Hamas announces 6-month truce with Israel

[Deckard]

Now I don't want to sound overly-cynical, but whenever I hear those phrases "Hamas announces truce" or "Hamas announces ceasefire", it always seems to be followed (within days) by some kind of Israeli assault, resulting in said 'truce' in shreds.

Am I suggesting deliberate coercion by elements within Israel to keep Hamas as the enemy? No, not at all. I'd want more to go on before arriving at that conclusion.

However... (!) I have to be honest and admit, it's been a pattern I've noticed enough times as to warrant me posting my concerns here, so let's just see what happens. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong this time. And if I am, I'll take note of it.

(In the interest of balance, I would add that whenever sensitive negotiations are taking place between the two sides, these are similarly sabotaged by elements of the Palestinian side. But then we all knew that anyway.)

[cured]

Prelude to a military conflict. Whoever blinks first is going to have the other all over them in very short order.

[Jason Roth]

Can I ban people for being stupid?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

Can I ban people for being stupid?

Do elaborate...

[Jason Roth]

Forget it. You're right. It's all Israel's fault.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Jason Roth

Forget it. You're right. It's all Israel's fault.

Yes of course, exactly what I meant to say.

[dubman]

oh look, another hypersensitive tussle over israel and palestine.
GB2youtube

[Sean]

Well I for one find some fundamental flaws in the author's assertions.

One, he writes that:

Trade and Labour Minister Eli Yishai's on-the-scene response was to demand an immediate freeze on freedom of movement for Arab residents of East Jerusalem, as well as the predictable call for the terrorist's home to be demolished. Not for him the option of treating every criminal as an individual; instead, the attack was reason enough to tar all Arabs with the same brush.

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action. I'm not saying that what they're doing is right...I'm only saying that it's more an indication that they have no idea who will perpetrate the next attack than it is that they assume "all arabs must therefore be terrorists". In fact, the author himself even acknowledges this by saying: "branding an entire section of society as potential terrorists, and curtailing their freedoms, plays right into the hands of the extremists among them." So I think a more accurate wording would have been "all Palestinians in the area may potentially be terrorists". It's a possibility, not a certainty.

Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.

I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."

I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action.

No argument with you here. This was a weak point in his arguments, admittedly. But I don't find it a fundamental drawback to his main assertion that pursuit of responsibility for actions taken on both sides must cut through all the layers of politics, religion, and excuses if the betterment of people's lives is ever going to be achieved.

Originally Posted by Sean

Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.

I'm not sure I understand. Israel has not been an instant and perpetual offender but its been an instant and perpetual defender of itself by offensive tactics? On a practical level I'm not sure there's much of a difference, moreover whatever difference in perspective it makes, I think its categorically relative. Baruch Goldstein, the new york born jew who offed 30 moslems worshipping in a mosque virginia tech style made the argument that he was just killing people who would one day kill jews. Which is the rational behind all the heavy handed military action that has not only targeted terrorists but have consistently taken large civilian casualties. This may all exist in a framework of defensive responses to previous palestinian agreession, but they all stand on their own as brutal actions against a civilian populace. And it begs to perspective how offensive/defensive one is to perceive them.

Add on top of this the fact that if you do see the chronology of bloodshed as israel being lopsidedly on the defensive, you're playing into the useful enemy model. Both sides of the fence have used the existence of the enemy to shoulder up support for corrupt politicians on their respective sides, causing as much internal damage for which the other side could only dream. It is because Israel is so terribly oppressive that hamas gets the power it does. And it is because palestinian terrorists are so awful that likud party takes control and ass hats like netanyahu, olmert, and sharon are allowed to ride rough shod over paletinian people while yitzhak rabin gets murdered by a fellow jew.

This is why if you're Jason Roth and you care about the Israeli people first and fore most, your first task ought to be to figure out why the rest of the arab world feels about Israel the way americans feel about palestinians. The Israeli people don't benefit from the model where Israel is perpetually justified. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and the starry eyed believers they manage to con.

Originally Posted by Sean

I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."

Which is why I trust that we can both see we're not saying anything that different from each other.

Originally Posted by Sean

I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

Again, when you have every evangelical douche bag like Hagee on this side of the world referencing bible passages that condemns any manouever of compromise, because every speck of palestinian soil is to be Israel by divine decree and jesus won't come until it happens, then you can believe that both sides act on a self driven mandate to obliterate the other side.

[Jason Roth]

Yes, it's because Israel is so oppressive that things are the way they are. It's Israel who should be taking care of the Palestinians. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any of the other arab countries awash in oil money that should be helping out.

Have they built one hospital in the Palestinain territories? One school? One road? No. Trust me, I was just there. Other arab countries are using the Palestinian people as their sword against the Jews and have been for ages. They want them poor, and hungry, and angry and armed to the teeth. They fire missiles into Israel from residential neighborhoods so that when Israel retaliates and kills Palestinain citizens, the world sees Israel as the devil. And you buy into it every time. Grow up.

PS - John Hagee is an end of days cult leader, nothing more. Grouping him in with Israelis who want to live in peace shows complete ignorance.