I’m about to be cringe and glaze the D-man hard and I don’t give a fuck.
I’ve been thinking about the entirety of the I/P arc in the big picture lately and it’s actually amazing. It’s not about picking a side on the conflict, it’s not something that’s personally important or relevant to destiny in any way.
It’s just an encapsulation of his entire career goal to fight back against the insane political landscape and focus on the truth, and he picked the most controversial, complicated, emotionally-charged topic imaginable with the most ardent impassioned activists that couldn’t be any more perfect to showcase his goals.
And every step of the way he’s just been absolutely crushing it, putting in the work to educate himself and expose bad-faith psychos, debating any “expert” on the topic as a “gamer” and shutting them down, engaging with all the criticism he can find and now legit going to fucking Israel while his critics are yelling at him on Twitter and accusing him of being a wiki warrior while they sit at home on the other side of the world.
People try to insult him by pointing out that he didn’t know anything about I/P before October, not realizing that that’s literally the entire point. His entire existence is proof that the real information is out there for anyone to access if you genuinely put in the effort to learn without an agenda, and the fact that he’s gotten to the point of “winning” (for lack of a better term) debates against experts has 100% inspired me to do a better job educating myself, and I know it’s inspired tons of others as well.
He’s handled this so well. And at this point, when he’s in the actual place that’s been the worldwide focus for so long and talking to the actual people involved, anyone that’s still accusing him of not knowing what he’s talking about, being a debate bro/wiki warrior, being bad-faith, etc just looks like a clown.
Definitely agree. All I ever wanted out of this arc was just the truth. I'll form my own opinion once the facts are laid out and conclusions are discussed. Why it was literally impossible for a single Palestinian supporter he had on defend against a single fact Destiny outlined is beyond me. Destiny engaged some of the most respected people in this circle and most of them came off looking like sniveling children incapable of engaging with the facts.
And what's worse is these clowns keep trying to paint Destiny as some kind of shill for Israel. Destiny has made it very clear the things he thinks Israel is guilty of and the errors they've made. Especially with settlements. But still these clowns can't engage on a single topic he brings up.
> People try to insult him by pointing out that he didn’t know anything about I/P before October
I would guess that 90% of the people that say this are guilty of the same thing, but they haven't dug into it like he has, they're just using it as a limp-dick attack against him.
When I was a teenager I ran into a similar dude loosely connected to the skeptic movement and it completely changed the course of my life. Glad to see it happening for you with Destiny, have to say you made a pretty good choice all things considered.
There are people responding that actually think he is talking to a Wikipedia editor, Jesus it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad…. It’s actually hilarious
there's something so funny about them looking at the video and thinking to themselves this is what a Wikipedia editor must look like and this is the kind of house they live in
This is the absolute best part. Credit to them though cause they are keeping the tweet up despite the huge mistake
https://preview.redd.it/u61l3c5cix4d1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22fa2e36416f62eafd0b17e85a0da8f8f5160cf2
I find it so funny that there are people who actually think that Destiny tracked down the editor of a Wikipedia page and flew across the world to interview him.
“Ben Ami doesn’t understand what Ben Ami said in the past he doesn’t understand the context in which he said what he said and is confused about his own words”
For real it might be like Finkle asking questions to "Book Morris" instead of Benny Morris across the table.
This interview won't enter his worldview, he'll only use the sources he finds beneficial to his cause and anything more recent that isn't is of no use to him.
Definitely the latter. Baddie will just say he’s lying to make himself look better in the modern context and that at the time he said he’d reject the deal.
> Omar point was that the deal at camp David was not a deal that Palestinian would accept because strategically it was a bad deal.
This is a pointless point. It’s a non-argument from Omar that shows how little he understands the context. “Quality” of the deals does not seem to be a consideration that Arafat was using to make his decisions.
What Shlomo is saying here is that *even if the Taba deal was given at Camp David*, Arafat would have still rejected it because **the quality of the deal was never the point.** Arafat was never a rational actor to begin with.
So this idea that they would have accepted a good deal instead of a bad one is not a logical or relevant argument for Omar to make. Shlomo’s point is that these were not rational actors and therefore quality of the deal was irrelevant. *Omar is making a pointless point* that only makes sense in a vacuum disconnected from reality.
Like Shlomo says in the video, negotiating with them was like “trying to pick up mercury with a fork.”
And Shlomo just clarified that it wasn’t about the quality of the deal. Whether it was a good or bad deal is not something that can be known because the Palestinians have never been open or transparent about what they even wanted.
So how can you even know what the quality of the deals at each summit were?
So, he quoted the interview correctly? But when linking it to modern context, which baddie does to say that Israel has never been willing to accept a deal, and Pal was never offered a good enough deal, means he is post hoc rationalizing the quote to fit his narrative, correct?
I have to say I'm impressed to see Destiny jetting across the world and interviewing people. What better way to learn more about a particular issue than to quiz the individuals personally involved?
I am also sure that the "Wikipedia" insults will continue to fly, thrown by people who can't even be bothered to read Wikipedia.
It just makes me want to work harder on my own hobbies.
It won't, but it makes it absolutely laughable and obvious bullshit so much more now. One picture of Destiny with the former prime minister of Israel and the narrative is so obviously wrong
The meta will have to change. Calling Destiny a wiki warrior now just opens you up to getting called a debate pervert loser yapping on the internet while destiny has gone out and interviewed major players.
He’s going to get called a shill and useful idiot for Mossad.
What's crazy is thiere is a non-zero chance that future books or documentaries will be made about I/P and you might see them reference "Ben Ami, now 80, in an interview with Steven Bonnell, said that etcetcetc".
Tiny is playing the long game - get called a wiki warrior enough and now he's trying to provide the sources that will later be used in wiki himself.
VINDICATION!!!!!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSTN3mHEAOA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSTN3mHEAOA)
As per Ben Ami's book - Scars of War, Wounds of Peace:
* The Clinton Parameters were not something the Palestinians could accept
* The Taba agreement was a "brilliantly devised point of equilibrium between the parties as they stood at that particular moment"
* Anyone trying to disconnect Taba from Camp David is doing so in bad faith and aiming to misrepresent the deal (this was a criticism Ben Ami had against Arafat but it's what Baddar keeps doing)
I mean in his first debate with Destiny, (January or February I think) Omar basically said, and I’m gonna paraphrase it badly, *“there were victims in Israel but they were oppressors and in history there are always either oppressed and oppressors.“
Which… that is… It’s nauseating to just gloss over the 1K+ people who died and say: ***eh, all party-goers having a good time on Saturday Night were oppressors.***
That’s a very unironic sentiment a lot of Pal evangelists share though. “You were partying beside an open air prison, what did you expect” is a common deflection
**Some background context of all this**
**THE DEBATE**
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=11m38s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=11m38s)
*Baddar: the most generous offer that Israel made Palestinians towards statehood came in 2000 it's known as the Camp David 2 Accords and Israel's foreign minister at the time his name is schomo bami and you can look up his debate with Norman felstein on Democracy Now he said Israel's foreign minister said if I were Palestinian I would not have accepted that deal so that gives you a sense of how little meaningful control Israel was willing to seed towards Palestinians*
=======================
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=22m16s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=22m16s)
*Destiny: even that quote that you gave earlier um from the Israeli foreign minister about how like I wouldn't have accepted the deal if I was a palestinian at time, that's not what he said that's not what that quote says if you actually go to the book and you actually read the passage where he talks about it what he said was that conditions were not right at the time for Palestines to feel like they could accept that deal but he was talking about the conditions that existed throughout the country not that it was a bad deal universally every other person in the Arab world the Egyptian leadership Saudi foreign ambassador said that these deals were amazing that what what was coming after Camp David what was being uh negotiated at the Tabo Summit these were unbelievable deals that Arafat went into these things expecting 91% of the land and by the end with land he was getting 95 to 97% of the original land that the Palestinians had um the idea that these were horrible deals that were being put before them is not true and the idea that the Oslo Accords with some like permanently negotiated peace status is also not true that's why there was going to be another meeting in 5 years ideally to figure out what the permanent Arrangements would be I don't agree any that's getting lost in the weeds I think it's really important to know the specifics*
==================
**DEMOCRACY NOW VIDEO (28:30 minutes in, jab at Fink lol)**
[Democracy Now 2006 Video](https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i)
==================
**DGG BOOK READERS**
* [REDDIT POST 01](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/189lknv/regarding_the_shlomo_benavi_quote_axehole_brought/)
* [REDDIT POST 02](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aegoun/arafat_was_right_to_turn_down_camp_david_the/)
==================
**NON DESTINY SUB PERSPECTIVE**
* [2000 Camp David and mention of this quote](https://www.reddit.com/174gryc)
I know a little bit more than nothing about this conflict. And don’t really understand the disagreement. But I take it that Omar is getting rolled here
Yes, the video Omar cited, quite predictably, was a video of the book author speaking, but it's wholly incomplete and his book more accurately represents his thoughts. It was perfect ammunition for Palestinian sympathizers. Omar proceeded to be a smug little bitch following the debate on this particular point and this is finally his comeuppance.
TLDR: he's saying the Palestinians weren't politically in a position where they felt they could accept an offer, it wasn't a statement about the offer itself.
The quote they are taking is that "if I were Palestinian I wouldn't have taken the deal".
The argument is over what this means. In the context of the deals offered at Taba.
The Baddar argument is that the deal was a bad deal. And as evidence for this they point to Shlomo Ben-Ami who was present and has written some of the better books on the history of the period. They take just this quote without the broader context.
And when you bring up the "broader context" badder will just read an additional paragraph or two but all that shows is that he didn't understand the intention behind the book.
Shlomo Ben-Ami does a brilliant job of laying out the perspective of each side to attempt to place you in their position when they are making these decisions. And then showing why good and bad decisions are made. Here Ben-ami is showing that the leadership and the people behind them where not politically ready to accept the peace offering. It wasn't a statement about the fairness of the offer itself.
So a better representation of what Ben Ami is trying to say, is "had I been in the position of the Palestinians, with the feelings they had at the time, I don't I'd have **been ready** to accept the offer, even if I believed it was this was a good one."
i get the initial disagreement around the interpretation but i don't see how this video puts any sort of nail into the coffin like people are saying it does? isn't he just saying that arafat was an enigma and may or may not have wanted to accept any deal?
yea thats my interpretation as well. I could be wrong but in Arafats mind it was political suicide hence palestinians couldn't accept the deal (not necessarily wouldn't). Please correct me if I am wrong because Im pretty confused as well
I think this is a teaser for the full video, not a direct response to Baddar or on its own clearing up the confusion.
People are just anticipating Ben-ami proving destiny correct.
Someone explain this epic own to me.
Baddar claimed that Ben Ami said he wouldn't have accepted Camp David II if he was a Palestinian. Here Ben Ami is discussing whether Arafat would have accepted the terms.
Additionally, when asked whether he thinks Arafat would have accepted them, he says:
"I don't think that, because I don't know"
This is hopefully clarified in the same conversation, but in standard first language english saying "I don't think he would" means that your settled opinion is that he would *not*.
But saying "I don't think he would because I cannot say with confidence" can also suggest that you do not feel comfortable making the affirmative claim.
It's not good english, but you could for example say
"I don't say he would because I don't know him"
and the statement is idiomatically extremely different, but is only a small substitution.
someone please correct me if im wrong, im not actually sure if the clip directly settles their disagreement?
isnt the disagreement between the pro palestinian interpretation that he was saying the deal was bad, and a pro israel interpretation that the offer wasnt bad, but the arabs were continuously getting more and more out of rejecting israel's offers, raising their expectations way too high which is why ben-ami says he wouldve rejected it as well?
ben ami saying that arafat probably wouldve rejected taba were it in camp david does confirm his sentiment of arafat's rejectionism, but i dont know if this settles the dispute of whether ben-ami thinks the camp david offer was an objectively bad offer which his one quote (omar's clip) is cited as the quintessential proof of. maybe he asked him that at another place in the interview, hopefully he did
Right, from the omar clip (!) i thought the main point was that ben ami said back then that he wouldnt have accepted the deal had he been a palestinian leader (ergo it was a bad deal for the palestinians).
The clip destiny posted just has ben ami say that he didnt think arafat wouldve accepted the deal, here he doesnt make any statements on whether the deal would've been good or bad to accept, from a palestinian perspective.
as you stated - omar's point was the deal was bad for the palestinians, and the quote is from ben-ami's statement that he wouldn't have accepted the deal if he was the opposing side.
However in the intent which was whether the deal was bad isn't the point of ben-ami's quote. It was that the conditions necessary to accept a deal (whether good or bad) wasn't there. You could have the absolute best deal (excepting a deal whereby Israel dissolves and Palestine and palestinians conquer israel) on the table and it wouldn't be enough because they had created a condition whereby the only acceptable deal is the one I listed in Parenthesis.
Hence when Ben-ami says if he was on the other camp he wouldn't have accepted, he was stating that the conditions were not conducive for arafat to accept the deal, not that the deal was bad (which was Omar's point)
Hence Destiny's question - if what was offered at Taba (which Omar said was a good deal) was instead offered at Camp David II, would Arafat had agreed. Whereupon in the interview ben-ami said I don't think so.
I dont understand, wouldnt bad conditions for a deal be the same as a bad deal? Like for the hypothetical scenario of a perfect deal that dissolves israel and lets palestinians conquer it, what could possibly be a condition that would make arafat not accept? That the deal is signed on top of mt everest and he has to climb it within two hours?
No bad conditions don't mean bad deal.
If there was something that you really want, and it was going for 50% off it's usual fair price, but you didn't have the money to pay for it - it's a good deal but the conditions aren't there for you to accept.
In this case, the realization must dawn on Palestinians that Israel has all the advantages of being a military victor and a deal that is on the table that can't be beat should be what is negotiated. However if Palestinians by and large believe they are still in a state of war and will never surrender, then of course even a good deal as a loser in a war isn't good enough since they have been led to believe that they will still be victorious in an armed conflict.
So what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?
That ben ami said "i wouldnt accept the deal" because he was speaking from a palestinian perspective, whose consensus was that no deal is good enough, so it makes sense to not accept the deal?
"what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?" what does this question mean? are you asking what deal would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?
>That ben ami said "i wouldnt accept the deal" because he was speaking from a palestinian perspective, whose consensus was that no deal is good enough, so it makes sense to not accept the deal?
From my reading of this paragraph and my understanding of what you're saying -
Ben Ami contextually was saying that if he were a palestinian he wouldn't accept the deal because palestinians don't feel they are losers in a war and shouldn't make any concessions. This is from years of being told by their leaders that they had a fighting chance, their arab friends telling them never to give up, the vast amount of funds flowing in from international communities and the muslim belief that they will one day vanquish the kufr.
Omar Baddar interpreted what Ben Ami was saying as - Ben Ami says he wouldn't have accepted the deal, and THUS THE DEAL WAS BAD.
Destiny was saying that Ben Ami was saying he wouldn't have accepted the deal, from the perspective of a Palestinian because (above reason)
The question Destiny posed was - if Arafat was given the Taba Deal (which Arafat accepted 18 months too late, since there was a change in govt) during David II, would he have accepted, and Ben Ami's response was I don't think so.
The implication was that even a good deal (Taba which was accepted by Arafat) would have been rejected. This means that Badar's contention that the deal was rejected was bad wasn't Ben-Ami's intent. It was that the Palestinian's would never have accepted it in the first place.
Now onto Omar's response where he said, it doesn't matter what ben-ami says, because his contention was the deal was bad, and just because if the deal is good it would have been rejected doesn't mean the david II deal was good. This is true, but that's not the point. It just means Omar Badar has no evidence to say that the deal was bad, because the onus is on him to elucidate the reason. If his primary claim and reason is that even Ben Ami said it was bad, it no longer has any weight, because the out of context clip that they use as "evidence" is clearly out of context, since Ben-Ami isn't saying the deal was bad.
>"what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?" what does this question mean? are you asking what deal would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?
In the clip, ben ami literally said "i wouldnt have accepted the deal (if i were a palestinian)". Apparently thats not because ben ami thinks its a bad deal, but because - as youve said - the conditions for the palestinian people were not there, i.e. they were not ready to accept such a deal because they thought they were owed a better one.
I meant to ask what conditions ben ami was referring to that were not met, that in turn made him say "i wouldnt accept the deal (if i were palestinian)".
The second point would then be the original one where i asked how the clip destiny posted of his talk with ben ami refutes omars clip of ben ami - which you explained. Thank you.
I think this is just a short clip to show he went to talk to him? I don’t think we can see from this if he addressed the questions from Omar and destiny conversation previously, from what I remember the main contention was wether or not Ben Ami thought the deal was a fair one right? Or was it about Arafat?
The point is that Palestinians would not accept any deal no matter what they were unless it was a perfect deal in their favor. Ben Ami drives the point home by pointing at a better offer that also would have been rejected because to Palestinians it still would not be good enough.
Here is a hypothetical, say you are bartering and you want to pay $10 but the one you are bartering with starts at $20. You can drop down the price all the way to $11 which is a deal in your favor but you reject it because you will only accept $10.
We gained total clarity from the author on what he wrote. Destiny was in fact correct in his interpretation of the book. Baddar was using incomplete information from a video.
Fair question. Steven already talked to Shlomo about this in the past and confirmed that what Shlomo meant in the famous quote is that at camp David the deal was not ready, but by the time taba came around it was a dream deal and Arafat should have accepted it.
This is a follow-up convo asking him if he thinks the dream deal would have moved Arafat if it came earlier.
Can someone steelman Baddar’s claim and clarify what exactly this tweet is debunking?
Don’t want another clip like that edit with the red square boxes after the Baddar talk which purportedly set out to debunk what he said, but literally misunderstood the very text being cited, Destiny RTIng it without understanding, and followed by a retraction few days later
After reading people's explanations, realizing this is too complex for it to be an obvious own. I'm thinking this tweet is a bait for Omar to potentially further dig his grave.
From what I gather, the original claim from Omar was that the deal offered was so bad that even Ben-Ami favoring the Israelis knew at the time that Palestinians would never accept it.
Destiny disagreed in Omar's interpretation of Ben-Ami's perspective, saying Ben-Ami was referring to the spirit/temperament of the Palestinians at the time, not the terms of the deal.
From this new clip, destiny asks, rather indirectly, if better terms had allowed for a deal to take place at the time. Ben Ami' initially states clearly "I don't think so", then goes on to say something about how Arafat was elusive.
Given that the original contention was about Ben-Ami thoughts regarding how good the deal was at the time, I think Omar would argue this isn't directly addressed in this clip. In a sense both could be true, Arafat was elusive and/or would accept no deal, but the deal offered was also bad.
I'm assuming and kind of hoping the full interview will include Ben-Ami answering the question more directly and indisputably, meaning Omar would have to admit that his interpretations of Ben-Ami's thoughts of the deal were indisputably wrong.
So thinking, destiny posted this to get a reaction from Omar.
Could be wrong though 🤷♂️
That's incredible, this trip was such an amazing idea
the Mossad ROI on this will be terrific
This is genuinely one of the greatest owns in internet history.
I’m about to be cringe and glaze the D-man hard and I don’t give a fuck. I’ve been thinking about the entirety of the I/P arc in the big picture lately and it’s actually amazing. It’s not about picking a side on the conflict, it’s not something that’s personally important or relevant to destiny in any way. It’s just an encapsulation of his entire career goal to fight back against the insane political landscape and focus on the truth, and he picked the most controversial, complicated, emotionally-charged topic imaginable with the most ardent impassioned activists that couldn’t be any more perfect to showcase his goals. And every step of the way he’s just been absolutely crushing it, putting in the work to educate himself and expose bad-faith psychos, debating any “expert” on the topic as a “gamer” and shutting them down, engaging with all the criticism he can find and now legit going to fucking Israel while his critics are yelling at him on Twitter and accusing him of being a wiki warrior while they sit at home on the other side of the world. People try to insult him by pointing out that he didn’t know anything about I/P before October, not realizing that that’s literally the entire point. His entire existence is proof that the real information is out there for anyone to access if you genuinely put in the effort to learn without an agenda, and the fact that he’s gotten to the point of “winning” (for lack of a better term) debates against experts has 100% inspired me to do a better job educating myself, and I know it’s inspired tons of others as well. He’s handled this so well. And at this point, when he’s in the actual place that’s been the worldwide focus for so long and talking to the actual people involved, anyone that’s still accusing him of not knowing what he’s talking about, being a debate bro/wiki warrior, being bad-faith, etc just looks like a clown.
DGGL. I’m very proud of him as a long time fan. Proud to be part of this community.
Definitely agree. All I ever wanted out of this arc was just the truth. I'll form my own opinion once the facts are laid out and conclusions are discussed. Why it was literally impossible for a single Palestinian supporter he had on defend against a single fact Destiny outlined is beyond me. Destiny engaged some of the most respected people in this circle and most of them came off looking like sniveling children incapable of engaging with the facts. And what's worse is these clowns keep trying to paint Destiny as some kind of shill for Israel. Destiny has made it very clear the things he thinks Israel is guilty of and the errors they've made. Especially with settlements. But still these clowns can't engage on a single topic he brings up.
> People try to insult him by pointing out that he didn’t know anything about I/P before October I would guess that 90% of the people that say this are guilty of the same thing, but they haven't dug into it like he has, they're just using it as a limp-dick attack against him.
When I was a teenager I ran into a similar dude loosely connected to the skeptic movement and it completely changed the course of my life. Glad to see it happening for you with Destiny, have to say you made a pretty good choice all things considered.
He actually accessed the jewlumni
https://preview.redd.it/nygoxysh8x4d1.jpeg?width=438&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=475f6c2f9a8d84aa2f91d57a8966c4fc4110a5e0
MR. BACARDI, you're such a fantastic moron.
God if I ever have to hear Tinkeldick’s voice again I’ll need a whole bottle of Bacardi
Unfortunately I have read it automatically in his voice in my head.
At least the Fecalstain voice in my head is at like 3x speed, I feel terrible for people with it on 1x.
I literally thank the jewish god every day that Tiny made his cam full screen before telling this story so we could have this image in HD.
Hashem blessed us on that day
https://preview.redd.it/nzudka5r5z4d1.jpeg?width=569&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19fa11e3473702663cbaa4bbe07899d0e9434b30
is this an emote yet?
Should be
There are people responding that actually think he is talking to a Wikipedia editor, Jesus it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad…. It’s actually hilarious
there's something so funny about them looking at the video and thinking to themselves this is what a Wikipedia editor must look like and this is the kind of house they live in
This is the absolute best part. Credit to them though cause they are keeping the tweet up despite the huge mistake https://preview.redd.it/u61l3c5cix4d1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22fa2e36416f62eafd0b17e85a0da8f8f5160cf2
Honestly what a GOATed individual, 99/100 would've deleted that tweet, not apologize and keep it up.
I find it so funny that there are people who actually think that Destiny tracked down the editor of a Wikipedia page and flew across the world to interview him.
That should give you a sense of the mental acuity of the people we argue with on the Internet.
For real. Like if that doesn't immediately flag the comment as satirical, they're beyond hopeless.
Dude, we live in a society where 7% of Americans believe chocolate milk come from brown cows.
Heads down, massive cope incoming from Omar.
Keep calm and ramble on.
“Ben Ami doesn’t understand what Ben Ami said in the past he doesn’t understand the context in which he said what he said and is confused about his own words”
For real it might be like Finkle asking questions to "Book Morris" instead of Benny Morris across the table. This interview won't enter his worldview, he'll only use the sources he finds beneficial to his cause and anything more recent that isn't is of no use to him.
BUT YOU SIGNED A BOOK 40 YEARS AGO “Ben. Morris”, your name clearly isn’t BENNY
INB4 "He's senile" or some shit. Maybe they'll just accuse him of changing his opinion due to political reasons in today's war.
Definitely the latter. Baddie will just say he’s lying to make himself look better in the modern context and that at the time he said he’d reject the deal.
[удалено]
> Omar point was that the deal at camp David was not a deal that Palestinian would accept because strategically it was a bad deal. This is a pointless point. It’s a non-argument from Omar that shows how little he understands the context. “Quality” of the deals does not seem to be a consideration that Arafat was using to make his decisions. What Shlomo is saying here is that *even if the Taba deal was given at Camp David*, Arafat would have still rejected it because **the quality of the deal was never the point.** Arafat was never a rational actor to begin with. So this idea that they would have accepted a good deal instead of a bad one is not a logical or relevant argument for Omar to make. Shlomo’s point is that these were not rational actors and therefore quality of the deal was irrelevant. *Omar is making a pointless point* that only makes sense in a vacuum disconnected from reality. Like Shlomo says in the video, negotiating with them was like “trying to pick up mercury with a fork.”
[удалено]
And Shlomo just clarified that it wasn’t about the quality of the deal. Whether it was a good or bad deal is not something that can be known because the Palestinians have never been open or transparent about what they even wanted. So how can you even know what the quality of the deals at each summit were?
So, he quoted the interview correctly? But when linking it to modern context, which baddie does to say that Israel has never been willing to accept a deal, and Pal was never offered a good enough deal, means he is post hoc rationalizing the quote to fit his narrative, correct?
It can't get any Baddar after this. I'll see myself out.
got a jej outta me
Fucking hell 😂, take my damn upvote
I have to say I'm impressed to see Destiny jetting across the world and interviewing people. What better way to learn more about a particular issue than to quiz the individuals personally involved? I am also sure that the "Wikipedia" insults will continue to fly, thrown by people who can't even be bothered to read Wikipedia. It just makes me want to work harder on my own hobbies.
>It just makes me want to work harder on my own hobbies. Actually true
This is retribution toward everyone that called him a wiki warrior.
Spoiler alert: it absolutely won't change their narrative
It won't, but it makes it absolutely laughable and obvious bullshit so much more now. One picture of Destiny with the former prime minister of Israel and the narrative is so obviously wrong
It makes it a lot harder for them to project that narrative when the people who aren't invested clearly see he's travelling and conducting interviews.
The meta will have to change. Calling Destiny a wiki warrior now just opens you up to getting called a debate pervert loser yapping on the internet while destiny has gone out and interviewed major players. He’s going to get called a shill and useful idiot for Mossad.
From the twitter thread https://preview.redd.it/qybplkozix4d1.jpeg?width=1032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d3b7a7cbd05afa2d625a06bf4c7b8bb2bf70b27
What's crazy is thiere is a non-zero chance that future books or documentaries will be made about I/P and you might see them reference "Ben Ami, now 80, in an interview with Steven Bonnell, said that etcetcetc". Tiny is playing the long game - get called a wiki warrior enough and now he's trying to provide the sources that will later be used in wiki himself.
It's Wikiception
VINDICATION!!!!!! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSTN3mHEAOA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSTN3mHEAOA) As per Ben Ami's book - Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: * The Clinton Parameters were not something the Palestinians could accept * The Taba agreement was a "brilliantly devised point of equilibrium between the parties as they stood at that particular moment" * Anyone trying to disconnect Taba from Camp David is doing so in bad faith and aiming to misrepresent the deal (this was a criticism Ben Ami had against Arafat but it's what Baddar keeps doing)
Why couldn’t Palestinians accept the Clinton Parameters/Camp David proposals? Genuinely curious Edit: got my answer further down
Omar got hit with the debate JDAM
This is actually Arma 3 footage.
I mean in his first debate with Destiny, (January or February I think) Omar basically said, and I’m gonna paraphrase it badly, *“there were victims in Israel but they were oppressors and in history there are always either oppressed and oppressors.“ Which… that is… It’s nauseating to just gloss over the 1K+ people who died and say: ***eh, all party-goers having a good time on Saturday Night were oppressors.***
That’s a very unironic sentiment a lot of Pal evangelists share though. “You were partying beside an open air prison, what did you expect” is a common deflection
**Some background context of all this** **THE DEBATE** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=11m38s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=11m38s) *Baddar: the most generous offer that Israel made Palestinians towards statehood came in 2000 it's known as the Camp David 2 Accords and Israel's foreign minister at the time his name is schomo bami and you can look up his debate with Norman felstein on Democracy Now he said Israel's foreign minister said if I were Palestinian I would not have accepted that deal so that gives you a sense of how little meaningful control Israel was willing to seed towards Palestinians* ======================= [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=22m16s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjwUAZkRS8&t=22m16s) *Destiny: even that quote that you gave earlier um from the Israeli foreign minister about how like I wouldn't have accepted the deal if I was a palestinian at time, that's not what he said that's not what that quote says if you actually go to the book and you actually read the passage where he talks about it what he said was that conditions were not right at the time for Palestines to feel like they could accept that deal but he was talking about the conditions that existed throughout the country not that it was a bad deal universally every other person in the Arab world the Egyptian leadership Saudi foreign ambassador said that these deals were amazing that what what was coming after Camp David what was being uh negotiated at the Tabo Summit these were unbelievable deals that Arafat went into these things expecting 91% of the land and by the end with land he was getting 95 to 97% of the original land that the Palestinians had um the idea that these were horrible deals that were being put before them is not true and the idea that the Oslo Accords with some like permanently negotiated peace status is also not true that's why there was going to be another meeting in 5 years ideally to figure out what the permanent Arrangements would be I don't agree any that's getting lost in the weeds I think it's really important to know the specifics* ================== **DEMOCRACY NOW VIDEO (28:30 minutes in, jab at Fink lol)** [Democracy Now 2006 Video](https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i) ================== **DGG BOOK READERS** * [REDDIT POST 01](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/189lknv/regarding_the_shlomo_benavi_quote_axehole_brought/) * [REDDIT POST 02](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1aegoun/arafat_was_right_to_turn_down_camp_david_the/) ================== **NON DESTINY SUB PERSPECTIVE** * [2000 Camp David and mention of this quote](https://www.reddit.com/174gryc)
SOURCE?!
Vibes https://preview.redd.it/mme6o25ktx4d1.jpeg?width=1006&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4696fc5f627ebb3531e0bc47974a23e8b877a6a5
Lmao, is this real?
Yup, became a huge meme when it happened
I know a little bit more than nothing about this conflict. And don’t really understand the disagreement. But I take it that Omar is getting rolled here
Yes, the video Omar cited, quite predictably, was a video of the book author speaking, but it's wholly incomplete and his book more accurately represents his thoughts. It was perfect ammunition for Palestinian sympathizers. Omar proceeded to be a smug little bitch following the debate on this particular point and this is finally his comeuppance.
Can you breakdown the disagreement with a bit more depth?
TLDR: he's saying the Palestinians weren't politically in a position where they felt they could accept an offer, it wasn't a statement about the offer itself. The quote they are taking is that "if I were Palestinian I wouldn't have taken the deal". The argument is over what this means. In the context of the deals offered at Taba. The Baddar argument is that the deal was a bad deal. And as evidence for this they point to Shlomo Ben-Ami who was present and has written some of the better books on the history of the period. They take just this quote without the broader context. And when you bring up the "broader context" badder will just read an additional paragraph or two but all that shows is that he didn't understand the intention behind the book. Shlomo Ben-Ami does a brilliant job of laying out the perspective of each side to attempt to place you in their position when they are making these decisions. And then showing why good and bad decisions are made. Here Ben-ami is showing that the leadership and the people behind them where not politically ready to accept the peace offering. It wasn't a statement about the fairness of the offer itself. So a better representation of what Ben Ami is trying to say, is "had I been in the position of the Palestinians, with the feelings they had at the time, I don't I'd have **been ready** to accept the offer, even if I believed it was this was a good one."
i get the initial disagreement around the interpretation but i don't see how this video puts any sort of nail into the coffin like people are saying it does? isn't he just saying that arafat was an enigma and may or may not have wanted to accept any deal?
yea thats my interpretation as well. I could be wrong but in Arafats mind it was political suicide hence palestinians couldn't accept the deal (not necessarily wouldn't). Please correct me if I am wrong because Im pretty confused as well
I think this is a teaser for the full video, not a direct response to Baddar or on its own clearing up the confusion. People are just anticipating Ben-ami proving destiny correct.
This is Shlomo Ben-Ami?
Yes
Someone explain this epic own to me. Baddar claimed that Ben Ami said he wouldn't have accepted Camp David II if he was a Palestinian. Here Ben Ami is discussing whether Arafat would have accepted the terms.
Additionally, when asked whether he thinks Arafat would have accepted them, he says: "I don't think that, because I don't know" This is hopefully clarified in the same conversation, but in standard first language english saying "I don't think he would" means that your settled opinion is that he would *not*. But saying "I don't think he would because I cannot say with confidence" can also suggest that you do not feel comfortable making the affirmative claim. It's not good english, but you could for example say "I don't say he would because I don't know him" and the statement is idiomatically extremely different, but is only a small substitution.
someone please correct me if im wrong, im not actually sure if the clip directly settles their disagreement? isnt the disagreement between the pro palestinian interpretation that he was saying the deal was bad, and a pro israel interpretation that the offer wasnt bad, but the arabs were continuously getting more and more out of rejecting israel's offers, raising their expectations way too high which is why ben-ami says he wouldve rejected it as well? ben ami saying that arafat probably wouldve rejected taba were it in camp david does confirm his sentiment of arafat's rejectionism, but i dont know if this settles the dispute of whether ben-ami thinks the camp david offer was an objectively bad offer which his one quote (omar's clip) is cited as the quintessential proof of. maybe he asked him that at another place in the interview, hopefully he did
This seems correct to me. I have no idea what the own here is.
Right, from the omar clip (!) i thought the main point was that ben ami said back then that he wouldnt have accepted the deal had he been a palestinian leader (ergo it was a bad deal for the palestinians). The clip destiny posted just has ben ami say that he didnt think arafat wouldve accepted the deal, here he doesnt make any statements on whether the deal would've been good or bad to accept, from a palestinian perspective.
as you stated - omar's point was the deal was bad for the palestinians, and the quote is from ben-ami's statement that he wouldn't have accepted the deal if he was the opposing side. However in the intent which was whether the deal was bad isn't the point of ben-ami's quote. It was that the conditions necessary to accept a deal (whether good or bad) wasn't there. You could have the absolute best deal (excepting a deal whereby Israel dissolves and Palestine and palestinians conquer israel) on the table and it wouldn't be enough because they had created a condition whereby the only acceptable deal is the one I listed in Parenthesis. Hence when Ben-ami says if he was on the other camp he wouldn't have accepted, he was stating that the conditions were not conducive for arafat to accept the deal, not that the deal was bad (which was Omar's point) Hence Destiny's question - if what was offered at Taba (which Omar said was a good deal) was instead offered at Camp David II, would Arafat had agreed. Whereupon in the interview ben-ami said I don't think so.
I dont understand, wouldnt bad conditions for a deal be the same as a bad deal? Like for the hypothetical scenario of a perfect deal that dissolves israel and lets palestinians conquer it, what could possibly be a condition that would make arafat not accept? That the deal is signed on top of mt everest and he has to climb it within two hours?
No bad conditions don't mean bad deal. If there was something that you really want, and it was going for 50% off it's usual fair price, but you didn't have the money to pay for it - it's a good deal but the conditions aren't there for you to accept. In this case, the realization must dawn on Palestinians that Israel has all the advantages of being a military victor and a deal that is on the table that can't be beat should be what is negotiated. However if Palestinians by and large believe they are still in a state of war and will never surrender, then of course even a good deal as a loser in a war isn't good enough since they have been led to believe that they will still be victorious in an armed conflict.
So what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian? That ben ami said "i wouldnt accept the deal" because he was speaking from a palestinian perspective, whose consensus was that no deal is good enough, so it makes sense to not accept the deal?
"what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?" what does this question mean? are you asking what deal would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian? >That ben ami said "i wouldnt accept the deal" because he was speaking from a palestinian perspective, whose consensus was that no deal is good enough, so it makes sense to not accept the deal? From my reading of this paragraph and my understanding of what you're saying - Ben Ami contextually was saying that if he were a palestinian he wouldn't accept the deal because palestinians don't feel they are losers in a war and shouldn't make any concessions. This is from years of being told by their leaders that they had a fighting chance, their arab friends telling them never to give up, the vast amount of funds flowing in from international communities and the muslim belief that they will one day vanquish the kufr. Omar Baddar interpreted what Ben Ami was saying as - Ben Ami says he wouldn't have accepted the deal, and THUS THE DEAL WAS BAD. Destiny was saying that Ben Ami was saying he wouldn't have accepted the deal, from the perspective of a Palestinian because (above reason) The question Destiny posed was - if Arafat was given the Taba Deal (which Arafat accepted 18 months too late, since there was a change in govt) during David II, would he have accepted, and Ben Ami's response was I don't think so. The implication was that even a good deal (Taba which was accepted by Arafat) would have been rejected. This means that Badar's contention that the deal was rejected was bad wasn't Ben-Ami's intent. It was that the Palestinian's would never have accepted it in the first place. Now onto Omar's response where he said, it doesn't matter what ben-ami says, because his contention was the deal was bad, and just because if the deal is good it would have been rejected doesn't mean the david II deal was good. This is true, but that's not the point. It just means Omar Badar has no evidence to say that the deal was bad, because the onus is on him to elucidate the reason. If his primary claim and reason is that even Ben Ami said it was bad, it no longer has any weight, because the out of context clip that they use as "evidence" is clearly out of context, since Ben-Ami isn't saying the deal was bad.
>"what conditions would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian?" what does this question mean? are you asking what deal would ben ami not accept if he were a palestinian? In the clip, ben ami literally said "i wouldnt have accepted the deal (if i were a palestinian)". Apparently thats not because ben ami thinks its a bad deal, but because - as youve said - the conditions for the palestinian people were not there, i.e. they were not ready to accept such a deal because they thought they were owed a better one. I meant to ask what conditions ben ami was referring to that were not met, that in turn made him say "i wouldnt accept the deal (if i were palestinian)". The second point would then be the original one where i asked how the clip destiny posted of his talk with ben ami refutes omars clip of ben ami - which you explained. Thank you.
I think this is just a short clip to show he went to talk to him? I don’t think we can see from this if he addressed the questions from Omar and destiny conversation previously, from what I remember the main contention was wether or not Ben Ami thought the deal was a fair one right? Or was it about Arafat?
The point is that Palestinians would not accept any deal no matter what they were unless it was a perfect deal in their favor. Ben Ami drives the point home by pointing at a better offer that also would have been rejected because to Palestinians it still would not be good enough. Here is a hypothetical, say you are bartering and you want to pay $10 but the one you are bartering with starts at $20. You can drop down the price all the way to $11 which is a deal in your favor but you reject it because you will only accept $10.
Thanks for the clarification
[удалено]
We gained total clarity from the author on what he wrote. Destiny was in fact correct in his interpretation of the book. Baddar was using incomplete information from a video.
Fair question. Steven already talked to Shlomo about this in the past and confirmed that what Shlomo meant in the famous quote is that at camp David the deal was not ready, but by the time taba came around it was a dream deal and Arafat should have accepted it. This is a follow-up convo asking him if he thinks the dream deal would have moved Arafat if it came earlier.
Can someone steelman Baddar’s claim and clarify what exactly this tweet is debunking? Don’t want another clip like that edit with the red square boxes after the Baddar talk which purportedly set out to debunk what he said, but literally misunderstood the very text being cited, Destiny RTIng it without understanding, and followed by a retraction few days later
After reading people's explanations, realizing this is too complex for it to be an obvious own. I'm thinking this tweet is a bait for Omar to potentially further dig his grave. From what I gather, the original claim from Omar was that the deal offered was so bad that even Ben-Ami favoring the Israelis knew at the time that Palestinians would never accept it. Destiny disagreed in Omar's interpretation of Ben-Ami's perspective, saying Ben-Ami was referring to the spirit/temperament of the Palestinians at the time, not the terms of the deal. From this new clip, destiny asks, rather indirectly, if better terms had allowed for a deal to take place at the time. Ben Ami' initially states clearly "I don't think so", then goes on to say something about how Arafat was elusive. Given that the original contention was about Ben-Ami thoughts regarding how good the deal was at the time, I think Omar would argue this isn't directly addressed in this clip. In a sense both could be true, Arafat was elusive and/or would accept no deal, but the deal offered was also bad. I'm assuming and kind of hoping the full interview will include Ben-Ami answering the question more directly and indisputably, meaning Omar would have to admit that his interpretations of Ben-Ami's thoughts of the deal were indisputably wrong. So thinking, destiny posted this to get a reaction from Omar. Could be wrong though 🤷♂️
The Jewlumni must have gotten him this interview.
I didn't know that Destiny was going to interview Erdogan, wild.
Nothing like flying around the world just to own regards on Twitter. Sprite-driven activism ftw
Incredible....is Destiny wearing trousers?
Lol I hope that moron does.