Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!


Bill Clinton claimed that in 2000, Palestinians were offered a state on nearly the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem as its capital, which Israel accepted but Palestinians refused, and that Palestinians did not care about a homeland but only wanted to kill Israelis. This statement is partially accurate regarding the outline of the Camp David offers, but it is highly misleading and oversimplified in its characterization of Palestinian motives and the reasons for rejection.cfi+2

The Camp David 2000 Offers​

  • At Camp David in July 2000, Israel offered Palestinians a state including about 94–96% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem for their capital.wikipedia+2
  • The proposal allowed some Israeli annexation of major settlement blocks, with land swaps offered to compensate, but left unresolved issues such as the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and Israeli security arrangements.wikipedia+1
  • Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and negotiators expressed concerns over the proposed deal, finding it would fragment Palestinian territories and did not meet demands for full sovereignty in East Jerusalem or a just solution for refugees.reddit+1

Reasons for Palestinian Rejection​

  • Palestinian negotiators made significant concessions, including possible Israeli sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem, but felt the Israeli offer failed to provide a contiguous, viable state and sufficient control over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif.imeu+2
  • The biggest sticking point was the right of return for refugees: Israel insisted on minimal returns to Israel proper, while Palestinians demanded more substantive rights.wikipedia+1
  • U.S. and Israeli officials generally blamed Arafat for the collapse, but other analysts note this was a highly complex negotiation with deep mistrust on both sides and that both sides accepted the Clinton Parameters only "with reservations" that reflected real differences.wikipedia+1

Mischaracterization of Motives​

  • Clinton and other officials have said groups like Hamas (not involved in Camp David) cared more about opposing Israel than about a two-state solution.cfi
  • However, the assertion that "all [the Palestinians] wanted was to kill Israelis" is not supported by the public record of the negotiations or by most expert analyses; the Palestinian leadership was negotiating for statehood but could not accept the terms offered as a final deal.imeu+2
  • The rejection did not mean Palestinians opposed statehood but rather that the proposed terms did not meet their minimum requirements on territory, sovereignty, and refugees.imeu+2

Context and Aftermath​

  • The failure of the talks contributed to the outbreak of the Second Intifada, but it was rooted in deep disagreements rather than a simple refusal of a homeland.wikipedia+1
  • Later negotiations (Taba, Clinton Parameters) saw further concessions from both sides, but a final agreement was not reached.reddit+1

Conclusion​

The factual part of Clinton’s claim—that Palestinians rejected a generous statehood offer—is generally reflected in history, though the actual terms were less than "the entire West Bank and east Jerusalem." His characterization of Palestinian motives as solely violent, and not caring about homeland, is inaccurate and ignores the complexity and validity of Palestinian concerns about the peace offer.wikipedia+2
  1. https://imeu.org/resources/palestine-101/what-happened-at-camp-david-in-2000-1/353
  2. https://www.cfi.org.uk/news.php?article=819
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters
  5. https://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-...o-learn-arafat-turned-down-palestinian-state/
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
  7. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bill-clinton-palestinians-israel-223176
  8. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2018/07/israeli-palestinian-peacemaking/camp-david-approach-2000
  9. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207...nians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution
 

Delegates storm out moments before Netanyahu begins UN assembly address, with the Israeli PM declaring western recognition of Palestine shows 'murdering Jews pays off'

 

Netanyahu Agrees To Trump's Gaza Peace Plan... Or Does He?​

Netanyahu ADMITS He Wants To Control TikTok​

 

Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan: A Rubber Stamp of Legitimacy on Israel’s Subjugation of Palestine

After his White House speech, Netanyahu said Israel will never withdraw from Gaza and promised to resume the genocide if Hamas does not disarm.​

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after a press conference at the White House in Washington, DC on September 29, 2025. Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images.
Three weeks after Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas’s lead negotiators in a series of airstrikes on the group’s offices in Doha, Qatar, President Donald Trump hailed the public announcement of his 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza as “potentially one of the great days ever in civilization.” The framework was drafted in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top adviser, Ron Dermer, and spearheaded by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Several Arab and Muslim states also contributed. No Palestinian officials from Hamas or any other faction, including the internationally-recognized Palestinian Authority, were consulted in crafting the plan.

The proposal, which Netanyahu agreed to after meeting with Trump at the White House on Monday, links the delivery of food and other life essentials and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the demilitarization of Gaza and includes several loopholes that would permit Israel to resume the genocide. It also would impose a foreign-led authority on the demilitarized Gaza Strip, backed by Arab and international troops, and allow the Israeli army to indefinitely encircle the enclave by maintaining positions inside Gaza’s territory. The plan requires Hamas to release all Israeli captives held in Gaza before any Palestinians would be freed. While the proposal includes a series of apparent concessions to Arab and Muslim countries in return for their endorsement, it makes no mention of how Israel would be prevented from violating the agreement. The plan also includes a nebulous mention of possible future Palestinian “self-determination and statehood” after Gaza “re-development advances” and the Palestinian Authority is reformed.

“If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end,” the framework’s text, released on Monday, states. “Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.”

In his White House remarks, Netanyahu affirmed his acceptance of the framework, but made clear Israel stands poised to resume the genocide. “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then basically do everything to counter it—then Israel will finish the job by itself,” he declared. “This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done. We prefer the easy way, but it has to be done.”

Trump also underscored this point. “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas,” he said. “But I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace, and if Hamas rejects the deal… Bibi you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do. Everyone understands that the ultimate result must b.......

 

Trump peace plan 'ignores interests of Palestinian people', Hamas official tells BBC

A senior Hamas figure has told the BBC that the group is likely to reject Donald Trump's peace plan for Gaza, saying it "serves Israel's interests" and "ignores those of the Palestinian people".

 

First Amendment/: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEFULLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

THIS IS NOT PEACEFULLY
Screenshot from 2025-10-01 01-26-19.png

Screenshot from 2025-10-01 01-13-35.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top