Skip to main content

This is not exactly new news, but I was reading yesterday's NY Times article on the state of play in Gaza, and realized I hadn't read on this site that Egypt seems to be pushing for a proposal to end the violence in Gaza - not just in the short term, but in the long term.

Their proposal is for Hamas to demilitarize and align under a unity government with the West Bank in Fattah.

[Egypt] favors putting Gaza under the control of a unified Palestinian government formed by a recent deal between Hamas and its secular rival faction, Fatah, in the hope that the new government could disarm Hamas.
A senior Hamas leder, Moussa Abu Marzook, is quoted as saying that Hamas is willing to accept the unity government, but not the de-militarization.  Their counter is to split the military and civil wings:
He said the group welcomed the new coalition government but would keep its military wing distinct — and allow it to prepare for another potential war with Israel.
Of course, Israel says that to lift the blockade, Hamas will have to do what Egypt is asking and give up violence as a weapon.  
Both Israel and Egypt, its two neighbors, have made clear that they are unwilling to loosen the border restrictions significantly as long as Hamas is looking across from the other side. But ostensible control of Gaza by the new reconciliation government — which has renounced violence, recognized Israel and embraced the peace process — could be more palatable.
(emphasis mine)

My take below the fold.

I am very encouraged by this notion of a way forward that includes a unity government which renounces violence and recognizes Israel - and demands Israel lifts the blockade and accepts peace.

Of course, there are right wing kooks like the quoted Marzook who do not want to give up their weapons, and there are plenty of right-wing kooks in Israel that will fight any plan for peace.

But this plan being pushed forward by Egypt, which Mahmoud Abbas may be able to get on board with, seems like it offers a real hope.    We need moderates from both sides to stand up to their extremists and say the time for peace is now, the path forward is in giving up violence as a tool, and agreeing to move forward in peace.

I know it sucks for Hamas to give up its weapons when Gazans have legitimate grievances and mistrust of Israel.  But if we want peace, it's the only realistic way forward.  We've tried the other way for 70 years so maybe enough moderates on both sides will say it's time to try a new way.  

It's time to give peace a chance.  

(edited because after publishing, I saw something in bold that shouldn't have been)

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

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

    by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:40:20 AM PDT

  •  I think you're missing part of the story. (15+ / 0-)

    Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Fatah is an Arab nationalist/Arab socialist (oddly enough, in Arab politics, those two things are pretty similar) party.

    The Egyptian government is run by the heirs of Nasser and Sadat, an Arab nationalist party.

    They came to power in a rev-o-coup-tion against the Muslim Brotherhood.

    So, the Arab nationalist party in Egypt thinks that the Islamist party in Palestine should subordinate itself to the Arab nationalist party.

    That's what's going on here. The Egyptian government hates Hamas and political Islam, and this is their chance.

    I'm not even saying they're wrong in this proposal, just filling in some background.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:48:22 AM PDT

    •  No, I get it (7+ / 0-)

      I know Egypt doesn't like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      But that's not really what's important.   What's important is the notion that this plan could potentially represent a path forward.

      Yes, it could be DOA because of the mistrust, but it's still an important proposal and it represents a framework under which peace could exist.  

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:53:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's hoping. Inshallah, it will be done. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dcg2, Cofcos, charliehall2

        Fingers crossed.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:56:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hamas won't take it. (6+ / 0-)

        While it would be wonderful if Hamas decided their political ambitions were secondary to the well-being of the Palestinian people, past behavior is not at all encouraging.

        Militant Islam is all about Totalitarianism, and political compromise is alien to that.

      •  The Egypt plan will not work for Hamas (0+ / 0-)

        as presented. Already poorly armed Hamas has to completely demilitarize in order to make the killings of Palestinians by the Israeli easier. It's simply propaganda to make Hamas look like the bad guys. This is likely a plan largely written with the cooperation of the American/Israeli duo.

        Hamas has already said that it need whatever weapons they now have for the protection of the women and children of Gaza. A serious peace proposal would not have this non-starter as part of the proposal.

        A serious and fair proposal would ask both sides to demilitarize.

        War is costly. Peace is priceless!

        by frostbite on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:05:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your reaction (3+ / 0-)

          Is why peace is so difficult.

          There's only one way forward.  Egypt has proposed it and as posted down thread, even Abbas knows it.

          There would still be Palestinian security forces, just not an armed Hamas with offensive capabilities.  There is literally no other plausible way  - and I will grant you that this way seems implausible too, but Abbas is willing to give it a try so maybe it's not that far fetched.

          "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

          by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:23:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You have got to be kidding! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeeDee001
          Hamas has already said that it need whatever weapons they now have for the protection of the women and children of Gaza.
          The people of Gaza need protection from being forced to be human shields! Disarm Hamas and protect Gazans!!!
        •  It's telling that your concern is with (0+ / 0-)

          making sure Hamas doesn’t have to give up its weapons (those same weapons that are doing a great job protecting women and children, by the way). I thought you considered yourself a pacifist, no?

          A List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

          by mnemosyne42 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:58:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why should Palestinians give up any weapons (4+ / 0-)

    when the current government in Israel is bent on destroying the possibility of a viable, independent Palestinian state?  When has Israel ever given up any weapons?

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

    •  Because it's the only viable way forward (6+ / 0-)

      But your immediate reaction - no chance for peace - is why it probably won't happen.

      Israel is not going to give up its weapons because it is surrounded by countries and people that would destroy it if given  the chance, so that's never going to happen.  It also has the strength to defend itself and, like it or not, it can't be forced to give up its weapons.

      Like I said, it's a very bitter pill for Hamas to swallow, just like disarming Germany and Japan were for their countries after WWII, but it's virtually impossible to see any other way forward.

      If you have a better, realistic way, I am open to it.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:00:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, for Israel to comply with international law (12+ / 0-)

        and end its occupation and colonization of the west bank and East Jerusalem.  Agree to sit down with the Arab League and discuss its offer, which has been on the table since 2002, for full normalized relations in return for agreeing to a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.  Not a shot needs to be fired.

        "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

        by Paleo on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:05:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hamas has not and will not agree to that (0+ / 0-)

          It needs to be put out of business. Now.

          •  Then Do It (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jqb

            If Hamas needs to be put out of business now, why didn't the Israelis proceed to with doing just that instead of scuttling off.  You do understand that the sole reason Hamas continues to fire their rockets is to goad the Israelis into putting their ground troops in harm's may, right?  We've seen how effective the Hamas rockets are.  If the Israelis were to simply stand-off and tell Hamas to fire away, the Israelis wouldn't suffer any more casualties than they already have and likely fewer, since some of those killed in the most recent rocket exchange were with Israeli troops and hence a military target, not civilian.

            "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

            by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:32:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That was the Arab League's proposal (0+ / 0-)

          It wasn't accepted by Hamas, who just this past May said "Hamas will not recognize Israel". As long as Hamas remains in power and consistent on this issue, the Arab League's proposal is meaningless.

          A List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

          by mnemosyne42 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:08:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bull (0+ / 0-)

            Israel has ignored it since it was first proposed in 2002, long before Hamas took power.

            "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

            by Paleo on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:24:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a version of the truth. (0+ / 0-)

              Read the text of the initial declaration. The first several paragraphs are spent lauding the actions of the Lebanese and Palestinian militants, then there's three demands they make of Israel (withdrawal, return of refugees, Palestinian sovereignty), then a promise that the Arab nations will recognize Israel's right to exist. It makes no mention of efforts to disarm and subdue militant organizations whatsoever, which, considering the way those militants were praised in the declaration, made the proposal a non-starter for Israel - especially since on the day it was introduced, Hamas attacked a seder in Netanya, killing 30 civilians and injuring over a hundred. It's also relevant to note that at the time that the proposal was introduced, a number of the members of the Arab League were still supplying arms to Hamas and Hizbullah for use against Israel. This all took place against the backdrop of the Second Intifada.

              All that being said, in my opinion Sharon should have accepted the proposal (since it was the first time since 1948 that any kind of acceptance of Israel's right to exist was voiced by most of the participants), but with amendments. If the parties could have come to an agreement regarding an end to militant attacks on Israel and the sharing of the Temple Mount, we could have avoided the last twelve years of violence, death, and people getting mad at each other on Daily Kos.

              A List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

              by mnemosyne42 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 12:50:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly, I don't think Hamas's weapons are doing (5+ / 0-)

      themselves or the Palestinians any good.

      I'm sure it may feel good to lash out at your oppressors, but really, all it does it bring more grief and no relief.

      It also provides a fig leaf of PR cover for Israel to destroy as much Palestinian civilization as they can.

      I think it would be a brilliant move for them to give up all their weapons--which truly do not protect them in the first place.

      It would be a big move, internationally applauded, and shining such a spotlight that Israel would have to improve Palestinians' rights.

      Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

      by Happy Days on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:06:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Palestinians are not being asked that (5+ / 0-)

      it is being asked of Hamas. As long as Hamas has the guns they control Gaza, regardless of whatever the phony unity government proposes.

      So long as the Hamas militia exists they will decide if concrete is diverted, they will decide which "collaborators" are murdered and they will decide if Gaza invests in buildings or bunkers.

      •  They were elected (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        frostbite, PrahaPartizan, jqb

        But I know.  Democracy only counts if the "right" party or group wins.

        "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

        by Paleo on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 06:19:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Paleo, you are right, and Egypt/American/Israel (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jqb

          politicians don't know how to deal with a true democracy, that is why we have mostley supported dictators in the Mideast. Dealing with dictators is easier than dealing with the people. Sisi is a military goon, Bibie is a children killing goon, and Kerry is the guy who voted for the disastrous Iraq war.

          I does not look to me like Hamas or the Palestinians have a credible partner to work with. The whole thing should go to the UN General Assembly with the hopes of having more credible folks involved in a fair resolution of the illegal occupation that is the root of all problems.

          War is costly. Peace is priceless!

          by frostbite on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:30:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hang on (0+ / 0-)

            Are you suggesting that Palestine is a more legitimate democracy than Israel? Do you even understand how Israel and Palestine's governments work?

            A List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

            by mnemosyne42 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:29:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  How can you say "they were elected"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mnemosyne42

          Wasn't that for a four year term that should have ended in 2012?

          Hamas never would have another real election.  The proposed "unity" government's election will never happen if it were to allow non-approved candidates to run.

        •  They were not elected (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mnemosyne42

          they took power in a bloody coup in 2007.

  •  Question is why are we only seeing (4+ / 0-)

    Egyptian proposals?  After all, Sissi has arrested and imprisoned thousands of MB members and sympathizers.  He also overthrew popularly elected Morsi so it is not as if his bona fides are exactly immaculate.

    I have to wonder why Turkey has not made any proposals or why no one has mentioned the Qatari proposal?

  •  We have a "unity" government that accepts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, sandbox, rduran

    de-militarization, but Hamas won't agree to de-militarization.

    So who, exactly, will de-militarize Hamas?

    Will Egypt and the West allow themselves to be fooled by the "unity" government?  

  •  Report that the PA will take control of the (0+ / 0-)

    Rafah crossing.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

  •  What Type of Weapons? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dcg2

    Hamas's response to demilitarization just might depend on what type of weapons are supposed to be denied the Palestinians in Gaza and even the West Bank.  The Israelis have this pipe dream that the Palestinians will forego all weapons above sidearms and depend on somebody else to protect them.

    What happens if the Palestinians insist on having access to defensive weapons, like anti-tank and surface to air missiles with a known and acceptable range?  That would be to provide air defense for their own, Palestinian, territory and to prevent unwarranted intrusions over their airspace.  It would be a justifiable demand.  In exchange, the Palestinians forego offensive ballistic rockets, which have no use other than bombardment of territories outside their own.  This provision will also be accompanied by opening the borders to Gaza so that supplies can come in and the population can come and go as it might.  Such an agreement would provide the security the Israelis claim to seek while enabling Palestinian society in Gaza to recover at better than a snail's pace.

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:23:28 PM PDT

    •  How would such weapons be of any use? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frostbite, charliehall2, mnemosyne42

      It sounds reasonable on the face of it, but either the Gazans do not possess air defense weapons now, or else those weapons are completely ineffective at preventing Israeli airstrikes and missile attacks. So what is the point of demanding they be excluded from disarmament?

      What happens if the Palestinians insist on having access to those defensive weapons? Nothing. The fighting just goes on and on.

      La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

      by dconrad on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:40:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Israelis Prevent Them from Obtaining (0+ / 0-)

        Ths issue is that the Israelis have prevented the Palestinians from obtaining such weapons, so their use has never been tried.  The reason for demanding them is that the Palestinians need them to control their own airspace.  If the Israelis find that objectionable because they can't attack with impunity, then the world knows that the Israeli claims that they attack Gaza solely for defensive reasons reasons is pure bunkum.  Control of the ground and air-space over a terrain is primary objective to provide security to the population and the seaward side to control the resources the Gazan population should be able to exploit.  Any other position essentially demands that the Palestinians are expected to depend on Israeli sufference for security and we've seen what they can expect in the future if that's the case.  If the issue is Palestinian offensive weapons, then defang them but don't expect to be able to strike with impunity whenever the feeling comes upon you .

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:07:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That sounds reasonable (0+ / 0-)

      It's not unlike how when Japan and Germany disarmed, they did maintain some defensive capacity to fight the Soviet Union if necessary, but their offensive capacity was completely neutered and closely monitored by Allied Forces.

      In terms of opening the border, I think the key really is the renunciation of violence and acceptance of Israel that Fattah seems willing to agree to. I know many of the Israeli hardliners won't agree to it because they don't trust it as anything more than lip service and a chance to prepare new attacks, but I think they have to try.  If Fattah doesn't abide by it, or won't help prevent militants from breaking the peace, then Israel deals with that when the time comes, but the hard liners need to give peace a chance.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:49:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Japan and Germany (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dconrad

        were not allowed any defensive capability for years after WW2. The Allied occupation armies were responsible for their territorial defense.

        •  Lasted About Two Years Too (0+ / 0-)

          That demilitarization of Japan and Germany lasted all of about two years too.  Just how long do the Israelis expect that the Palestinians would expect the Israelis to provide territorial defense for the Palestinians?

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:10:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, how about two years, to start? (0+ / 0-)

            Let's have peace, demilitarization, and after that is in place, start talking about territorial defense for the Palestinians. To make that hinge on giving them defensive weapons first is just to make sure it never happens at all.

            La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

            by dconrad on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 03:54:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  According to Abbas the state of Palestine will be (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dcg2, mnemosyne42, dconrad

      a de-militarized one.

      “People say that after signing a peace agreement we will still demand Haifa, Acre and Safed,” he said. “That is not true. Signing the agreement will signal the end of the conflict.”
      Abbas further clarified that in any peace settlement the Palestinian state would agree to be demilitarized. He noted that during earlier negotiations with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert there was an agreement to post American soldiers in the West Bank to help maintain security.

      “We don’t need planes or missiles. All we need is a strong police force,” said Abbas. “On the other hand, we want sovereignty and independence. I was criticized for saying that I don’t want a single Israeli soldier or settler in the Palestinian state. I meant any Israeli that is part of the occupation. I didn’t mean that I don’t want Jews or Israelis in the Palestinian state. We’ll welcome them as tourists or as people coming to do business. We just don’t want occupation forces.”

      "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

      by JNEREBEL on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 03:48:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that's productive (4+ / 0-)

        I know it sucks for those who want a "victory" for Palestinians over Israel, whatever that looks like, but it's the only way forward.  Just as Israel is going to have to accept not only an end to settlements, but disbanding them and they are going to have to give trust a chance, the notion of demilitarizing, accepting Israel's right to exist and welcoming Israelis in peace is the only way forward.

        There can be no peace as long as either side continues to dream of conquest.  

        "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

        by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:38:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How To Prevent Continued Attacks (0+ / 0-)

          Having defensive weapons only isn't any sort of "victory" for the Palestinians.  It's intended to allow them to control their own territory and provide a modicum of security as exercised by their own authoriities.  Otherwise, they will continue to be subject to the whim of whatever security command is deployed, and the record in the regions is not a very optimistic one.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:16:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Abbas has said a lot of things (0+ / 0-)

        but that was one of the more productive ones. Israel has never objected to an armed Palestinian police and even worked with the one in the WB to try to hunt down the kidnappers of the three Israeli teens in June -- who turned out to have been kidnapped by order of Hamas.

      •  If This Was Such a Good Deal... (0+ / 0-)

        why didn't the Israelis jump on it.  Clearly, it was such a good deal that you dragged it out of the back of the file to try to justify continued Israeli control of Palestinian airspace and sea coastlines.  One would have thought that the Israelis would have been begging the Palestinians to accept it even now.

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Just to keep it fair, (4+ / 0-)

    Israel should also de-militarize and scrap it's weapons.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Hamas would give up weapons (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Pilsner
    Hidden by:
    mnemosyne42

    If there was an ironclad commitment from someone like the US to fire more effective weapons at Israel should Israel break a ceasefire agreement.

    Obviously, that would never happen, but I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be against Israeli misbehavior if there were international obligations that would drag everyone into a regional conflict WWI-style.

    •  And people wonder... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mnemosyne42

      ...why Markos won't allow I-P on the front page of his site.

      Exhibit A-Z, ladies and gentlemen.

    •  Maybe Israel would give up weapons (0+ / 0-)

      if there was an ironclad commitment from someone like the US to fire more effective weapons at Hamas should Hamas break a ceasefire agreement.

      Which it always has.

      The US would not be as timid as Israel. It would use B-52s rather than F-16s. Tens of thousands of Gazans would be dead.

      •  There Wouldn't Be Any Difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cville townie

        Sorry, charlie, there wouldn't be any difference.  The bombs being used now would be exactly the same as the ones the US might use under such a scenario.  The only difference is that B52s can carry dozens of such precision-guided weapons on one plane while the F-16s can carry only two to four.  We wouldn't be seeing a carpet bombing with iron bombs by B-52s despite the desire of some to see such an application of violence.

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:21:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not trying to stir up a fight, but ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, charliehall2

    who would you consider a moderate representative from Hamas?  To my thinking, that is like asking for a moderate representative from Kach or Temple Mount Faithful.

    "When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents—a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless, completely disappeared from large sectors of the American experience." -- Stephen Jay Gould

    by 8ackgr0und N015e on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:44:49 PM PDT

  •  Hamas will have to demilitarize (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dcg2, DeniseDenefyou, charliehall2

    They will disarm. That's the only path forward for peace, and everything else is a fairytale.

    This revolution is not scheduled!

    by harrylimelives on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:04:24 PM PDT

  •  I heistantly rec'ed ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pilsner, dcg2, mnemosyne42

    While I don't think unilateral disarmament by the Palestinians is prudent...

    The status quo is not working and something needs to change.

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:35:15 PM PDT

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mnemosyne42

      Even if you don't agree with the proposal, I appreciate the rec.  There aren't a lot of varied viewpoints on this site, so thank you for suggesting people read one that may not match your own.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:44:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So when we give up our (3+ / 0-)

    weapons will you be giving us blankets and towels from the smallpox infirmary?

    •  There are plenty (0+ / 0-)

      Of people on both sides who share your mistrust.

      But trust and peace are the only ways forward.

      "Journalistic conventions make it hard for reporters to deal with a big, complicated lie." -- Michael Kinsley.

      by dcg2 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:46:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hamas rejects Egyptian cease-fire extension. (4+ / 0-)
    Israel has conditionally agreed to extend a ceasefire that ended the month-long self-defense operation in Gaza, an Israeli official stated on condition of anonymity.

    ...

    In the meantime, Hamas has rejected the idea of an extension entirely.

    "Israel and Hamas will resume fighting immediately at the end of the 72-hour ceasefire, at 8:00 am Friday," a Hamas spokesperson stated Wednesday night.

    link

    "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

    by JNEREBEL on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 05:40:48 PM PDT

  •  In other words disarm the Palestinians so that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jqb

    the genocide is easier for Israel to complete.

    Brilliant.

    Let's keep in mind Egypt doesn't like Hamas because they are afraid that Hamas or it's like might act against the Egyptian government.  So neither Egypt, or Turkey, for much the same reason, nor the US is an honest broker for the Palestinians in Gaza, particularly the bought and sold US.  

    No one who has been, during this battle, nor at the moment, is actually negotiating for the sake of Gaza or the Palestinian's ability to survive and thrive long term as a people much less as a state or nation.

    •  You are a total fool (4+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      DeeDee001, harrylimelives, mnemosyne42, BFSkinner
      Hidden by:
      jqb

      1) the existing Palestinians security forces have almost exactly the same active duty manpower as does the IDF.

      2) Israel is not committing genocide. Had it wanted to it could have killed tens of thousands of people in Gaza in the past month. It pulled its punches in a way the US has never done.

      3) Hamas has committed war crimes against the people of Gaza by using them as human shields, by putting munitions in schools thus making them into military targets, by firing rockets from near hospitals and turning one hospital into a military headquarters, thus making the hospitals into military targets. And yet you pretend that Hamas acts in the interest of the people of Gaza?

      •  A human shield has to be forced to stand between (0+ / 0-)

        two opposing foes.  The Palestinians are forced to stand before Israeli weapons because Israel has walled them into their very own shooting gallery.  Israel chooses to fire at civilians.

    •  I disagree entirely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dcg2

      I'd go so far as to say that Hamas needs to disarm (Hamas, not the Palestinians, there's a difference) for the sake of Palestine's ability to survive and thrive longterm. Clearly the status quo isn't working to Gaza's advantage. Maybe putting the guns down and acknowledging Israel's right to exist - thereby denying Likud of any excuse whatsoever for its current policies - is worth a shot.

      A List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

      by mnemosyne42 on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:01:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  'Embrace peace' does not mean 'disarm'. "Give u... (0+ / 0-)

    'Embrace peace' does not mean 'disarm'.

    "Give up violence" does not require "give up weapons".

    It's the difference between a verb and a noun.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site