OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,666
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
When Sadat offered peace, he asked Arafat and the Palestinian people to join him since his terms with the zionists were not only the full return of Sinai to Egypt, but withdrawal to pre-1967 borders for the Palestinian nation and the zionists at the time were very close to agreeing to that. It was only a matter of working out the full details at Camp David. At the time, the consensus was the Jews were most likely not going to give up full control of Jerusalem as it was pre-1967 when it was under Jordan's full control, being they wanted security and complete control of the Jewish religious sites. But he was adamant about finding a solution. Arafat refused. He spoke for the Palestinians and that was perfectly fine, it was and still is their prerogative. So did Hafez Al Assad and King Hussein and even Elias Sarkis adamantly rejected the offer.
You asked where does Gaza stand in this bilateral peace and that was it. The Palestinians have the same thought process as the zionist; it's all for one and one for all, no exceptions and if that's what they've chosen, God bless them a zillion times. I don't hold that against them for a millisecond.
But how is full ownership of this holy land ultimately going to happen? How many innocent people have to die for either side to lay full claim? Would an agreement at the time of Sadat's attempted peace gave everyone an opportunity to live and prosper without all this death and destruction and ultimate sacrifice we've seen for the last 56 years?
Now please, yourself and every member on this thread; please take roughly 8 minutes of your time and watch these brief snippets of the interview by BBC of President Sadat in 1977 when he had made the offers of peace in exchange for ALL -- and I reiterate ALL -- occupied lands pre-1967. That included the West Bank/Jordan, the Golan Heights even Lebanon and of course, Sinai. How he really understood the essence of the land and its importance to ALL the Arabs and Muslims. More importantly how he wanted to include all. This will enhance everyone's perspective about the history and how we are where we are today, all of us.
Forgive my inability to express my position plainly to be understood in the desired context.
I listened to Sadat and I heard a man who did bargain from a position of weakness. "I'm not ready to bargain on my land, at all!"
He says immediately retorting to 1967 borders! May be I miss heard... yes he was making a compromise in every sentence with a qualification... A rump state Egypt was his answer...
A Sinai demilitarised zone... a UN peace keeping force, even American boots are to be considered etc.
"And the Arab land!"
Remember Palestinians are already under occupation, were occupied and Isreal immediately increased in size right after it's U.N backed creation. A rump state Palestine only ties their hands further... when they can keep giving it away both on the negotiating table and on the field. Remember their IS or was NO ONE(as opposed to full might and support of the collective west for the zionist homeland), in equal capacity and strength to help Palestinians force their will on the battlefield.
So, what do we have on the table... Arafat is gone, Sadat, and Mubarak as well... we have a rump West Bank in straight jacket and rump state Egypt tied in accords, to the hilt, handcuffed and unable to do anything except witness, ONLY in hopes that when they're done with Gaza they'd not seek Sinai!
And as I mentioned in my previous post... judging by history... American history and accords with the natives. That these pieces of paper only help keep the belligerent take out it's foes one at a time, at it's foremost will and at the peak of it's capacity and at the time of it's choosing. The victim just keeps seeking all the shade, protection and time it can by complying to it's end of the bargain, only to be brought to the slaughterhouse with all knots still tied.
I suggest, maybe, you check, who you bargained with, before hiding behind those, for the apparent safety they offer.
It is limited and the expiration date isn't listed.
American Indian treaties offer an amazing insight. But as I said those aren't alone.
As Thucydides said,
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Last edited: