industry was ready to line up and create opportunities for this new country that would have brought jobs, money and, hopefully, stability. And Mr. Peace prize got on stage and what shall over out, probably because an actual Palestinian government would have to deal with the fact that Arafat was not only a murderer but also a thief who stole from his own people.

Regarding Netanyahu, when he wins a Nobel Peace Prize we can have a discussion about what a sham that is too. Arafat was a murderous thug. Giving him a prize for peace was a farce.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2014, 12:40 PM
RE: Nobel Peace Prize
Sorry, auto correct butchered that. Hopefully you followed the plot of that.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Nobel Peace Prize
Quote:Regarding Netanyahu, when he wins a Nobel Peace Prize we can have a discussion about what a sham that is too. Arafat was a murderous thug. Giving him a prize for peace was a farce.

Fair enough.



Quote:Sorry, auto correct butchered that. Hopefully you followed the plot of that.

I did... I think, anyway. I believe you meant the Camp David Summit, though it was in 2000, not '01 and it was with Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, not Peres and Clinton as a broker?

At home Arafat had Hamas rising to challenge PLO, and to make matter worse several of the concessions he made in the Oslo accord was wildly unpopular with his own people.

What I'm trying to say is that Arafat no longer had the political clout to make a peace stick with his own people unless he got two important concessions: The Temple Mound and The Right of Return.

The trouble was that neither could The Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. He too had right political rivals ready to pounce on him if he gave in on those issues. He (Barak that is) bent over backwards to try to come to alternative agreements, he really did. Arafat too gave some big concessions on other issues. But it was not enough, and they both knew it (here I make an educated guess. They both knew and respected each other and they both probably knew what kind of concessions the other part could make).

To make matters worse the summit was an all or nothing approach, meaning "nothing was considered agreed and binding until everything was agreed." Which in my opinion is pure lunacy. If you want a peace you make agreements where you can and temporary measures (ideally with the oversight of a third neutral party) where you cannot, and wait for a time where it is possible to reach a new agreement on those topics. And you make it abundantly clear to the world that it is a temporary measure.

As it all too often is with an all or nothing approach, it came to nothing.

As it was Arafat took the lion share of the blame, which I think suited him just fine. He could make political coin out of that back home where it was sorely needed.

As things stood I'll be buggered if I can see how any of the parties there could do anything else but what they did. Perhaps if the summit had taken a (in my opininon) more sensible approach, they might have salvaged something out of it.

------------------------

Anyway, you can have the last word if you want, but as interesting the topic is, I think we either should move this discussion to another thread or stop and agree to disagree. This thread is about the peace prizes, not about the problems with the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Nobel Peace Prize
I didn't mean to get into a discussing on the Israeli Palestinian situation. My only point was that Arafat was a murdering scumbag and rewarding him for, after a lifetime of being a murdering scumbag , agreeing to maybe try a different approach completely destroyed any integrity that prize may have held. The rest of this ids just noise trying to whitewash what an evil mofo hee actually was.

Btw, I don't believe Israel has clean hands in this dispute, but no one ids offering their leadership any prizes for going a few months without killing a civilian.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2014, 11:28 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2014 02:16 AM by Lunda.)
RE: Nobel Peace Prize
Quote:Btw, I don't believe Israel has clean hands in this dispute, but no one ids offering their leadership any prizes for going a few months without killing a civilian.


Actually they did the same time Arafat got the prize. He shared the prize with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. And in 1978 The Israeli Prime Minister Ezer Weizman shared the prize with Egyptian President Muhammad Anwar El Sadat for making peace with Egypt.

Besides the Nobel Comitee didn't know the peace treaty would go to peaces when they got the prize. They recieved the prize before that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: