I’ve lived in Detroit. My first instinct was that this was a hate crime. That being said…stabbings , running people over with cars etc are pretty common. You don’t stop at stop signs or go to most of downtown at night. It’s a dystopian and tribal culture unlike any place I’ve ever lived in. The suburbs even carry that stain, minus a lot of the inner city crime
I don't know if it was a hate crime or not, just seemed odd to me that the Detroit police say that for sure it wasn't, when they haven't even arrested anyone. How would they know?
They didn't say for sure. They said they don't believe. That is not sure. They didn't detail the investigation, but do have somebody they suspect and may know more about the motive.
Agreed. Hamas are terrorists. They shouldn't be part of any deal. They should be removed from power. I'm not talking about any deals with Hamas. I'm talking about deals without Hamas and deals that might help motivate Palestinians to be the ones to get rid of Hamas which would reduce their civilian casualties and also allow them to take responsibility and start building their own economy, which helps Israel's security going forward. Of course that would mean Israel doesn't get all the areas they want either.
I thought the number was closer to 90%. Doesn't matter. They would need control of the water, and be able to dig wells, irrigate. The water and other resources are only in a very small area. The Palestinians were getting more than they had, but not nothing that could sustain them. I was in favor of the deal. I felt like maybe if others would help give them aid, it could be workable. But there isn't really any point in arguing about past deals, unless we're talking about pre-'67 borders.
Those were all issues but those were fixable. Those were not the reason why multiple deals fell through. At the end of the day, Arafat saw what happened to Rabin and Sadat after they signed peace deals. Anyone who signed the deal on the Palestinian side (and quite possibly the Israeli side) had a good chance of being assassinated. The poison pills in the deal (Palestinian right of return to pre 1948 territory and quibbling about the location of land swaps) were stalling tactics because Arafat and Erekat were terrified that they weren't long for this world. The blowback among militant factions after signing Oslo emphasized how tenuous his position was among Palestinians. President Clinton very clearly told him that the deal that Barak was offering was the best the Palestinians would ever get and that he'd end up creating a much worse fate if he rejected the deal. And sure enough, Netanyahu undermines Barak from the outside after the Second Intifada and then gets elected the first time (and proceeds to immediately dismantle the peace process). The very sad reality is that leaders on both sides had to be ready to die for the deal to go through. We had one last opportunity with Olmert and that one probably wasn't far off either but its the same story. Abbas wasn't ready to sign the deal and in this case, Bush screwed up the whole thing by forcing the Palestinians to hold elections before the peace deal (which led to Hamas winning and ultimately taking control of Gaza). Abbas consequently had to deal with an internal civil war while concurrently negotiating a deal. Plus, Hamas started launching terrorist attacks against Israel from Gaza which completely destroyed the deal being negotiated.
That may well be. But either way, making a deal that wouldn't be sustainable would only end up resulting in discontent down the road. It was ultimately a bad deal for the Palestinians, just the best they'd had in a long time. Unless there is a workable sustainable state, it will be bad at some point. Better to make a lasting deal. The best way for a leader to reduce likelihood of being killed is to offer something workable and better.
You have to label Hamas as more than mere terrorists because then you'd be against the formation of the IDF as it was formed from three militias groups that were recognized as terrorist organizations by the Brits and other western governments. Then Israel became a officially recognized nation state There is a long history of recognized terror groups eventually getting statehood and then international community officially recognized them. Same with the ANC. It was officially recognized as a terrorist organization until it became a political party that headed a new recognized state of South Africa no governed by the Boers. So Hamas has to be more than mere "terrorists" for us to believe they are unsalvageable in a long term peace process.
It wasn't a perfect deal but everyone saw the writing on the wall. This was the best possible framework and there wasn't going to be a better one in the future. President Clinton clearly called this out during the negotiations. Barak very clearly stated that he'd probably suffer major consequences for the deal and he was ready to fall on that sword. Arafat absolutely shouldve taken the deal and negotiated for the best deal possible within that framework rather than trying to negotiate for impossible demands like pre-1948 right of return. We are living in fantasyland if we think a better deal was going to happen. It simply wasn't. Labor's ability to form a government in Israel was already on borrowed time and Sharon/Netanyahu were actively trying to destroy the deal. There is no world where Arafat can create a magic deal that meets your scenario. And there was no point in wasting time back then imagining such a scenario. He and Erekat did the Palestinians a huge disservice by pretending that such a deal was possible. He had an honest negotiating partner in Barak and a US president that was equally committed. Barak and Labor were ready to basically destroy their political future to get a deal but Arafat wasn't ready to make the same commitment.
Like I said, I was in favor of the deal, but it still would have ended badly. The problem is that the parties haven't been willing to make a workable deal. It won't be easy and may be impossible. But it should still be the goal.
What we need to do, as much as possible, is move on from the past and deal with what we have now. It does no good to try and punish the IDF for what happened before their formation. That is something to be aware of, but shouldn't be a sticking point. We are where we are and need to deal with those specifics now. If the Palestinians truly had a sustainable self-governing state, the IDF wouldn't be an issue. There has been hypocrisy and a list of wrongs in the past from all sides and doesn't matter if one was worse than the other. What matters is dealing now with the situation that exists and circumstances that are present now. If we want to go forward, that's what it will take. It would take a UN type force to help provide security and justice and be able hold off the mistrust from both sides. Any solution would require a multi-lateral coalition to provide money, personnel, supplies and resources to make things work.
I guess I disagree on your part about the deal being un-workable. The 2000 deal was absolutely workable. If Arafat is truly ready to sign a deal, water rights and the logistics of the land swap get resolved and that creates the workable deal. In 2000, there is no Hamas running Gaza. They are present in Gaza and did launch some attacks but its nothing compared to their presence in the mid 2000s. Additionally, the PLO has absolute control of the machinery of the PA at this time in Gaza and the West Bank. In 2000, there isn't the full border wall (I think only Gaza had the border fence at this time) and there's a lot more free movement of people and goods. In fact, the Israelis were handing out a lot more work permits to Palestinians and encouraging this type of movement because there was a general belief in integrating the two economies. Now the 2006 deal wasn't workable in reality. There are way too many militant elements and Hamas gained control of Gaza. Because the number of settlements had grown, the actual West Bank boundaries had turned into swiss cheese. Sharon and Netanyahu had already poisoned public opinion so the deal being discussed probably would have failed down the line.
NEGATIVE. The Israelis PM told clinton BEFORE the summit he would agree to 92% but during negotiations at camp david he went up to 96%!!! What do you mean? They controlled their own water supply in West bank and would have control of their own resources. The only thing the Israelis were demanding was air control over west bank. Palestinians had full control over the water way near Gaza
The issue is that Palestinians by nature are right wingers alongside Israelis in israel. When you have 2 right wingers trying to form peace it's always hard by nature. The Palestinians got everything in 2000. The israeli pm had put all of his political capital on securing a deal and were desperate. Again the issue was Yasir thought hamas would capitalize on the deal and push him out of power. He was afraid of being killed even for a cause that was worth it. You need political courage to make big things happen. Biden withdrawing from Afghanistan even though it would make folks upset @rocketsjudoka was a perfect example. Leaders have to make tough decisions
Arafat was also a terrorist, so even though he later changed a little bit, it is questionable how much he really prioritized peace over the hate he grew up with.
Withdrawing from Afghanistan might have been the right decision, my issue with it is HOW it was done. Leaving tons of weapons to extremists, throwing local partners under the bus, etc.
It's just funny when people mention "left weapons" lol. If we thought the Afghan army was going to collapse Why did we spend 100 billion in training their army? Why did we give them billions in advanced weapons and intelligence gathering. I just don't understand from you all why did we ever train the Afghan army if our intention was always to take their weapons away? We didn't take away the ukrianian ability to fight themselves and they fought an army that was 100x more difficult. we spent billions on training the ukrianian army and they stayed and fight. We didn't have to take away their weapons
He had enough $$$ at that point in time (who knew terrorism paid as much as what a kingpin would make?), so who's to say he either mellowed out or liked the idea of cashing out his chips and nobel peace prize in style...
The date for leaving was in stone for years - they knew.....none of the stuff we left had much value, the USA, has stockpiles of crap, which we are now using in the Ukraine. Getting out of that country was the right thing, they had 300k of their own troops that laid down their arms to the 50k or so Taliban - what are you gonna do if they won't even fight for their own country? DD
