Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Arafat walked away from Camp David without a counter-offer because he never wanted a state next to Israel. He wanted a state instead of Israel. Even after that rejection, Clinton made one final push with his parameters (Dec 2000/Jan 2001): a Palestinian state on ~97% of the West Bank...

CptAllenHistory's profile picture

Captain Allen

32,776 subscribers

23,378 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Israelis were jaded about a 2-state solution with good reason long before Oct 7. They elected dovish Ehud Barak over Netanyahu in a LANDSLIDE in 1999 on his promise of “rapid progress toward peace.” Barak put it all on the line at Camp David 2000 - a Palestinian state in the “West Bank,” Gaza, and with East Jerusalem as its capital. But Arafat walked away - without even making a counteroffer. And the evidence is now overwhelming that Arafat already planned the bloody Second Intifada as his real response to the offer of a final peace agreement with Israel.
0:40

Israelis were jaded about a 2-state solution with good reason long before Oct 7. They elected dovish Ehud Barak over Netanyahu in a LANDSLIDE in 1999 on his promise of “rapid progress toward peace.” Barak put it all on the line at Camp David 2000 - a Palestinian state in the “West Bank,” Gaza, and with East Jerusalem as its capital. But Arafat walked away - without even making a counteroffer. And the evidence is now overwhelming that Arafat already planned the bloody Second Intifada as his real response to the offer of a final peace agreement with Israel.

Captain Allen

44,177 views • 10 months ago

Listen to Saudi Prince Bandar give the WHOLE STORY of being with Arafat as he refused the post-Camp David Clinton Parameters (accepted by Israel) for a Palestinian state. “I wanted to cry. My heart was burning at how the opportunity was lost again … this is what happened.”
4:49

Listen to Saudi Prince Bandar give the WHOLE STORY of being with Arafat as he refused the post-Camp David Clinton Parameters (accepted by Israel) for a Palestinian state. “I wanted to cry. My heart was burning at how the opportunity was lost again … this is what happened.”

Captain Allen

1,636,191 views • 5 months ago

Bill Clinton: Young people know that a lot more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis & I tell them what Arafat walked away from; they can’t believe it…he walked away from a Palestinian state, with a capital in East Jerusalem, 96% of the West Bank…
2:21

Bill Clinton: Young people know that a lot more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis & I tell them what Arafat walked away from; they can’t believe it…he walked away from a Palestinian state, with a capital in East Jerusalem, 96% of the West Bank…

Republicans against Trump

5,588,525 views • 1 year ago

This is what Arafat walked away from in late 2000-early 2001: A Palestinian state on roughly 94–96% of the West Bank (with 1–3% land swaps from Israel), and a capital in East Jerusalem under the Clinton Parameters. Bill Clinton himself has repeatedly described it as 96% of the West Bank plus 4% of Israel in swaps to compensate, with negotiations at Taba in January 2001 even discussing figures near 97%. Result: Arafat did not accept. Palestinian leaders are the ones responsible for their people's suffering. Every opportunity for peace and progress has been sabotaged by their obsession with destroying Israel instead of building a future for their own citizens.
2:21

This is what Arafat walked away from in late 2000-early 2001: A Palestinian state on roughly 94–96% of the West Bank (with 1–3% land swaps from Israel), and a capital in East Jerusalem under the Clinton Parameters. Bill Clinton himself has repeatedly described it as 96% of the West Bank plus 4% of Israel in swaps to compensate, with negotiations at Taba in January 2001 even discussing figures near 97%. Result: Arafat did not accept. Palestinian leaders are the ones responsible for their people's suffering. Every opportunity for peace and progress has been sabotaged by their obsession with destroying Israel instead of building a future for their own citizens.

ثنا ابراهیمی | Sana Ebrahimi

272,791 views • 9 months ago

🚨CLINTON DROPS THE MIC: “I KILLED MYSELF TRYING TO GIVE PALESTINIANS A STATE… THEY TURNED IT ALL DOWN”🚨 Bill Clinton: “I killed myself trying to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. You name it. They turned it all down.” This was the 2000 Camp David offer Arafat rejected. Decades later the pattern is the same: generous offers on the table, rejection, more violence. Peace has been available. Time and again it’s been refused. Many now say it’s clear — the goal isn’t a two-state solution. It’s the end of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish state. Hard pill. But the record doesn’t lie. #Israel #Palestine #MiddleEast #History
1:55

🚨CLINTON DROPS THE MIC: “I KILLED MYSELF TRYING TO GIVE PALESTINIANS A STATE… THEY TURNED IT ALL DOWN”🚨 Bill Clinton: “I killed myself trying to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. You name it. They turned it all down.” This was the 2000 Camp David offer Arafat rejected. Decades later the pattern is the same: generous offers on the table, rejection, more violence. Peace has been available. Time and again it’s been refused. Many now say it’s clear — the goal isn’t a two-state solution. It’s the end of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish state. Hard pill. But the record doesn’t lie. #Israel #Palestine #MiddleEast #History

Reverend Jordan Wells

22,051 views • 4 months ago

Bill Clinton: In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state that would include all of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem. Israel accepted. The Palestinians refused. They were NOT interested in a homeland for themselves. The ONLY thing they wanted was to KILL the Israelis.
1:51

Bill Clinton: In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state that would include all of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem. Israel accepted. The Palestinians refused. They were NOT interested in a homeland for themselves. The ONLY thing they wanted was to KILL the Israelis.

Eli Afriat 🇮🇱

14,566 views • 21 days ago

If you are an American who is being fed lie after lie that Israel is manipulating the United States, and then Tucker Carlson brings on a guest who claims that America supports Israel unconditionally, even against its own interests, you have the right to be enraged. But please, listen carefully to the guest’s answer when Tucker asked him to name a single example of the U.S. prioritizing Israel’s interests over its own. He had none. So he brought up the two-state solution. I’m not going to get into the full debate about the two-state solution here and why it doesn't work, you can go through my writings for that, but I wanna respond to this man’s lie with a direct quote from President Bill Clinton after Israel agreed to 2SS and The Palestinians walked away: “Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked away from [a peace deal]… That deal would have given Palestinians a state with a capital in East Jerusalem, 96% of the West Bank, and 100% of Gaza… the ball was in Arafat’s court.” Bill Clinton Tucker Carlson think he is defending the U.S. While serving the Islamic narrative and empowering the enemies of America.
1:47

If you are an American who is being fed lie after lie that Israel is manipulating the United States, and then Tucker Carlson brings on a guest who claims that America supports Israel unconditionally, even against its own interests, you have the right to be enraged. But please, listen carefully to the guest’s answer when Tucker asked him to name a single example of the U.S. prioritizing Israel’s interests over its own. He had none. So he brought up the two-state solution. I’m not going to get into the full debate about the two-state solution here and why it doesn't work, you can go through my writings for that, but I wanna respond to this man’s lie with a direct quote from President Bill Clinton after Israel agreed to 2SS and The Palestinians walked away: “Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat walked away from [a peace deal]… That deal would have given Palestinians a state with a capital in East Jerusalem, 96% of the West Bank, and 100% of Gaza… the ball was in Arafat’s court.” Bill Clinton Tucker Carlson think he is defending the U.S. While serving the Islamic narrative and empowering the enemies of America.

Dan Burmawi

58,019 views • 11 months ago

Even Arab leaders admit it. Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like Vivid.🇮🇱, and it’s an important one for people to see. Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective. Ok, so let us set that aside. Now watch this. In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada. Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance. He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises. The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978. This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel. When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias. The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return. This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today. If you value the truth, please share.
4:12

Even Arab leaders admit it. Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like Vivid.🇮🇱, and it’s an important one for people to see. Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective. Ok, so let us set that aside. Now watch this. In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada. Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance. He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises. The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978. This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel. When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias. The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return. This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today. If you value the truth, please share.

Mor Edge Insight

557,326 views • 1 month ago

In 2000 US Dem Prez Clinton and #Israel Left PM Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state (see video) on 1967 territory. Arafat turned it down. In 2007, US Republication Prez Bush and Israeli Right PM Olmert offered Abbas a Palestinian state on 1967 territory. Abbas turned it down. In 2014, perceiving of himself as a gifted diplomat, US John Kerry (who got Tehran a favorable nuke deal) and Dem Prez Obama again offered Abbas a Palestinian state on 1967 territory. Abbas turned it down. Obama said: We can’t want peace more than the parties involved. Why Blinken thinks Abbas will accept a Palestinian state, and be able to govern it (not lose it to terrorist Hamas like he did Gaza in 2007) is like beating a dead horse. Video Transcript: “I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza... between 96 and 97% of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it." Bill Clinton, May 13, 2016, Ewing Township, New Jersey
1:06

In 2000 US Dem Prez Clinton and #Israel Left PM Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state (see video) on 1967 territory. Arafat turned it down. In 2007, US Republication Prez Bush and Israeli Right PM Olmert offered Abbas a Palestinian state on 1967 territory. Abbas turned it down. In 2014, perceiving of himself as a gifted diplomat, US John Kerry (who got Tehran a favorable nuke deal) and Dem Prez Obama again offered Abbas a Palestinian state on 1967 territory. Abbas turned it down. Obama said: We can’t want peace more than the parties involved. Why Blinken thinks Abbas will accept a Palestinian state, and be able to govern it (not lose it to terrorist Hamas like he did Gaza in 2007) is like beating a dead horse. Video Transcript: “I killed myself to give the Palestinians a state. I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza... between 96 and 97% of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it." Bill Clinton, May 13, 2016, Ewing Township, New Jersey

Hussain Abdul-Hussain

92,829 views • 2 years ago

Harvard professor Tarek Masoud suggests an “asymmetry” in Israeli–Palestinian negotiations where Israeli leaders arrive at U.S.-brokered talks “giving up” land that they claim historically — with Ehud Olmert saying he “felt like I was fainting” when offering parts of East Jerusalem — and Palestinians never make an “equivalent” concession. Robert Malley, one of the most influential U.S. diplomats and Middle East peace negotiators of the past three decades responds: “I’d never use the word generous.” “The Palestinians agreed to the two-state solution. Arafat accepted 22% of historic Palestine — the mother of all concessions,” from his perspective, Malley said. He adds that “no Israeli government accepted full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem,” nor a sovereign Palestinian state controlling borders or security. ——— ▪️Note: In the late Ottoman period (1880–1914), before large-scale Zionist immigration under British rule, Palestinian Arabs made up roughly 92% of the population of the land. Even by 1947, after decades of immigration, Arabs were still about 67% of the population, Jews 33%. Palestinians also owned around 90% of the land. Yet the UN Partition Plan awarded the Jewish state 56% of the territory. Nearly half of the people living inside the proposed “Jewish state” were Palestinian Arabs. Against that reality, the Palestinian acceptance of a state on just 22% of their country was not the absence of compromise — it was the largest concession made by either side.
4:37

Harvard professor Tarek Masoud suggests an “asymmetry” in Israeli–Palestinian negotiations where Israeli leaders arrive at U.S.-brokered talks “giving up” land that they claim historically — with Ehud Olmert saying he “felt like I was fainting” when offering parts of East Jerusalem — and Palestinians never make an “equivalent” concession. Robert Malley, one of the most influential U.S. diplomats and Middle East peace negotiators of the past three decades responds: “I’d never use the word generous.” “The Palestinians agreed to the two-state solution. Arafat accepted 22% of historic Palestine — the mother of all concessions,” from his perspective, Malley said. He adds that “no Israeli government accepted full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem,” nor a sovereign Palestinian state controlling borders or security. ——— ▪️Note: In the late Ottoman period (1880–1914), before large-scale Zionist immigration under British rule, Palestinian Arabs made up roughly 92% of the population of the land. Even by 1947, after decades of immigration, Arabs were still about 67% of the population, Jews 33%. Palestinians also owned around 90% of the land. Yet the UN Partition Plan awarded the Jewish state 56% of the territory. Nearly half of the people living inside the proposed “Jewish state” were Palestinian Arabs. Against that reality, the Palestinian acceptance of a state on just 22% of their country was not the absence of compromise — it was the largest concession made by either side.

Drop Site

73,861 views • 7 months ago

🇵🇸🇮🇱 The deal that would have normalized every Arab state was rejected without a single discussion. Journalist Aaron Maté says the Arab League offered Israel full normalization more than twenty years ago in exchange for ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and granting Palestinians a state on just 22% of their homeland: "They wouldn't even discuss it." He traces the origins of the current war straight back to that refusal, long before Hezbollah ever entered the picture. Aaron Maté
5:09

🇵🇸🇮🇱 The deal that would have normalized every Arab state was rejected without a single discussion. Journalist Aaron Maté says the Arab League offered Israel full normalization more than twenty years ago in exchange for ending the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and granting Palestinians a state on just 22% of their homeland: "They wouldn't even discuss it." He traces the origins of the current war straight back to that refusal, long before Hezbollah ever entered the picture. Aaron Maté

Mario Nawfal

69,186 views • 1 month ago

This lie was completely debunked twenty years ago. Even Israel's chief negotiator during Camp David II and the Taba Summit, Shlomo Ben-Ami, has admitted that if he was a Palestinian he "would have rejected Camp David". Both sides had issues with the Clinton Parameters, but the Israelis were actually first to withdraw from the negotiations. Ben-Ami even acknowledges that his coalition was about to be voted out and the next PM (war criminal Ariel Sharon) was guaranteed to rip up any agreement anyways!
3:07

This lie was completely debunked twenty years ago. Even Israel's chief negotiator during Camp David II and the Taba Summit, Shlomo Ben-Ami, has admitted that if he was a Palestinian he "would have rejected Camp David". Both sides had issues with the Clinton Parameters, but the Israelis were actually first to withdraw from the negotiations. Ben-Ami even acknowledges that his coalition was about to be voted out and the next PM (war criminal Ariel Sharon) was guaranteed to rip up any agreement anyways!

gato fumante

60,634 views • 2 months ago

Ehud Olmert, former PM of Israel, "It depends on one person, Donald Trump. If he decides it has to end, it will end" Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "Is the question of a Palestinian state on anyone's agenda in Israel?" #C4News Ehud Olmert, "It's on my agenda, and on the agenda of quite a few Israelis, but not on the Israeli government's agenda" "The creation of a Palestinian state is not a present to the Palestinians and it's not a punishment to the state of Israel" "It's in the interest of the state of Israel" "The creation of a Palestinian state, we need just as much as they need" "Because on a recognition of the Palestinian right for sovereignty and independence will start a process reconciliation, which is essential for the atmosphere of peace" "I don't lose hope. It is stop possible. Practical. And doable"
1:00

Ehud Olmert, former PM of Israel, "It depends on one person, Donald Trump. If he decides it has to end, it will end" Krishnan Guru-Murthy, "Is the question of a Palestinian state on anyone's agenda in Israel?" #C4News Ehud Olmert, "It's on my agenda, and on the agenda of quite a few Israelis, but not on the Israeli government's agenda" "The creation of a Palestinian state is not a present to the Palestinians and it's not a punishment to the state of Israel" "It's in the interest of the state of Israel" "The creation of a Palestinian state, we need just as much as they need" "Because on a recognition of the Palestinian right for sovereignty and independence will start a process reconciliation, which is essential for the atmosphere of peace" "I don't lose hope. It is stop possible. Practical. And doable"

Farrukh

73,404 views • 9 months ago

"Ongoing" - One of the phrases increasingly used next to the term "Nakba" is "Ongoing" as in the recent proposal by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Now westerners assume that the "ongoing" seeks to highlight continued suffering of Palestinian Arabs, but as with so many other phrases that serve as "dual use language" (as Eran Shayshon coined) is that the deep meaning is very different. Once it is known and understood that the real time meaning of the Nakba, as described by Constantin Zureiq as "Seven Arab states declare war in an attempt to subdue Zionism, stop impotent before it, and return on their heels" was the shameful failure to defeat the lowly Jews in war - it becomes crystal clear why it remains "ongoing": As long as Israel exists, the Arab, and especially Palestinian Arab shameful failure to dismantle Jewish sovereignty and "subdue Zionism" remains "ongoing". As long as, per Bevin's quote, the top goal of the Palestine Arabs "to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land" remains unfulfilled, their definition of disaster remains "ongoing". In the updated book of The War of Return, "October Return", Dr. Adi Schwartz and I included a dictionary of sort to explore this dual use language. I share it here with you: "This becomes especially clear when analyzing the language of Palestinian identity and that of its supporters around the world. Terms such as “two states,” “justice,” “return,” and “rights” carry one meaning in dialogue between Palestinians and Westerners or Israelis—but an entirely different meaning within internal Palestinian discourse. "Take “two states,” for example. During the years of negotiations, Palestinian leaders—and many surveys—expressed support for the “two-state solution.” Israelis and Westerners reasonably assumed that this meant one state for Palestinian Arabs and one for Jews. In retrospect, we should have checked. For when Palestinians speak of “two states,” they also maintain that millions of Palestinian “refugees” have a right to settle inside Israel. The implication is that the phrase “two states” actually means a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside a second Arab-majority state that replaces Israel via the mass return of refugees. In effect: “this one is ours, and that one is also ours.” "To this day, no official Palestinian peace plan includes the recognition of a Jewish state on any part of the land between the river and the sea. "It is also worth examining the meaning of a word like “justice”—so frequently invoked in phrases like “a just peace,” “a just solution,” or in the names of organizations such as “Students for Justice in Palestine.” To many in the world, “justice” may simply mean that Palestinians should have a state of their own, or that Israel should not control their daily lives. That is a reasonable interpretation. But it is not the Palestinian one. "For Palestinians, there is only one concept of justice: the reversal of the injustice they associate with the creation of the State of Israel. And central to that “corrective justice” is return—which, by definition, entails the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. "The same applies to words like “rights,” “liberation,” and, of course, “return.” As will become clear in the pages ahead, there is no ambiguity: “return” is the concept that embodies victory over the Jewish state and its elimination. "That is why the butcherty of October 7 was greeted with euphoria."
1:55

"Ongoing" - One of the phrases increasingly used next to the term "Nakba" is "Ongoing" as in the recent proposal by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Now westerners assume that the "ongoing" seeks to highlight continued suffering of Palestinian Arabs, but as with so many other phrases that serve as "dual use language" (as Eran Shayshon coined) is that the deep meaning is very different. Once it is known and understood that the real time meaning of the Nakba, as described by Constantin Zureiq as "Seven Arab states declare war in an attempt to subdue Zionism, stop impotent before it, and return on their heels" was the shameful failure to defeat the lowly Jews in war - it becomes crystal clear why it remains "ongoing": As long as Israel exists, the Arab, and especially Palestinian Arab shameful failure to dismantle Jewish sovereignty and "subdue Zionism" remains "ongoing". As long as, per Bevin's quote, the top goal of the Palestine Arabs "to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land" remains unfulfilled, their definition of disaster remains "ongoing". In the updated book of The War of Return, "October Return", Dr. Adi Schwartz and I included a dictionary of sort to explore this dual use language. I share it here with you: "This becomes especially clear when analyzing the language of Palestinian identity and that of its supporters around the world. Terms such as “two states,” “justice,” “return,” and “rights” carry one meaning in dialogue between Palestinians and Westerners or Israelis—but an entirely different meaning within internal Palestinian discourse. "Take “two states,” for example. During the years of negotiations, Palestinian leaders—and many surveys—expressed support for the “two-state solution.” Israelis and Westerners reasonably assumed that this meant one state for Palestinian Arabs and one for Jews. In retrospect, we should have checked. For when Palestinians speak of “two states,” they also maintain that millions of Palestinian “refugees” have a right to settle inside Israel. The implication is that the phrase “two states” actually means a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside a second Arab-majority state that replaces Israel via the mass return of refugees. In effect: “this one is ours, and that one is also ours.” "To this day, no official Palestinian peace plan includes the recognition of a Jewish state on any part of the land between the river and the sea. "It is also worth examining the meaning of a word like “justice”—so frequently invoked in phrases like “a just peace,” “a just solution,” or in the names of organizations such as “Students for Justice in Palestine.” To many in the world, “justice” may simply mean that Palestinians should have a state of their own, or that Israel should not control their daily lives. That is a reasonable interpretation. But it is not the Palestinian one. "For Palestinians, there is only one concept of justice: the reversal of the injustice they associate with the creation of the State of Israel. And central to that “corrective justice” is return—which, by definition, entails the end of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. "The same applies to words like “rights,” “liberation,” and, of course, “return.” As will become clear in the pages ahead, there is no ambiguity: “return” is the concept that embodies victory over the Jewish state and its elimination. "That is why the butcherty of October 7 was greeted with euphoria."

ד״ר עינת וילף Dr. Einat Wilf

83,490 views • 2 months ago

There was a period when a Palestinian state could have been declared: before 1967, when Gaza was under Egyptian control and the West Bank under Jordanian rule. There was no Israeli occupation of those territories and no settlements. East Jerusalem was not under Israeli control. But no Palestinian state emerged. Later, after 1973, another opening appeared. Egypt pivoted from war to peace. Israel showed it was willing to trade land for recognition. Again, no Palestinian state. Why is that?
1:03

There was a period when a Palestinian state could have been declared: before 1967, when Gaza was under Egyptian control and the West Bank under Jordanian rule. There was no Israeli occupation of those territories and no settlements. East Jerusalem was not under Israeli control. But no Palestinian state emerged. Later, after 1973, another opening appeared. Egypt pivoted from war to peace. Israel showed it was willing to trade land for recognition. Again, no Palestinian state. Why is that?

Realign For Palestine

19,099 views • 2 months ago

"It was snowing. Visibility was low. The troops were not well prepared with equipment, warm clothing, resources. It was tough terrain. It was a tough battle. My father's name was James O'Boyle Lyons. And he was in World War II, specifically the Battle of the Bulge. The Battle of the Bulge began Dec. 16, 1944. They were outnumbered by the Germans, and, found themselves in a fight they couldn't win. And I think there were thousands that were captured because of it. My mother was notified that he had been taken prisoner on Dec. 21. And then when he was repatriated, he came home but passed away just a couple weeks later. I know that he was the kind of man who would hear his country's call. And give his best, and give his all, as it turns out. Never forget the sacrifices that people made, my father among them." — Robert Nolan, daughter of 1st Lt. James O'Boyle Lyons.
1:27

"It was snowing. Visibility was low. The troops were not well prepared with equipment, warm clothing, resources. It was tough terrain. It was a tough battle. My father's name was James O'Boyle Lyons. And he was in World War II, specifically the Battle of the Bulge. The Battle of the Bulge began Dec. 16, 1944. They were outnumbered by the Germans, and, found themselves in a fight they couldn't win. And I think there were thousands that were captured because of it. My mother was notified that he had been taken prisoner on Dec. 21. And then when he was repatriated, he came home but passed away just a couple weeks later. I know that he was the kind of man who would hear his country's call. And give his best, and give his all, as it turns out. Never forget the sacrifices that people made, my father among them." — Robert Nolan, daughter of 1st Lt. James O'Boyle Lyons.

ABMC

16,494 views • 7 months ago

JFK enraged Israel by saying Palestinians have the right of return to their lands, or to receive just compensation. He faced immense backlash from American Jewish communities but he never apologized or retracted. He stopped talking about it when he ran for president. It was clearly too politically risky if he wanted to win the election and govern without constant opposition, and this has remained the political reality ever since. Public opinion is finally shifting at historic proportions, but there are now even greater strategic risks: Israel has acquired a vast nuclear weapons arsenal since JFK’s death, (built with material stolen from the U.S.) JFK famously wanted to shut down Israel’s nuclear weapons program and force the Israel lobby (now rebranded as AIPAC) to register as a foreign agent. He was kiIIed less than 5 months after giving Israel his final ultimatum.
0:47

JFK enraged Israel by saying Palestinians have the right of return to their lands, or to receive just compensation. He faced immense backlash from American Jewish communities but he never apologized or retracted. He stopped talking about it when he ran for president. It was clearly too politically risky if he wanted to win the election and govern without constant opposition, and this has remained the political reality ever since. Public opinion is finally shifting at historic proportions, but there are now even greater strategic risks: Israel has acquired a vast nuclear weapons arsenal since JFK’s death, (built with material stolen from the U.S.) JFK famously wanted to shut down Israel’s nuclear weapons program and force the Israel lobby (now rebranded as AIPAC) to register as a foreign agent. He was kiIIed less than 5 months after giving Israel his final ultimatum.

ĐⱤØ₲Ø🇺🇸

57,439 views • 3 months ago

Christopher Hitchens on Israel and Zionism: "I think Zionism is a stupid idea to begin with, it's a bad idea, a Messianic idea, a superstitious idea. And it guaranteed a quarrel with the Arabs because it meant we're going to take away from you what is most precious, your land. It guaranteed an injustice to the Arabs which now anyone can see and is now entering its fourth generation of Palestinians brought up either in exile or dispossession or under occupation and humiliation, and now we know something has to be done to address what is part of the original sin." "I've been writing in favor of a Palestinian homeland all my life, and I'm now no less or more in favor of it than I was before. It's a matter of principle." "If Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn't agree with that principle is suspect." "Everybody knows that if you want to occupy people against their will, if you want to be the governor of another people who haven't chosen you, you will end up visiting terrible cruelty on them. There certainly cannot be a humane occupation." "I think the securely recognized borders should not allow for Israeli colonization or occupation of the territory of its neighbors, which is what it's doing now. The right to exist argument has been used now to the point where what it's going to mean is that the Israel you're talking about will include the annexed and illegally occupied West Bank." "When George Bush senior said to the Israelis: If you go on like this I will ask Congress to suspend your loan guarantees, I thought that was extremely impressive, and so did everyone else in the Middle East. It led to the nearest we've ever had to a proper peace conference that was in Madrid. Bill Clinton chose to run that year from the right against Bush, saying that he thought Bush was being soft on Cuba, and also from the right on Israel, saying if he was President the Israelis would not be subjected to this kind of pressure. So the last time that there was an impressive American policy it was a Republican administration, and it was undone by the hero of every liberal in this room."
6:17

Christopher Hitchens on Israel and Zionism: "I think Zionism is a stupid idea to begin with, it's a bad idea, a Messianic idea, a superstitious idea. And it guaranteed a quarrel with the Arabs because it meant we're going to take away from you what is most precious, your land. It guaranteed an injustice to the Arabs which now anyone can see and is now entering its fourth generation of Palestinians brought up either in exile or dispossession or under occupation and humiliation, and now we know something has to be done to address what is part of the original sin." "I've been writing in favor of a Palestinian homeland all my life, and I'm now no less or more in favor of it than I was before. It's a matter of principle." "If Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine, then Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn't agree with that principle is suspect." "Everybody knows that if you want to occupy people against their will, if you want to be the governor of another people who haven't chosen you, you will end up visiting terrible cruelty on them. There certainly cannot be a humane occupation." "I think the securely recognized borders should not allow for Israeli colonization or occupation of the territory of its neighbors, which is what it's doing now. The right to exist argument has been used now to the point where what it's going to mean is that the Israel you're talking about will include the annexed and illegally occupied West Bank." "When George Bush senior said to the Israelis: If you go on like this I will ask Congress to suspend your loan guarantees, I thought that was extremely impressive, and so did everyone else in the Middle East. It led to the nearest we've ever had to a proper peace conference that was in Madrid. Bill Clinton chose to run that year from the right against Bush, saying that he thought Bush was being soft on Cuba, and also from the right on Israel, saying if he was President the Israelis would not be subjected to this kind of pressure. So the last time that there was an impressive American policy it was a Republican administration, and it was undone by the hero of every liberal in this room."

☀️👀

1,398,241 views • 2 years ago

Trump explains the history of how Gaza got wrecked by Hamas: "Israel withdrew from Gaza thinking they would live in peace. They said, 'You take it, this is our contribution to peace.' But that didn't work out. They pulled away, they let them have it, and I never forgot that because I said, 'That doesn't sound like a good deal to me,' as a real estate person: They gave up the ocean! Right? Who would do this deal? And it still didn't work out. They were very generous actually, and they gave up the most magnificent piece of land in the Middle East, and they said 'All we want to do is have peace,' and that request was not honored... "Instead of building a better life for their people Hamas devoted their resources to building 400 miles of terror infrastructure, rocket facilities, and hid their military command posts and launch sites in hospitals, schools, and mosques, so if you went after them you wouldn't even realize and you would end up knocking out a hospital or a school or a mosque."
1:21

Trump explains the history of how Gaza got wrecked by Hamas: "Israel withdrew from Gaza thinking they would live in peace. They said, 'You take it, this is our contribution to peace.' But that didn't work out. They pulled away, they let them have it, and I never forgot that because I said, 'That doesn't sound like a good deal to me,' as a real estate person: They gave up the ocean! Right? Who would do this deal? And it still didn't work out. They were very generous actually, and they gave up the most magnificent piece of land in the Middle East, and they said 'All we want to do is have peace,' and that request was not honored... "Instead of building a better life for their people Hamas devoted their resources to building 400 miles of terror infrastructure, rocket facilities, and hid their military command posts and launch sites in hospitals, schools, and mosques, so if you went after them you wouldn't even realize and you would end up knocking out a hospital or a school or a mosque."

Saul Sadka

325,077 views • 9 months ago