i dont believe that was ever really on the table. if it was and the palistenians refused it, i would have to change my opinion.
What is the operative word in your sentence, (well, it's almost a sentence) is it "ever" or "really"? If you are saying you don't believe there was "ever" a plan offering the Palestinians 99% of what they want, well that 99% figure is what the good Prince stipulated to in an interview on CNBC and said that it's not good enough and Palestinians should not compromise. He added "would the US compromise on 1% of their territory?" He said this while trying to make the point that the USA was one sided in it's dealings over the issue of a Palestinian state. Don't you see something a little Hypocritical here?
If you are saying there was a plan offered to Arafat satisfying most of his demands (even most of East Jerusalem) but that doesn't amount to "99%" of what he wants, then what percentage would you give it? 80% ... 75% ... 60% ? Even if you say that plan was only 50% of what Arafat asked for then you would have to conclude that the USA is at least EVEN handed when it comes down to the issue of a Palestinian state. But it's not. The plan pushed by the Clinton Administration gave the Palestinians everything except some of East Jerusalem and 5-10% of the settled areas. Now since you are defending the sweet Prince, who admits that Israel should not even compromise 1% of its demands, explain to me again why we should listen to him tell us that US policy regarding a future Palestine is "one sided". You would have to assume that he thinks an "even handed" American plan would give the Palestinians 100% of what they have been killing for, no? Is that logical?
And yes, I don't think Palestinians deserve a state, and if they do, it shouldn't include any of the areas they used as a springboard to attack Israel. Parts of Jordan or Saudi Arabia ... sure why not? But the West bank and Gaza Strip was won fair and square, and more importantly, the right to that land was forfeited by the Palestinians, fair and square, when the surrounding Arab Nations conspired to rid the area of Israel once and for all. And let me assure you that religion doesn't enter into my opinion in the least. In fact, I don't even believe in "God" much less the Bible. I just think it's natural and normal for a democratic nation (Israel) to sincerely want peace for its citizens while I'm convinced Arafat, and his "government" sees peace with Israel as a threat to their longevity (power).
Now listen up, my Government, and Israel's government is, for some unknown reason, willing to overlook all that I personally think to be the truth in the interest of peace. If the US government believed how I believe (that the last think Arafat wants is peace) then maybe, MAYBE, you would have a reason to say we are "one sided" in Israel's favor. But I think calling my opinion "one sided" is like a kid that never does his homework, gets detention everyday, and talks back to his mother, saying his father is "one side" because he gets punished more than his sister who gets straight "A's" and is courteous to everyone she comes into contact with. No I'm not saying Israel is perfect . It's just an analogy that happens to mirror me and my sisters (who wasn't perfect either, she just seemed that way in comparison to me) childhood life. Sure I tried to call my father "unfair" and "one sided" but I was just a kid trying to score pity points. Prince Alwaleed and you are not 10 years old. You should be able to see who the troublemaker is. It's the side that loads up the truck of a car with explosives and drives it into a restaurant with the intention of killing as many innocent people, or non combatants if you prefer, as possible without regard to who may be in the establishment ... ON PURPOSE. There is NO moral equivalence between that and the Israeli military targeting the perpetrators of those heinous acts. Just like there is NO moral equivalence between the 9/11 terrorist attack and the US military killing the people that inflicted the mass murder.
But that is all MY opinion, and like I said you can call it "one sided" if you want to, but my Government is not of the same mind (I'm sorry to say). BUT, correct me if I'm wrong, my government has called for a halt to further settlements, condemned Israeli "aggression", and came out publicly for a Palestinian state that includes almost half of Jerusalem. What do they ask of the Palestinians ???? Just ONE thing, ALLOW ISRAEL TO EXIST in peace. You know, like don't teach the young ones that killing Jews is a good thing. That's all they ask. I can't for the life of me see how that can be construed as "one sided" for Israel. Am I missing something? Help me out.
What passes for reasoned logic in the Middle-East is beyond me. And what passes for logic from those who condemn Isreal and seek to belittle her supporters is simply amazing.
He attempts to wrap Himself in a cloak of respectability, meeting with Heads of State, etc., while at the same time, He knowingly associates with savage butchers, that solicit their minions to walk into shopping malls and blow up innocent civilians.
Right now, he is running around trying to put a smiley face on the 'backfire' of Media coverage that their cause is receiving because of the palestinians that LAUGHED AND DANCED in the street, when they heard that Our People were killed.
The amount to be so given was to equal the shortfall between the 90+% and 100% of the Westbank. ie if 97% of the Westbank is given to the Pals they get the 3% added to Gaza strip. Seems like they were offered 100% to me.