Israel rejects ceasefire proposal

[AlamoDemoc]

This is a headline...it is about middle east....not some sort of dungeon headline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6179588.stm

An Israeli government spokeswoman, Miri Eisen, said the militants had offered only a partial ceasefire.

She said the offer of an end to firing rockets from Gaza showed a lack of real commitment to peace.

The conditional Palestinian offer was made after a meeting on Thursday of all armed factions, including Hamas.

The militant group Hamas leads the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations.

[LynnTheDem]

1. "Israel has...consistently rejected ceasefire offers"

That says most of it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlamoDemoc]

3. and here@ mango....not to out done BBC

"Israel has in the past consistently rejected ceasefire offers by Palestinian militants, saying it refuses to do deals of any kind with what it describes as terrorist organisations."

[k_jerome]

28. evil, ain't they? nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

5. anything related to israel/palestine

will go to the I/P forum. those are the rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

7. Israel doesn't want peace, that is very clear.

[oberliner]

8. Both sides need and want peace.

Don't they?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I don't think they do...

Israel definately doesn't need it, as the longer the conflict goes on unresolved, the more Israel gains out of it territory-wise. The Palestinians need it, but the current leadership doesn't seem to have reached the point where they recognise that yet...

[eyl]

9. repeated from the other thread

Let me get this straight. The Palestinians stop rockets in exchange for Israel stopping all attacks.

So if there's a spate of suicide bombings, Israel's attacking the organization involved would mean Israel's breaking the truce? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

[breakaleg]

10. It's at least a step in the right direction and a place to start negotiations.

Neither side can arrange a peace agreement without talking to one another.

So, let's say Israel accepts this agreement. Everything stops. And let's say there is another suicide bombing. Israel could still respond if that were to happen. But if it doesn't happen, then think of all the lives that have been saved in the meantime.

[pelsar]

11. and if

israel, were to stop the suicide bomber BEFORE they get a chance to arm and blow up people....then israel would be blamed for "breaking the truce"...of course there is the option of letting the suicide bomber through and react after shes killed some people...

maybe hamas should be go back a year to when israel left gaza in the first place........and just stop shooting rockets and attacking from gaza....they could do an experimental period for 5 days or so....check out the IDF reaction... they can always return to shooting later, now that they have hi quality explosives that they can store in the missles for longer periods.

[breakaleg]

25. so Israel has decided this won't work and aren't willing to try it.

how about if Palestinians made it a condition that no Palestinian will be harmed by any Israeli, specifically the settlers. And by harmed I mean harrassed in any way or prevented from harvesting their crops etc. Wouldn't the Palestinians then appear demanding and niave? Would that goal be unrealistic?

Given the large number of accidents Israel has had that's caused many deaths of Palestinians, I find their demand of a full stop to be a little much. I wonder if we look at the numbers how many "accidental killings" of Palestinians there were in the last 5 years, compared to intentianal Israeli deaths?

[eyl]

29. so you think

the organizations stopping suicide bombings is an unrealistic demand? In that case, what's to talk about? And if so, how is their only stopping just Qassam fire less unrealistic?

[breakaleg]

37. No.

I thought that this proposal was a starting point. A partial cessation of the violence was better than constant attacks from both sides.

[eyl]

55. The original proposal

was for a partial cessation of attacks on one side (the Palestinians) in exchange for a cessation from the other side (Israel).

[Behind the Aegis]

31. There's that "number" thing again.

Is that what it is all about? Numbers? What about statistics? Would those numbers make a difference?

[oberliner]

12. Let's say that Hamas says the following:

"As of right now, we hereby renounce violence as a means of achieving our objectives.

Not only will there be no further Qassam attacks into Israel, but there will be no suicide bombings or any other act of violence against Israelis be they inside Israel or in the Occupied Territories.

We will continue to fight against the injustice of the Occupation, but we will do so through non-violent means only."

Think of all the lives that could be saved.

[breakaleg]

24. but that's not what is on the table now. And if there is a chance that what

is on the table could work, then both sides need to take that chance. Waiting for a guarantee or refusing to even talk to one another is bullshit.

If they want peace, they'll talk. It's quite simple.

[eyl]

13. But that's not what's being proposed

The proposition was that Israel stops all attacks, in return for the Palestinians stopping (just) the Qassams.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yr right, but if it was proposed...

..my guess would be that Israel would reject it on the grounds that it doesn't talk to terrorists. I'm working on the safe assumption that a proposal to cease ALL attacks of any kind wouldn't be something you'd be personally opposed to..

[eyl]

30. In principle, I wouldn't be opposed

Of course, in the event it would depend on the details and circumstance

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Well, both sides have agreed to a cease-fire...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4359599.html

Let's hope it holds...

[eyl]

34. Let's hope

but frankly, I'm not too optimistic, given the way past "cease-fires" have gone...

[cali]

35. Jumping to conclusions?

You were wrong, but your predisposition to assume that Israel will invariably do the wrong thing, prevented you from seeing that Israel would indeed, (as they have) agree to a ceasefire.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. No, yr the only one doing that here, Cali...

Yr yet again trying to shove people who you label as pro-Palestinian into pigeon holes that don't belong to them. Taking a guess isn't jumping to conclusions, btw, and it was a reasonable guess seeing as how the Israeli govt itself has said that it refuses to talk to terrorists. Instead of inventing a bizarre stance of mine that doesn't reflect my views, do what you insist others do to you and base what you say on what I believe and have to say on the conflict in future. Accusing others of holding stances that they don't have is a weak and clumsy form of argument. btw, maybe you should have finished reading the subthread before you stumbled in, coz what yr saying is even more ridiculous then...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

65. Cali doesn't "launch" personal attacks

If anything , she is one of the most neutral and sensible posters I have ever seen.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

39. Someone posted here during the Lebanon conflict an explanation

on this much more eloquently than I ever could.

It was something along the lines of when we make a comment about something, do we always need to state the obvious? If it’s a given that we don’t support suicide bombings, and we are posting about say an IDF attack that killed civilians, is it necessary while condemning that attack to say, ‘oh, and I also condemn the other side for their bad deeds”? In many cases it’s obvious. Although around here, many posters take that lack of stating the obvious as proof of some belief we don’t hold. And yet those same people only post opinions on one side of the conflict and don’t consider themselves biased in any way.

[cali]

41. Surely you've noticed that works both ways. n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

47. That I can agree with.

I'm not you so of course I don't pay as much attention to comments directed your way, but I agree that the absurd accusation that someone supports terrorists, shouldn't be countenanced, and deserve to be called on it. I have seen some pretty vile posts about Israel, but I've never seen anyone say they support attacks on Israeli civilians.)

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Hmmm...

"I have seen some pretty vile posts about Israel, but I've never seen anyone say they support attacks on Israeli civilians."

Usually, those posts get deleted. However, there are a few posts here that say because all Israelis can be conscripted....well, I am sure you know how that statement plays out. So, while not a direct statement of "Israeli citizens deserve it," I think you'd agree that is what it implies.

Since we can't "call out" other posters (well, some of us can't), I can't show you where that post is, but it is recent (past two weeks), it may have since been deleted, but I think it is still there.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. This forum has changed for the worse over the past few weeks...

There is a real problem in the atmosphere here that wasn't present a few weeks back when I went on vacation. Since my return, the forum is full of constant accusations against posters that they support terrorism, are friends with terrorists, are terrorists, blan blah blah. It's unrelenting even though the posts are deleted. In the past I've seen bursts of ugliness from both 'sides' of the fence, but this time it's very one-sided, and only someone with a one-sided prism that favours pro-Israel posters would disagree on the current state of affairs. And I'd ask them to provide examples over the past two weeks of where pro-Israel posters have been called murderers or state-sanctioned terrorist supporters or something similar in such an unrelenting manner....

While it's understandable why you see no problem with the way things are right now in the forum, I for one am hoping they'll settle down sooner rather than later...

[Englander]

57. It has, it's the worst I've ever seen it.

I can't recall there being such a poisonous atmosphere as the current state of affairs. It's been
pretty bad before, but I can't recall seeing so many patently baseless accusations of supporting
terrorists, or of supporting the murder of Jewish Israelis, & so many quite explicit accusations
such as those listed made. There's probably nothing new in the accusations that are made, but what
I think is different is stuff that was insinuated, before, is now said openly, & repeatedly.

I hope the situation here does improve, & quickly.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

56. Everything breakaleg said was accurate.

Ignoring what was said, not accurately reflecting what was said, & making clueless accusations,
doesn't change the reality of what was described. There have been some quite unbelievably shocking &
very explicit accusations made down here in the past few weeks. There have been seriously
reprehensible, & very clearly so, accusations posted here. Not just 'vile', but seriously unacceptable
stuff. Virtually all of that is only going in one direction, there's only one 'side' that are being
accused of supporting the murder of innocents, for eg. There's only one 'side' that is behaving abysmaly.

[msmcghee]

60. As Harry said, paraphrasing,

We give you the truth, it just seems like hell.

[cali]

61. You are seeing what you want/need to see.

It goes both ways. There's tons of evidence for anyone who wants to open their eyes and actually see. It's up to you to do so or not.

[Englander]

75. No, not really.

I'm seeing what is there. Something you've helped to prove, by ignoring what I've said, by being
particularly patronising, & by mentioning the absurdity about 'tons of evidence'. Any chance that any
details will be given about those 'tons of evidence'?

[cali]

77. I suggest you

simply pm Lithos or go look up tombstoned members. I'm not gonna do it for you.

[Englander]

78. A simple 'no, there isn't any evidence' would've sufficed.

Again, all you're doing is proving my point, for nearly all the same reasons as before.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

69. It's very clear Israel does want peace

[breakaleg]

70. In light of this most recent ceasefire, I happily stand corrected.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

15. "The Palestinian people voted for that."

Voted for what?

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? He's been dead since 1974 and thus ineligible to run for office.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I don't believe that was on the ballot either.


Most Palestinians Believe Hamas Should Change its Position on Eliminating Israel

<snip>

Contrary to Hamas Position, Majority Supports Two-State Solution

Hamas Victory Driven By Desire To End Corruption

"The decisive victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas in last month’s Palestinian legislative elections (winning 74 of 132 parliamentary seats) has raised the question of whether the Palestinian public has become aligned with Hamas’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and its stated goal of creating an Islamic state covering all of historic Palestine, including what is now Israel. Hamas has come under increasing pressure to renounce its goal of eliminating Israel, but Hamas leaders have refused.

However, new polling following the election indicates that two-thirds of Palestinians believe Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel’s right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicate that Hamas’ victory is due largely to Palestinians’ desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization’s political platform."


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/173.php?nid=&id=&pnt=173&lb=brusc

[everythingsxen]

16. Well..

you might say that the Protocols were on the ballot in the form of Hamas.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[everythingsxen]

27. Right...

because I am sure that being locked into a cycle of violence initiated by the Palestinians doesn't somehow end up causing more Palestinians to join the cycle of violence in a never ending death spiral.

Hamas has no intention of actually making peace with Israel. If they did they would lay down their arms and go for a peaceful solution. But they do not, because they follow the doctrines and teachings of a long line of anti-Semitic fanatics who are dedicated to wiping out the Jewish people.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

58. ~Star Wars Ep. I - Attack of the Nazi Arabs~

[barb162]

68. Is it the case or not that Hamas won the election?

Is it the case or not that Hamas is a terror group?

Is it the case or not that Hamas earlier this month Hamas called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets.

Is it the case or not that Hamas has carried out many suicide and other attacks on Israel for years?

Is it the case or not that most Palestinians who voted for Hamas know of its terrorist activities?

Is it the case or not that Palestinians who voted for Hamas were aware Hamas carries out attacks on Israel and that its leaders called for the destruction of Israel?

Is it the case or not that Hamas refuses to change its Charter?

Those who choose to deny that those Palestinians who knowingly elected a terror group whose goal is the destruction of Israel are either deluded or fucking hypocrites.

[Scurrilous]

23. The price of ignoring Palestinians' needs (Natan Sharansky)

<snip>

"To the outside world, the Palestinians have now chosen the party of terror over the party of peace. But in the eyes of most Palestinians, the differences between Hamas and the "moderate" Fatah were not primarily in their views toward Israel. In fact, satellites of Fatah, such as Tanzim and the Al Aksa brigades, were no less responsible for the terrorism against Israel than were Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Indeed, the leading figure on Fatah's list was Marwan Barghouti, a man serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in terror attacks.

No, the real difference for the Palestinians was that a Fatah-run Palestinian Authority was rightly seen as a corrupt and feckless organization that had done and would continue to do nothing to improve Palestinian lives, whereas Hamas was untainted by corruption and appreciated for providing real social services.

With the vote being a choice between corrupt terrorists dedicated only to themselves and honest terrorists who are also dedicated to others, is it any surprise that Hamas won by a landslide?

I believe that many Palestinians who voted for Hamas voted to end corruption, to restore law and order and to implement real reform; the slogan that Hamas chose in its election campaign was not "Throw the Jews into the Sea," but rather "Change and Reform." The paradox is that the only party that Palestinians see as credible on this internal reform agenda was a terror organization dedicated to Israel's destruction and which has declared President George W. Bush "the enemy of God" and "the enemy of Islam."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/opinion/edsharan.php


Change and Reform? What 'protocol' is that?

[everythingsxen]

26. What change and reform has Hamas enacted?

Have they renounced violence or increased attacks?

Do they seek peace with Israel or do they attack?

[msmcghee]

17. Oh, I get it.

They wanted to get rid of corruption in their government so they elected the most violent thugs and killers who were on the ballot to lead them and speak for them internationally - and the possible destruction of Israel was just a side-effect.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. No, it appears you don't get it...

I doubt you even know what parties were on the ballot cards before you made that statement. Hamas were promising to put an end to the corruption and that was the major issue and that's what people voted on. I agree with the poster who voiced concern at the growing level of attempts in this forum by those who have never and probably will never meet a Palestinian or go to the Occupied Territories to speak on behalf of all of them(or the vast majority when calling them monsters)...

[msmcghee]

19. Read it and weep . .

Created in 1987 by Shaikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, Hamas is known outside of the Palestinian territories chiefly for its suicide bombings<2> and other attacks directed against Israeli civilians, as well as military and security forces targets. Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.<3><4><5> The charter states: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."<6>

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,<7> Canada,<8><9> the United Kingdom,<10> the European Union,<11> Israel, and the United States,<12> and is banned in Jordan.<13> According to the US State Department, the group is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.<12> In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members.<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I think you mean 'weep'. But what does that have to do with what I said?

I'm pointing out to you that the major election issue was corruption and that's what people voted on. You don't have any idea what parties or candidates were on the ballot papers, so why did you act as though you did?

[barb162]

66. The major election issue in your mind only

was corruption. Certainly it was an important one but not the only important issue. I suspect every Palestinian who voted knew the Hamas Charter and that it doesn't exactly call for peaceful resolution of issues with Israel. Otherwise people like Um Nidal ("Psycho Mother of the Year") wouldn't have gotten elected.

Do you have a link proving your claim re: "the major election issue was corruption"

[everythingsxen]

73. Let's see if we can clear this up:

Here is the election results of the 2006 Palestinian election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election%2C_2006

Now, if the claim is that the people voted for Hamas to end corruption....

Why didn't they vote for Third Way or PNI? Both said they would fight corruption. Both are also more moderate than Hamas and do not include anything about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charters...

[barb162]

74. Personally

I don't understand why Third Way didn't do a lot better. Salam Fayyad was making a lot of progress cleaning up the financial mess and corruption in which the government had gotten itself. Also,because he knew the international financial system, knew what it took to get loans, knew the "right" people to get big money, and that party would have been good for women's rights, etc., again, why didn't it do way better. I think if the Palestinians had gotten behind him, he'd already be rebuilding Gaza and other areas.

[Scurrilous]

76. Personally I don't understand...

...nevermind.

[barb162]

64. You don't get it

The Hamas position going into the election clearly was the creation of a Palestinian state on land that now includes Israel rather than the road map's two-state solution. And a Hamas side issue was a promise to clean up corruption.

And I doubt you even know all of the parties which were on the ballots before you made your comments.

BTW, since it is not a prerequisite to have visited specific areas of the Mideast to post on this or other topics within DU, why bring up that silly comment in your last sentence. There have been thousands of posts on Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Iran, etc on DU with most posters never having visiting those areas.

PS/edit I remember you admitting you hadn't been to the Mideast.

[originalpckelly]

67. I knew it was going to happen. This kind of bullshit always happens...

because both sides aren't interested in anything but killing each other. The only purpose ceasefires have is to provide the ability for both sides to lick their wounds and plan the next offensive.

It's sick and true. These people should be ashamed of themselves, because they are denying their children their futures.

They are not ashamed, however, because they are too busy hating the other side to look in the mirror and feel shame.

[everythingsxen]

72. I don't know that you are being entirely fair

Israel rejected a clearly one-sided ceasefire proposal. Wouldn't Hamas equally reject a ceasefire proposal that involved Israel no longer using artillery against them, but would keep doing air-strikes, if in exchange, Hamas halted all attacks?

I am reasonably sure that Israel does actually want peace, but they want a long term lasting peace that won't involve them looking over their shoulders forever to make sure they are not about to be attacked. Hamas on the other hand... I am not sure they really want peace and if they do it is a graveyard's peace with all Israeli's dead or driven into the sea.