Skip to main content

Various Western media sources are buzzing over the latest exchange where an Israeli died on the Gaza border. Yet there were earlier Israel strikes on Palestinians after their "unilteral ceasefire" resulting in casualties and fatalities. Moreover, the use of the term "ceasefire" is different than "unilateral ceasefire" as it implies an agreement on terms between the parties.  There is no such agreement.

Some of the various western papers are filled with stories of ''first' events in a broken 'ceasefire.'

CNN
That truce was breached on Tuesday morning when Palestinian militants set off an explosive device targeting an Israeli army patrol along the Gaza border, killing an Israeli soldier and wounding three others -- one seriously -- according to the Israeli military.
...
Tuesday's violence is the first violation of the tentative cease-fire between Israel and Hamas-ruled Gaza, which began last week after a three-week military operation by Israeli troops in the Palestinian territory.

Times
Israel carried out an air strike on the Gaza Strip today after Palestinian militants killed a soldier in a bomb attack, as the fragile ceasefire between the two sides stood on the brink of collapse.

The strike, targeting a Hamas militant riding a motorbike in the southern town of Khan Younis, came after Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel "cannot accept" the bomb attack, which took place as the soldier patrolled the Kissufim crossing with Gaza.

The incident threatened to destroy the calm that has largely prevailed since Israel and the Islamist group ended a three-week conflict on January 17.

AP (numerous locations)
Palestinian militants detonated a bomb that killed an Israeli soldier patrolling near Gaza on Tuesday and Israel responded with an airstrike, straining the fragile cease-fire on the eve of a visit by President Barack Obama's new Mideast envoy.

The violence jolted the calm that has largely prevailed since Israel ended a devastating three-week offensive in Gaza on Jan. 17. Since withdrawing its troops, Israel has threatened to retaliate hard for any violations of the truce.

Here we have the familiar and propagandistic theme of presenting the story as 'Palestinian aggression' and "Israeli responses."  However, is this true?

It turns out that Israel already violated its own "unilateral ceasefire" numerous times before this. Buried in the LA times article

Gazan militants have remained quiet since Jan. 18, but the Israeli navy has regularly fired warning shots at Gazan fishermen, and there have been at least two incidents of Palestinians shot by soldiers across the border.

When was this? At least two? This is from the same article that proclaimed

The clash, near the central Gaza border crossing of Kissufim, is the most serious threat so far to the separate cease-fires declared by Israel and Hamas that have largely held since Jan. 18.

This information on how many Palestinians were shot during Israel's 'unilateral ceasefire' is available in other sources.

Jan. 18 (Xinhua)
A Palestinian farmer was shot dead on Sunday morning by an Israeli soldier in Khan Younis in southern Gaza Strip, becoming the first fatality since Israeli declared an unilateral ceasefire, local witnesses said.

   The witnesses said the farmer was killed while checking his farm.

   But Israeli army said they shot the farmer because he was approaching the land where the Israeli ground troops occupied.

   In another incident in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza strip, two Palestinians were injured when some houses were hit by Israeli tank shelling.

   Despite the sporadic clashes, the situation in Gaza is relatively quiet since the Israeli truce took into effect.

   Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein said that the rescue team has found at least 40 bodies from rubbles while checking across the strip to find people shot died during the past more than 20 days of Israeli military offensive.

   The death toll since the beginning of Israel launched the massive military operation against Gaza on Dec. 27 2008 has reach 1245 he said, estimating that the number will rise due to more bodies would be found by the rescue team.

IPS  (Western news)

About 9.45 am that morning in Sheyjaiee district to the east of Gaza city, seven-year-old Ahmed Hassanian was outside his house with friends when Israeli soldiers fired from the eastern border. A bullet lodged in his brain, causing brain haemorrhage. Dr. Fawzi Nablusi, director of the ICU at Shifa hospital, says the boy is not expected to survive.

Three Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire and 15 injured, including the ten injured Jan. 22, according to both Mu'awiyah Hassanain and Dr. Hassan Khalaf.

Hours after the ceasefire was said to have come into effect Jan. 18, Israeli warplanes flew extremely low over areas of Gaza. Drones capable both of photographing and of dropping targeted missiles continued to circle overhead. At 8.30 am Jan. 18, one of these drones dropped two missiles in the Amal area east of Beit Hanoun, killing 11-year-old Angham Ra'fat al-Masri and injuring her mother.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) reports further violations of the ceasefire, including the killing of Maher abu Rjaila, 23, shot in the chest by Israeli troops at 10.40 am Jan. 18 as he walked on his land east of Khan Younis city.

Israeli soldiers fired on residents of Al-Qarara, near Khan Younis, at 1 pm Jan. 20, shooting Waleed Al-Astal, 42, in his right foot.

In Shifa hospital, Yasser Abed, 15, from Gaza's Beach camp, explained how he received a shard of shrapnel in his forehead. "I went out of my house to see what was happening," he said. "I didn't see the gunboat, didn't see anything." His father explains that Yasser was rushed to Shifa after the shrapnel hit him, and that there was a girl nearby aged about four who was also hit by a piece of shrapnel.

In another room at Shifa, 11-year-old Nisreen Al-Quqa tells how she was out walking on the beach with her brother when the Israeli navy began to fire upon Palestinian fishermen. A piece of shrapnel from the shelling got lodged in her right calf muscle. "What ceasefire?" the girl's mother said, looking down at her daughter. But she knows Nisreen is lucky to have only a minor leg injury; it could have been much worse.

Jan. 22 (Xinhua)
Five Palestinians injured, two seriously, as Israeli naval gunship vessels intensively fired missiles at an area in western Gaza City on Thursday, medics and witnesses said.

   Residents said that several Israeli naval gunship vessels fired dozens of shells at the western coast of the Gaza Strip, mainly at Shati (Beach) refugee camp west of Gaza City, wounding at least five people.

   Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein told reporters that five Palestinians had several injuries and were brought to Shifa Hospital by local ambulances, adding that two are in serious conditions.

Western news sources are promoting propagand at this point that is easily dismissed. It is shameful that they choose to present stories this way.

Originally posted to BLG on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep (26+ / 0-)

    I've noticed the Israeli attacks over the past week or so.  I also found it ironic that it is only when an Israeli is killed that suddenly the ceasefire is threatened.  Dead Palestinians are not violations of the ceasefire.  But then, this is normal.  In every ceasefire, there are numerous Israeli violations that never make it into the Western press.  

  •  ????? (12+ / 0-)

    So the attack on the Israeli soldier was not breaking a cease fire?  

    This diarist is blinded by zealotry.

    "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

    by TomP on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 10:44:29 AM PST

  •  The ceasefire had kinda not begun yet because (5+ / 0-)

    Hamas only agreed to it on January 19th and were, I believe, still firing rockets on the 18th.

    BBC

    More sources to come ...

    "I gotta rec that sh*t, even though it is completely tasteless and rude." ... "luntz and his cretinous kabal are paid bloggers from AIPAC."

    by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 10:48:39 AM PST

  •  Hamas Broke the Ceasefire (4+ / 0-)

    No sugar coating from you "pro-Hamas" types can sugar coat this event.  There is 100% certainty that the fault -- as usual -- lies with Hamas.

  •  Mitchell's going to the middle east "to listen" (10+ / 0-)

    which, as most people will understand, is a sea-change in US policy, as Obama said himself, that the US is known more (at least for the last eight years) for going over and telling other countries what to do rather than trying to understand both sides.

    I'm hopeful he'll return in the next week or two and be able to give the President an accurate appraisal of what all sides of the issue believe, and where there is room for true negotiation.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 10:55:11 AM PST

    •  He will not talk to Hamas! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nailbanger

      I think the US has got to talk with them in order to broker a lasting cease fire. The moderates have proved ineffective up till now. But that said, we don't know what will be going on behind the scenes. This is also a war of propaganda so public statements are carefully chosen.

      I am very hopeful regarding Mitchell.

      This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

      by Agathena on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:49:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He will likely meet with Hamas representatives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        when he's in Egypt, but that won't be something they make a big deal out of due to the predictable GOP opposition to having any kind of dialogue with anyone except Israel.

        Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

        by darthstar on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:52:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Breaking! (5+ / 0-)

    Israel sucks!

    (Carry on.)

    Meanwhile there is something like 300,000 dead in Darfur, but virtually no one here gives a rat's ass.

    What a den of sanctimony and hypocrisy.

    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

    by Karmafish on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:19:25 AM PST

  •  Belated Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    I'm still a little confused on how things work here.

    This is an important omission and the media should be called to task on this.

  •  oh good. a second diary where we can repeat (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JNEREBEL, dnyedwab, Karmafish, Mia Dolan

    all the BS we respectively shared on the earlier diary.  Deja vu all over again.  Yogi lives.

  •  USA needs to sell its bombs.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, Nailbanger

    so control the messenger. What else is new?

    I love the smell of napalm in the morning

    by Jazzenterprises on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:31:38 AM PST

  •  Why are so many progressives in love with Hamas? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dnyedwab, dmnyct

    It reminds of the leftists in the 60s who were in love with Che Guevara.  Romantacising him/them.

    •  Nobody is in love with Hamas. (6+ / 0-)

      The problem here is that even though Hamas accepted the internationally-brokered cease-fire on the 19th, Israel continued to fire at civilians on the 20th. That is settled fact.

      •  Actually, I'm in love with Hamas (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster

        but she's too busy fighting a war of liberation to give me the time of day.

        I never liked you and I always will.

        by Ray Blake on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:53:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And losing that war, very badly. (4+ / 0-)

          They keep fighting and keep losing.

          I wonder when they will eventually choose peace?

          "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

          by Karmafish on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:55:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Peace isn't one of the choices (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Agathena, Scoopster, skrekk, Nailbanger

            Try liberty or death. Apartheid looked like a winner for a long time.

            I never liked you and I always will.

            by Ray Blake on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 12:28:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Peace or surrender? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nailbanger, JesseCW

            www.knesset.gov.il says:

             

            The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
               ...
               The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

            •  WTF? (3+ / 0-)

              The address you provide is to the Knesset website, but you do not provide an actual link to the lanugage you are quoting.  Is that statement an official statement of the Israeli government, or is it something from a Likud site that is linked from the Knesset website?  Because if the latter is the case, it is pretty dishonest to say its coming from the Israeli goverment.  

              Also, seeing how the Israeli government forcibly removed 9000 settlers from Gaza a few years back, I would guess its also something out of date.

              •  In another post (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mia Dolan, aggregatescience

                The commenter mentions that it is part of the Likud platform but certainly in the post you responded to it is presented as Israeli Government policy - which it is most certainly not.

                Good catch on a most deceiving post.

              •  Would you accept wiki? (0+ / 0-)

                It's the Likud charter NOT the Kadima charter. And it looks like Likud is going to win, not Kadima.
                There was no implication it repressed the knesset.

                Arab-related issues

                Likud has in the past espoused hawkish policies towards the Palestinians, including opposition to Palestinian statehood and support of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

                [snip]
                Likud charter

                   * The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea (and) Samaria" (more commonly known as the "West Bank") and Gaza,"[2] and as such, brings it into direct conflict with Palestinian claims on the same territory. Similarly, their claims of the Jordan river as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel," do the same.

                   * The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform "flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river." The chapter continued: "The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state."[2]
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aggregatescience

                  I don't doubt its the Likud charter.  And while Likud may win (a terrible outcome which will fuck everthing up, IMO) this statement is not currently the policy of Israel.  

                  Your comment, however, did imply that it came from the Knesset since that was what you cited.  

                •  Actually there is an implication.... (0+ / 0-)

                  that it is the Israeli gov't policy. Your post states: This from.... Instead of saying this is the Likud Partys' platform. You are being disingenuous when you state otherwise.

            •  Livni vows to evict the settlements (0+ / 0-)

              She said Israel lives by the rule of law. This on the eve of the election makes me wonder how much support she has among Israeli voters on that issue.

              She states that there will be no peace as long as the settlements continue.
              60 Minutes

              This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

              by Agathena on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 12:45:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  She wants the Barrier to be the new border (4+ / 0-)

                From Phil Weiss

                Recall that Livni wants the barrier to be the new border (AI,8/15/07). That means the realignment plan tacitly endorsed by Eldar would be put into effect. So when Simon asks Livni about removing settlers, crucially, he misses an opportunity to ask her how many and where will they go (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723_page3.shtml):
                ...
                A big irony here is Livni has no intention of evacuating Daniela Weiss, the settler Simon claims Livni wants to remove.
                ....
                ... that plan only removes between 40-70,000 settlers (more likely the smaller #), from the eastern side of the barrier. It leaves in place 400,000 + settlers in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. & some of the settlers who are removed will be resettled on the western side of the fence, but still within occupied territory, some in new settlements Israel will build there, others within existing settlements. According to JPost (quoted in my article), only 20-30 settlements will be removed out of 252 total.

                •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Scoopster

                  Anyone who thinks that the two state solution is going to involve the 1967 borders is dreaming.  That ship has sailed. Some of those settlements are cities with tens of thousands of people in them.  

                  •  Thats the point of the CBS video (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    driftwood, Fire bad tree pretty

                    And you might be right.  The Two-state solution might just be completely not viable at that point.  

                    At that time, the solution would probably be One Person, One Vote.

                  •  Who's fault is that? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Scoopster, Fire bad tree pretty

                    As they were going up the meme was that they could be removed.

                    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Scoopster

                      Technically, I guess that its Israel's "fault."    But the fact that Israel is at fault isn't going to matter.  The reality of the situation is that Israel is not going to move several hundred thousand people, some of whom have been living there for decades.  Part of the West Bank, and maybe (or maybe not) up to where the wall has been built, is going to be part of Israel.  It may not be fair or just, but that is the reality of the situation.

                      The same goes with making the point that the end of the cease fire, or the entire recent Gaza war, was Israel's fault.  So what?  You can condemn Israel (and I'll concede that some condemnation is in order) but what does that get you?  Peace in the I/P is going to depend on convincing Israelis that their security is best protected by making peace rather than making war.  The important audience here is moderate Israelis and moderate American Jews.  If you are just going to rail on about how bad Israel is, you aren't going to win them over.

                      •  But what do you do about the fact that Likud (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Scoopster

                        might win, and so far there is no interest in changing their charter.

                        Do the Palestinians keep fighting? What is their choice?

                        Ignoring the situation like Bush did, just created more friction and death. How do you convince Israelis is that the key to security is peace?

                        •  ok (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Scoopster, Karmafish

                          The fact that Likud might win is very depressing.  Netanyahu is simply awful.  I am hopeful that Kadima can win, because otherwise there will be no progress toward peace for as long as Likud is in power.  

                          I think the Palestinians have a choice not to fight.  Gandhi didn't fight.  MLK didn't fight.  There is another way.  Someone needs to take the leap of faith here - to not respond to violence with more violence.  

                          I agree that ignoring the situation like Bush did created more friction and death.  Obama needs to be (and likely will be) more engaged.  The U.S. can support Israel without giving Israel a free pass to behave as badly as it wants - which is essentially what Bush did.

                          The key is to convince Israel that it can't fight its way to a long term solution. That the only real security will come from making peace and giving the Palestinians their state.  In effect, Israelis have to be convinced that the Palestinians need justice not for the sake of justice, but that the Palestinians need justice for the sake of their own security.  That is why I don't think blaming Israel or accusing Israel of war crimes or anything like that is particularly helpful.  You can make your case that Israel has done some bad shit and that the Palestinians have had a shitty deal for a long time.  But all that does is put Israel on the defensive.  You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of Israeli and American Jewish moderates by demonizing Israel.  

                          •  Gandhi (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Scoopster

                            I think the Palestinians have a choice not to fight.  Gandhi didn't fight.
                            Gandhi on Jews & Middle-East

                            Gandhi on Hitler

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            First, I have to say that those links - especially Gandhi on Hitler - were facinating.  I did not know any of that.

                            That being said, the situation in I/P is not remotely analogous what happened to the Jews in Germany.  Non-violent resistance was not an option in Germany because Hitler was simply going exterminate the entire population.  As far as the first comment, it was made in 1938, prior to the founding of Israel.  I would expect that Gandhi's position (which, as your second link shows, can and did change) would be different under the present circumstances.  

                            I certainly hope you are wrong and that fighting is not the only answer.  I hope I am not being naive in believing that if one side (either Israel or the Palestinians) took a leap of faith and did not respond to violence with violence, but chose non-violence instead, that the other side would respond in kind and eventually a long-term solution could be reached.  Because I am quite sure that violence is not going to bring about a solution.  

                          •  Change? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lwinter

                            I would expect that Gandhi's position (which, as your second link shows, can and did change)

                            Change?

                            The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

                            Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

                            The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

                            And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in the their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)
                            You need to work on your reading comprehension.  When I referred to your second link, I meant your second link.  That link talks about how Gandhi changed his views about Hitler.  I was not referring to the first link, from which you have cited a passage.

                            Are you saying that Gandhi would advocate for the destruction of Israel?  Whatever point you are making, Gandhi made those comments prior to the creation of Israel, which is a completely different context.  I cited Gandhi for the proposition that there can be a peaceful solution and that non-violence can resolve this problem.  

                            Do you believe that violence is the only solution?  

                          •  'Reading Comprehension' (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you saying that Gandhi would advocate for the destruction of Israel?  Whatever point you are making, Gandhi made those comments prior to the creation of Israel, which is a completely different context.  I cited Gandhi for the proposition that there can be a peaceful solution and that non-violence can resolve this problem.  

                            Do you believe that violence is the only solution?  

                          • Gandhi, clearly believed in a solution where

                            The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.

                          • Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.
                          • They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them.
                          • Regarding Change:

                            As far as the first comment, it was made in 1938, prior to the founding of Israel.  I would expect that Gandhi's position (which, as your second link shows, can and did change)

                            The fear of displacement by land, immigration, and integration are still there.  The arguments are remarkable in their consistency today when talking about the fear of losing a "Jewish Majority."  It just so happens that the shoe is on the other foot.  

                            These quotes, however didn't change, and they're ugly.

                            1939
                            "If the Jews can summon to their aid the soul power that comes only from non-violence" "Herr Hitler will bow before the courage which he has never yet experienced" "in any large measure in his dealings with men."

                            1946
                            But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

                            Now, if you are going to make a statement like

                            I think the Palestinians have a choice not to fight.  Gandhi didn't fight.

                            You are going to have to look at the things Gandhi said about Jews and about the very direct things about Palestine and come to a conclusion whether you think the initial response was appropriate.  Gandhi isn't some vague representation.  He was a living, breathing man who made very direct comments on these subjects.  

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            My point about Gandhi was not to examine his beliefs about Jews and a Jewish state, but the fact that he was able to free India using non-violence.  For purposes of this discussion on I/P, I am not really interested on Gandhi's views about it.  And again, the context is completely different than in 1938 or 1946.

                            My point is that the Palestinians don't have to fight.  That they are far more likely to succeed using the tactics that Gandhi used in India.  

                            Putting Gandhi aside, do you think the Palestinians have no choice but to fight?  

                          •  By default, it does (0+ / 0-)

                            My point about Gandhi was not to examine his beliefs about Jews and a Jewish state

                            By default, it does.

                            For purposes of this discussion on I/P, I am not really interested on Gandhi's views about it.

                            You brought him up.  The arguments are still about land, immigration, and the fear of displacement.  Thats what he has to say about it.

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            But you still didn't answer my question.  Do you think the Palestinians have no choice but to fight?  Or do you think they can get there by using nonviolence.  

                          •  Israeli settlement construction jumps 60% in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

                            But none of these solutions are working for

                            #The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.

                            # Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. # They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them.


                            Israeli settlement construction jumps 60% in 2008:

                            What it is doing is pushing Arabs to the Brink and creating new points of serious friction for the US in the region.  Its gotten to the point where the Saudis and the Iranians are contemplating an alliance against Israel.  

                            A just solution is in American interests, because this is a conflict of a globalized focus, and Israel is finding itself increasingly isolated.

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't know why you are still quoting Gandhi.  It simply has no relevance.

                            As to the settlements, I think you have to distinguish between the construction in East Jerusalem and other places near Israel proper, and the wildcat settlements.  The 1967 borders are long gone.  If and when there is a Palestinian state, the West Bank settlements near the border will be part of Israel.

                            The Iranians are comtemplating an alliance against Israel?  As opposed to the warm and fuzzy relationship that exists now?  The other arab countries do not give a shit about the Palestinians.

                            And what has made Israel isolated is the Gaza offensive.  Outside pressure and condemnation can stop an active war, but it cannot bring a long-term peace.  The world will tolerate the status quo.  

                            A peaceful solution in I/P takes recognition of the realities of the situation.  Not about what is fair or just or what you think should happen.  You need to work within the framework of what can be accomplished.

                          •  Corrections (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lwinter

                            I don't know why you are still quoting Gandhi.  It simply has no relevance.

                            =
                            You brought him up.  The arguments are still about land, immigration, and the fear of displacement.  Thats what he has to say about it.

                            If the Palestinians fight or not, this happens

                            Israeli settlement construction jumps 60% in 2008:

                            I think you have to distinguish between the construction in East Jerusalem and other places near Israel proper

                            Peace accords like the Arab 2002 peace plan do that.

                            The Iranians are comtemplating an alliance against Israel?  As opposed to the warm and fuzzy relationship that exists now?  The other arab countries do not give a shit about the Palestinians.

                            Its the Saudi's that is the concern here.  

                            And to say "they don't give a shit" is just false

                            Recent examples
                            Israel delays aid trucks from Egypt to Gaza
                            Saudi campaign collects $59.8m in Gaza aid
                            Saudi king pledges $1 bil. aid to Gaza
                            Israel halts Iran's aid ship off Gaza
                            Jordan sends 261 aid convoys to Gaza since Israeli attacks
                            Syria sends aid to Gaza
                            Lybia, Syria say will send aid to Gaza
                            Tunisia-Algeria send aid to Gaza

                          •  Those countries are providing aid (0+ / 0-)

                            The not giving a shit refers to getting involved in the long term I/P problem.  

                          •  "Giving a sh*t" (0+ / 0-)

                            Two newly released blue-ribbon reports -- one issued in Washington, the other in Jerusalem -- are citing Arab and Muslim anger at Israel as a central factor in motivating Islamic terrorists. [Forward 2004]

                            Of all these themes, the notion of payback for injustices suffered by the Palestinians is perhaps the most powerfully recurrent in bin Laden's speeches. It has become fashionable to assert that al-Qaeda's attachment to the Palestinian cause is relatively recent, and has been cynical and deliberately manipulative. That is simply not true. As long ago as 1984, witnesses report bin Laden shunning American goods to protest American support of Israel. His fellow traveler Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of the first assault on the World Trade Center in 1993, testified that his sole motive was US backing of Israel. [Berg]

                            Yousef ’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the
                            United States. By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. [9/11 commission p147]

                          •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)
                            Its just not worth the trouble.  
                          •  Each of your requirements for proof were met (0+ / 0-)

                            and
                            Its just not worth the trouble.
                            is your response?

                          •  BLG (0+ / 0-)
                            I appreciate you engaging me on this - we had a good civil discussion.  Its just not going anywhere.  
                          •  Israel's solution to what? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nailbanger

                            "The key is to convince Israel that it can't fight its way to a long term solution."

                            Solutions to Israel's security? Israel is a superpower in the region. Israel is secure against the Palestinians. Hasn't the Gaza Offensive proved that? They fought a modern war against insurgents with rifles and 5lb rockets and they crushed Gaza 100 to 1.

                            It's the Palestinians who have the security problems. It's not a question of winning hearts and minds. It's called looking at the facts.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 04:18:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)
                            I read your comment and I have no idea what your point is.  

                            It's called looking at the facts.

                          •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)
                            I hit post before I was done.  Let me start over.

                            I have no idea what your point is.

                            Its called looking at the facts
                             You appear to be saying the facts are that Israel is in a much stronger position than the Palestinians.  I agree with those facts.  I am not sure what the point of those facts are, though.

                            The solution I am looking for is one where the Palestinians have their own state, and that state coexists peacefully with Israel.  That is a much better outcome for Israel than periodically beating the shit out of Gaza.  My point is that the only way we are going to get to that outcome is to convince Israel that its security interests are better served by making peace than by making war.  You may think that Israel does not have security concerns, but the people of Israel certainly think they do, and if you want them to be engaged in a process that will lead to a lasting peace, you need to address those.

                            If your goal is to rant about how bad Israel is and how it has brutalized the Palestinians and committed war crimes, knock yourself out.  But if you are actually interested in fixing the problem, your target audience is moderate Israelis and American Jews.  
                             

                          •  The problem of security for Israel (0+ / 0-)

                            Is resolved because Israel is a super power, it has the atomic bomb as a deterrent. It is armed to the teeth with US state of the art weapons. The US also gives Israel $3 billion a year in foreign aid.

                            The rockets causing 15 casualties in 8 years was not justification for an all out offensive according to the UN.

                            The two-state solution will never happen because there is no Palestinian land left in the West Bank. It has been usurped by settlers and evicting them for the Palestinians will cause a civil war in Israel.

                            Those are facts, not my opinion.

                            Israelis will have to find another way to treat the Palestinians because the way they have treated them since 1967 is not working.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:43:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            Israel is secure because of its military might only in the sense that it won't be overthrown.  The security concerns deal with being shelled by rockets or attacked by suicide bombers.  The concern is giving the Palestinians a state when their leadership calls Jews lower than dogs and for the destruction of Israel.  You can mock Israel's security concerns, but for the Israelis they are very real.

                            The two-state solution will never happen because there is no Palestinian land left in the West Bank.

                            That simply isn't true.  At most, Israel is going to end up with 10-15 percent of the West Bank, and probably less.  The settlers who are not in large settlements near the original borders will be removed, just like the 9000 settlers in Gaza were removed.

                            Israelis will have to find another way to treat the Palestinians because the way they have treated them since 1967 is not working.

                            What is your solution?  How do you convince Israelis to do that?  

                          •  Have a look at the shrinking map of Palestine (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.mystudydate.com/...

                            "What You Don't Know About Gaza" New York Times
                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            I think world opinion might convince Israel's politicians and military that they have to negotiate with their neighbors and allow them to have a decent life. That is not incompatible with their security it is necessary for their security.

                            Thanks for asking the right questions.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:56:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Jumping back in here. (0+ / 0-)

                            Israelis need to recognize the plight and cost of the ongoing occupation. And that means educating Americans and Israelis. Cutting aid might do some good here. As long as Americans finance the wars, there is little cost to Israeli society.

                            I also think Israel needs to be held accountable to the world community for it's actions. Just as we should be for our own actions in the middle east.

                            And the West Bank should be given back to the Palestinians. It sets a horrible precedence for war. The taking of land for security or colonization becomes acceptable. So wrong.

                      •  Why Israel launched the Gaza Offensive (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nailbanger

                        was not about rockets, it was not for Israeli security.

                        1. buy a little time
                        1. restore 'deterrent capability' lost in 2006 attack on Lebanon
                        1. play to the hawks for the election

                        http://www.salon.com/...

                        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                        by Agathena on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 04:10:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MoshebenAvraham
                          First, that Salon link has to be about the stupidest thing I have ever read about the I/P conflict.  Putting that aside and just addressing your comment, what is your solution to the I/P situation?  How do you get Israel to agree to a Palestinian state?  The approach you seem to take is to condemn Israel and to expose all of its wrongdoing.  Is that it?  What do you see the outcome as being?  Do you think Israel is going to be shamed into doing the right thing?  

                          You obviously don't think that there is a security issue for Israel, but whether or not Israelis are completely misguided, they believe there is.  The rocket attacks and the suicide bombers may not kill a lot of people, but they scare people - that is how terrorism works.  This is a Western democracy with a third-world disaster next door with leadership that vows to wipe Israel off the map.  Again, you can belittle this threat, but they don't.

                          I think that most Israelis are concerned about the plight of the Palestinians.  But in the hierarchy of needs, your own security comes first.  Convince Israel that its can find security through peace and you will have peace.  

                          •  shamed into doing the right thing (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you think Israel is going to be shamed into doing the right thing?

                            Not that I condone it, but it worked for South Africa.  

                            What we need desperately, as is the point of this diary, is more even media coverage on this subject.  Israel's media control in the Gaza war was reprehensible, and the Media's treatment of this very subject is also terrible.  

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            Here is where we differ.  I don't think that shaming Israel into doing the right thing is going to work.  I think you can shame Israel into stopping its active war on Gaza, but you aren't going to shame it into agreeing to a Palestinian state.  That will only happen if Israel can be convinced that doing so will not endanger its security.  

                          •  It did work for South Africa. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not a proponent of it, but an international campaign was highly effective there.

                            Maybe one day Israel can elect its first Muslim Prime Minister.  

                            It would have to relinquish the idea of a Jewish State, though.

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            But South Africa is a diffent situation.  It was about race (and not religion) and whites were only about 10 percent of the population.

                            And you know very well that Israel is not going to give up the idea of a Jewish state or elect a Muslim prime minister.

                          •  Ethnicity (0+ / 0-)

                            To be frank, you can go on about analogs all day.

                            Judaism and the state is about ethnicity, which may or may not be entirely religious.  The term "Jewish Nation" and the use of it by the early secular zionists was deliberate.  Today, there are plenty of secular and even atheist Jewish Israelis who are Jewish through ancestry.

                          •  What a simple picture you paint! (0+ / 0-)

                            If Israel wanted peace it would not have allowed thousands of settlers to build on West Bank Palestinian territory. Now Livni is promising to evict the settlers which would cause a civil war in Israel.

                            How can Israel talk about peace for two states when it has allowed the settlers to usurp most of the land that would house the Palestinian state?

                            "This is a Western democracy with a third-world disaster"
                            Israel is first and foremost a military state, Palestinian homes are commandeered as lookouts for the army. Passes and papers are required everywhere. Hamas leadership does not have 100% support of the people in Gaza, so why should they all suffer?

                            Israel created the third world conditions in Gaza you mention. They squeezed the Palestinians into Gaza then blockaded them.

                            If you continue to harp on 'the rockets' as being the reason for the Gaza offensive then you are buying the IDF propaganda. You are not factoring in the real reasons for the offensive. That is your right to so.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 02:28:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                            Lets assume that everything you say is true.  That this is all Israel's doing.  What next?  How do we get from pointing out all of Israel's wrongdoing to a peaceful two-state solution.  And I don't mean what you think should happen - a list of the terms doesn't help.  I mean, what needs to be done to get Israel to change its behavior?  Assuming Israel has been acting in bad faith, what needs to happen to convince it to act in good faith?

                          •  World opinion is growing against Israel (0+ / 0-)

                            The world is responding to what happened during the Gaza offensive as the stories of witnesses come out. Remember most of these reports are backed up by forensic evidence. The media in the USA seems to be ignoring them except for McClatchy. These reports will affect world opinion and that will put pressure on Israel. Not only that, some of these reports will trickle into Israel itself and affect the moderates and anti-offensive people there. This outside pressure could take the form of boycotts and divestment which will hurt Israel.

                            The hope for peace lies in the amount of pressure exerted from outside Israel and with those Israelis themselves who are against aggression. If Israel elects its hard right party that will make it more difficult.

                            To oppose Israeli aggression is not being anti-Israel because that aggression is actually hurting Israel.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:46:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            World opinion is growing against Israel because it just pummeled Gaza.  World opinion can stop active invasions.  But once the immediate war cools, world opinion will go back to the status quo.  And even if it didn't, that won't convince Israel.  You aren't going to bully Israel into allowing a Palestinian state.

                            The hope for peace lies in the amount of pressure exerted from outside Israel

                            It depends on what you mean by mean by pressure.  If its pressure from the U.S. for Israel to engage the Palestinians, then yes.  If the pressure is to demonize and ostracize Israel - as many commenters here, including yourself, have done, then no, that isn't going to work.  That approach offers no solution to the problem.

                          •  Israel has demonized itself (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't "demonize" Israel. I have always idealized the creation of Israel as a reparation for the people who have suffered so much. I have become so disillusioned after learning the facts.

                            Watch this video from the BBC, a story of Israeli soldiers firing upon children whose grandmother waved a white flag. They have the evidence that IDF shells killed two children.
                            http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

                            It's reports like this being heard in Israel that may effect change in Israeli attitude towards IDF. Israel is investigating.

                            No one needs to "demonize" Israel. An officer in the IDF has been severely reprimanded by the IDF for passing out pamphlets to his troops to 'show no mercy' to the Palestinian people.

                            The facts speak for themselves. Are you one of those who thinks anyone who speaks against IDF military and the Israeli hawks is an anti-semite? You will find it difficult to prove that in my case.

                            This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

                            by Agathena on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:32:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I tried (0+ / 0-)
                            I really did.  
                          •  Jumping in here. Negotiate with a unity (0+ / 0-)

                            government, also allow UN troops to help manage the borders, and start moving the settlers. If the unity government can stop the rockets, which I am sure they can, start handing land over in West Bank, moving the wall to 1967 borders, and promise Arabs statehood within a year.

                            That would be a change.

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            That isn't realistic.  And if realistic options are not considered, there won't be a resolution.  

                          •  And they's why they could to fight for (0+ / 0-)

                            statehood.

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            The problem is that they will never get it by fighting.  The more they fight, the Israeli civilians they kill (which is how Hamas fights) the less likely Israelis are going to support making peace.  

                          •  If they truely were only concerned with (0+ / 0-)

                            security, why settle the West Bank? ---Causing more problems in the long run.

                            When the settlements were started no one ever considered giving Palestinians a state. The final intent had to be ethnic cleansing or apartheid. And when talk of statehood became fashionable, what did the Israelis do but accelerate populating and growing the settlements. Actions speak longer than words.

                            It was incredible to hear Livni say there was no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Just incredible.

                            Israel will not give Palestinians a state left to their own devices. There must be financial considerations.

                            Now I read, Israel is demanding we take out Iranian nuclear facilities before they consider a Palestinian state. Enough is enough.

                          •  Enough is enough? (0+ / 0-)

                            What does that mean?  

                          •  That we sure quit funding Israel's demands. (0+ / 0-)
              •  Yes, I saw that. I also saw what a mess it was to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena, Scoopster

                remove a few settlers.

                Makes the two-state solution questionable.

              •  How can you trust a women that says (0+ / 0-)

                there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza?

    •  This proud progressive is in love with justice (8+ / 0-)

      and freedom.
      The Gazans have little of either. The Israeli policy of containment is killing the innocent.

  •  I have been warned... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dnyedwab, Karmafish, mattwb

    I received a lovely warning about comparing Hamas and Nazis and Palestinians some other BS.  Have those who have posted these hate-filled, lie-filled diaries about Israel also been warned?  

    It's absolutely incredible the double standard here on this issue.

    I won't apologize...ban me if you want. Hamas are later day Nazis.  And those who romantasize or apologize Hamas really have to look inside themselves.

  •  The death and injuries tot he IDF forces (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weasel, Deward Hastings, capelza, JesseCW

    appear to be due to a roadside bomb, on the Israeli side of the border.  Not clear who is responsible.

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:43:35 AM PST

  •  Well, it works both ways (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dmnyct

    If the ceasefire is just unilateral and did not bind Palestinians to anything, then Israel can abandon it whenever and for whatever reason it wants.

  •  Jewish voters are not one issue votes... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattwb

    .but if Democratic leaders began spewing the bile and BS spewed here by the Hamas apologists, Jews would likely fly into the hands of the GOP.  Luckily you folks dance on the fringes of American politics and are treated as such by our elected officials.

    So by all means, continue to cry fire in the movie theatre...it falls upon deaf ears of the ones who make the decisions.

    •  Progressive support for Israel (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skrekk, MoshebenAvraham

      While I support Israel, I could not ever conceive of EVER supporting the GOP on anything. I consider myself a progressive (a lot more so than many of the "Israel Sux" crowd), and I could not imagine voting for a Republican for Dog Catcher much less state or federal elected office.

      I seem to be in the mainstream of most American Jews. Election data bears that out as well. Many of the folks here from what I have seen are not big fans of Israel but are not anti-semetic - some most certainly are but most are not. Most just see an oppressed people (and the Pals. certainly do suffer a bit of oppression) and refuse to see both sides of the issue.

      •  Far more are as capable of seperating (0+ / 0-)

        "Israel" from the policies of Likud/Kadima (and soon Israel Beiteinu), just as they seperated their views about The United States of America from their views about The NeoCon Cabal that had hijacked our Nation.

        •  I would agree with that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MoshebenAvraham

          I am staunch supporter of America but ashamed at the fact that we let the NeoCons steal our country. I would not want people to judge us based on George Bush and his Republican drones. Just as I would not want people to think that the extreme right makes all the policy for Israel.

          •  This is, IMO, the fundemental stumbling block (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMagicJew, adios

            that turns I/P threads into the shitstorms they are.

            Likud and Kadima are not good-faith negotiating partners.  Neither of them.

            Instead of saying that, it's "Israel does not negotiate in good faith" and that triggers a reflexive desire to defend even clearly failed policies.

            It's the same, often, when people attack or defend Hamas (which like the Israeli hard right war-hawks has only plurality support) rather than Palestine.

            Hell, I've found myself defending "America" reflexively when European relatives started talking shit about "The U.S."....when I would have agreed with them if they started talking shit about Bush or The Bush Administration.

            The truth is, most Israelis want Peace and are more than willing to live and let live, remove the damn settlers, and go back to roughly the Green Line - East Jerusalem being the primary significant stumbling block.

            Unfortunately, there hasn't been an Israeli government sincerely dedicated to that solution for years.

            It's that Government and its policies that are the subject of metric shit tons of valid criticism, but instead we have commentors in diary after diary defending and attacking an abstract "Israel", the nation itself.

            For a little spice, throw in the freaks on both ends of the spectrum who aren't making honest mistakes, or just being sloppy with language....but who spew "opinions" with no basis in fact like "Jordan is the Palestinian State" and "Israel has no right to exist"....

            And in the end, actual discussion about Kleptocratic war-mongering Governments on both sides who maintain power by exploiting and fanning the fears of their respective populations becomes completely impossible.

            •  "... most Israelis want Peace ..." (0+ / 0-)

              Irrelevant. Peace with justice is what's needed, and what's "just" in this situation is unclear at this moment. I keep seeing protestations here that "most" Israelis are this or that - but "most" Israelis don't control the Israeli Military-Industrial-Complex (sort of like ours). Read any accounts of the decision-making involving Lebanon? Unclear who is running things. The similar statements that "AIPAC is overrated", most American Jews are "for peace" are similarly irrelevant: "most American Jews" don't have nearly as much $$$ as Sheldon Adelson (I sure as hell don't).

                              &nbs p; FACTS ON THE GROUND

              Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

              by adios on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 01:34:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which is why it's important to be clear (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                adios, Mia Dolan, volleyboy1

                about where problems lie, rather than blaming entire communities.

                That's why it's important to point the fingers where they belong, right at the assholes heading Likud/Kadima/Israel Beiteinu/Hamas/Islamic Jihad...

                The motherfuckers who will continue to mislead decent people into believing that slaughter is the only option as long as it keeps them in power and lines their pockets.

                There are no significant differences between the Israeli brand of that sort of asshole, the American brand of that sort of asshole, and the Palestinian brand of that sort of asshole.

                There are truly no significant differences between the respective peoples who they terrorize into supporting terror, either.

                •  Hey, it's fun to blame entire communities ... (0+ / 0-)

                  The Israeli military operation against Hamas in Gaza enjoys the overwhelming support of Israeli Jews despite the loss of civilian life in the Hamas-run territory, a survey released Wednesday showed.

                  A whopping 94% of the public support or strongly support the operation while 92% think it benefits Israel's security, according to the Tel Aviv University survey.

                  The poll found that 92% of Israeli Jews justify the air force's attacks in Gaza despite the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip and the damage they cause to infrastructure.

                  As long as U.S. fiscal support of the Israelis continues, individual Israelis will feel free to follow their worst instincts. Obama's victory here had far more to do with the parlous state of our economy that with any sudden conversion to "progressivism" by the average American. When their economy starts going in the tank because our government has stopped subsidizing the slaughter, Israelis will quickly discover how unpopular they've become and start considering more peaceful means.

                  Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

                  by adios on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 02:23:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Highly suspect poll (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    adios, Mia Dolan

                    But that's neither here nor there - War Fever is a bitch.

                    What was the support for the illegal invasion of Iraq six weeks in, again?

                    •  Suspect? (0+ / 0-)

                      The survey also found that Israeli Arabs - who make up 20% of Israel's 7 million residents - have the exact opposite views of Israeli Jews about the military assault in Gaza.

                      Sounds about right. And: our invasion of Iraq was thoroughly sanitized. Americans could at least claim ignorance. The Israelis knew what was happening, and just don't seem to care. Why should they, as long as it's not affecting their bottom line?

                      Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

                      by adios on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 02:58:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  When we've got this (0+ / 0-)

                        A whopping 94% of the public support or strongly support the operation while 92% think it benefits Israel's security, according to the Tel Aviv University survey

                        According to the Jerusalem Post, only Israeli Jews are part of "the public".

                        This leads me to seriously question what the actual question was, but I didn't see a link to the internals.

                        I think it may have been something as loaded as "Do you support our Soldiers fighting in Gaza" to tell you the truth.

                        That's not to say that there wasn't huge support among Jewish Israelis for the attack - there was.  

                        Israelis were largely fed the same kind of propoganda we got about about Iraq in the MSM.  Reference the IDFs numbers...what was it...900 militants and 200 civilians according to them?

    •  The Republican party is a one-issue party. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MoshebenAvraham

      Abortion.  On that issue alone, many Jews won't be "flying into the hands of the GOP", even if they are hawks on I/P policy.

      Dubya's legacy: 25 million really pissed Iraqis...50 million shoes

      by skrekk on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 12:37:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anyone else notice the whole premise is false? (5+ / 0-)

    Hamas declared a one week unilateral cease-fire.

    It's been a week.

    What else would anyone expect?  The self-imposed cease-fire was over.

  •  I see.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...so there is no ceasefire to break, which means Hamas can fire at Israel whenever it wants.  But of course, we have to roundly condemn Israel for breaking the ceasefire that doesn't exist.

    I envy advocates of Palestinians.  They can suspend logic and consistency and just spew hatred whenever they feel like it.

    If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that. -- President Barack Obama

    by JPhurst on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 12:26:43 PM PST

    •  You admit you're not an advocate of Palestinians? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weasel

      That's refreshing, JPhurst, you ussualy try to pretend you're just opposed to Hamas, as transparent as your efforts are.

      The cease-fire ended.  There is no "breech" of an expired cease-fire.

      Show me where I condemn Israel for actually targeting a Hamas militant on a motorbike in response?

      I'd appreciate it.

  •  How do you break a unilateral ceasefire? (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, the other side never agreed to a ceasefire.

    Since there was no agreement, you can't really "break" it.

    •  They broke their own agreement (0+ / 0-)

      They broke their own agreement to themselves here.  Although, the bigger problem is the generic and misused term of "ceasefire" or "truce" and placing a break on the events occurring with the Israeli soldier in a 'Israel responds'  theme.   These media outlets are grossly negligent in providing a non-biased representation to their viewers.  

  •  Of course the most important thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eiron, adios

    is that the criminal siege of Gaza, which back in November the UN's former humanitarian chief described as 'destroying their whole civilization', has remained intact, and indeed Israel has refused to permit full access to aid agencies and reconstruction efforts.

    If Palestinians in Gaza don't want to do nothing as their entire civilization is destroyed, and instead choose to resist by targeting Israeli soldiers, it's entirely within their rights to do so.

    Apart from the fact that Israel has already violated it, this "ceasefire" is not a genuine ceasefire because Gaza remains under a crippling blockade.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site