Hamas Chief: Truce With Israel Is Over

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I don't know where you've done your history reading so far, but here are a couple sources you might check out:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/index.php

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/IsraelPalestineTruth.htm

These sites don't pretend to be neutral on the subject, but apparently you've already studied the subject from the other side's biased point of view. I would be interested to hear what assertions you might find to be incorrect.

I've started a few threads on this subject before, did you know that Arafat was a KGB operative:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=673688#673688

The Hamas charter states clearly they don't want a negotiated settlement:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2325032;search_string=KGB;#2325032

Obviously, this issue is an important one to me. I admit to being biased, so perhaps others can help show me how me where I'm wrong.

Thanks for the links, I'll do some reading. Here's another if you want a Palestinian perspective.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/
I've never said that this is a one sided conflict and as I've posted before on this issue, there's no shortage of coverage of the Israeli viewpoint. That can't be said about the Palestinian viewpoint. Both need to be considered if there is to be any real negotiation towards a lasting peace. What we have now is essentially the US and Israel against the rest of the world. Note that even the UK broke from the US, by abstaining in the security council vote for the proposed resolution condemning Israel's recent actions.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

....a lasting peace

Yeah, that'll happen in our lifetime.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

...there's no shortage of coverage of the Israeli viewpoint. That can't be said about the Palestinian viewpoint.

I completely disagree with that assertion. The PA has bragged about how their friends from Western media sources help them, and from my perspective, it appears that Israel is almost always cast as the unjustified, overreacting oppressor by the drive-by media.

Such as this:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp

and this:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Gaza_Beach_Libel.asp

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

there's no shortage of coverage of the Israeli viewpoint. That can't be said about the Palestinian viewpoint.

That's certainly not the case with the British media, especially BBC (both Net and radio) and The Guardian, as well as NPR in the US. The clear anti-Israel slant on many of the feature stories about the Arab-Israeli conflicts played on BBC radio (broadcast in the US by NPR) can be enough to make FalxOri want to go on jihad.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

there's no shortage of coverage of the Israeli viewpoint. That can't be said about the Palestinian viewpoint.

That's certainly not the case with the British media, especially BBC (both Net and radio) and The Guardian, as well as NPR in the US. The clear anti-Israel slant on many of the feature stories about the Arab-Israeli conflicts played on BBC radio (broadcast in the US by NPR) can be enough to make FalxOri want to go on jihad.

That's because *any* reporting that might shed a disfavorable light on Israel is considered biased and is the subject of hammering by media groups like CAMERA. Let's say Bush lied to us about something, I know, not much of a stretch but let's say he did it. Then ABC reports "Bush lied" and then tells what the lie was. Is that a "drive by media" showing a bias?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

That's because *any* reporting that might shed a disfavorable light on Israel is considered biased and is the subject of hammering by media groups like CAMERA.

I'm referring to my own standard. Years ago, when I became Internet-savvy, I started reading lots of foreign news sites specifically to get an other-than-US perspective on the news. I also listen to BBC radio news almost daily via NPR. Even compared with other non-US sites, the BBC clearly has a major (and disproportionate) bug up their ass about Israel in particular. It is not unbiased or even-handed about the MidEast by any stretch of the imagination. And being the BBC, that almost certainly influences public opinion among its readership / listenership, especially in the UK and Europe.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I also listen to BBC radio news almost daily via NPR. Even compared with other non-US sites, the BBC clearly has a major (and disproportionate) bug up their ass about Israel in particular. It is not unbiased or even-handed about the MidEast by any stretch of the imagination. And being the BBC, that almost certainly influences public opinion among its readership / listenership, especially in the UK and Europe

They still look upon the Israelis/Jews as terrorists...due to their experiences in Palestine.

Hell they view all Irish as stupid drunks and terrorists..we have heard it right here on DIZZY DOT COM..when all they have to do is get the fuck off the Island called Ireland and take their Plantationist settlers with them.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

That's because *any* reporting that might shed a disfavorable light on Israel is considered biased and is the subject of hammering by media groups like CAMERA.

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

I would have to disagree. CAMERA is quite influential and vastly more so is AIPAC. The reason that the US breaks from the rest of the world and gives Israel a free pass to do whatever they want is due primarily to the influence of AIPAC and the religious right.
As an interesting comparison of news however, I just read two stories about the rocket attack in Israel today. One was from Haaretz and the other was from the BBC. The Haaretz story was more damning of Israel than the BBC's.
BBC quotes Peretz's response as "They will pay a heavy price. We will move against those who are involved from the leaders to the last of their terrorists".
Haaretz has him saying "Israel will act against anyone involved in the rocket fire, from the terrorist leaders to the last activist, The terrorist organizations will pay a heavy price."
So, the Israeli leadership thinks that activists are acceptable targets? Nice.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

I would have to disagree. CAMERA is quite influential and vastly more so is AIPAC. The reason that the US breaks from the rest of the world and gives Israel a free pass to do whatever they want is due primarily to the influence of AIPAC and the religious right.

I found stories at Fox, CNN, Forbes, the Washington Post and MSNBC. While I do see some glaring gaps in the coverage, this story isn't being ignored in the US.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

I would have to disagree. CAMERA is quite influential and vastly more so is AIPAC. The reason that the US breaks from the rest of the world and gives Israel a free pass to do whatever they want is due primarily to the influence of AIPAC and the religious right.

I found stories at Fox, CNN, Forbes, the Washington Post and MSNBC. While I do see some glaring gaps in the coverage, this story isn't being ignored in the US.

I quite agree. You very often hear about the rocket strikes into Israel but you don't hear much about the IDF's continuous attacks in Gaza that have been going on since late June or about Israel's continuing policy of building illegal settlements in the West Bank.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

You might find this interesting.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

You might find this interesting.

So, the article you linked talks of Hamas "hinting" of peace...

Not very significant or convincing. Anwar Sadat didn't merely "hint" about peace with Isreal, he actually realized pursuing the destruction of Israel was a policy that was bad for his people. He truly had a change of heart.

The Hamas charter states clearly they don't want a negotiated settlement

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, the article you linked talks of Hamas "hinting" of peace...

Not very significant or convincing.

The article shows and documents a widespread pro-Israel bias in the media.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Certainly there are media groups that are advocates of the Israeli position, and I provided a link to one such as honestreporting.com.

However, I assert that their hammer is not very effective.

You might find this interesting.

I'd find it more interesting if www.fair.org didn't have a strong left-leaning bias.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, the article you linked talks of Hamas "hinting" of peace...

Not very significant or convincing. Anwar Sadat didn't merely "hint" about peace with Isreal, he actually realized pursuing the destruction of Israel was a policy that was bad for his people. He truly had a change of heart.

Did you read all of the article? I'd say that there are some substantial "hints" in there.

"On more than one occasion, Hamas’ chief representative in Lebanon, Usama Hamdan, has outlined a stance toward the conflict with Israel which, according to an ICG report (Enter Hamas, 1/06), “many who study Hamas consider [to be] its emerging consensus.” In an interim agreement, Hamas and Israel would conclude a comprehensive armistice in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. After a period of confidence-building, a formal agreement could be concluded. “Hamas is clear in terms of [both] the historical solution and an interim solution,” Hamdan said. “We are ready for both: the borders of 1967, a state, elections and [a peace] agreement after ten to fifteen years of building trust.”

Yet in almost every case, the U.S. media failed to broadcast these signals. For instance, four months before the elections, a moderate Hamas candidate representing Nablus, Mohammed Ghazal, told Reuters (9/21/05) that the group could change its 1988 charter calling for Israel’s destruction and that it was open to negotiating with Israel. “The charter is not the Koran,” Ghazal said. “Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we’re talking now about reality, about political solutions. . . . The realities are different.” If Israel reached a stage where it felt able to talk to Hamas, Ghazal said, “I don’t think there will be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis.” (Less than a week after Ghazal’s comments, Israeli soldiers raided his apartment and arrested him—AP, 9/27/05.)"

But Israel doesn't want to "negotiate" until they've finished their land grab and forced the Palestinians onto what is essentially three "reservations". And the US's complicity in this plan is really bad news for us.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'd find it more interesting if www.fair.org didn't have a strong left-leaning bias.

They also have a tendency to litter their articles with supporting citations. Making assertions and backing them up goes a long way towards validating your argument. A Colbert quote comes to mind here.

[sundevil777 102]

empty words, recognized as such.

The day after Israel withdrew form Gaza, Hamas was shooting rockets over the border.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'd find it more interesting if www.fair.org didn't have a strong left-leaning bias.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Hamas and Israel would conclude a comprehensive armistice in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

So basically your "neighbors" keep attacking you and you keep winning...you go back to the previous border and they attack you again... so finally you set up more defensible borders becasue your eneimies STILL are avowing to kill all of you and drive you into the sea.... yop... good advice there... go back to the 1967 borders and wait for the next try at annihilation...

I would think perhaps they would and should look at peace and learn to live with the fact they keep losing... so try something different and live in peace and have lives based on reality.. not some fantasy that will never occur.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

empty words, recognized as such.

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind on the issue.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Hamas and Israel would conclude a comprehensive armistice in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

So basically your "neighbors" keep attacking you and you keep winning...you go back to the previous border and they attack you again...

Stop right there. Israel has never gone back to its border. They have never ceased their land grabbing. They're doing it even today. And the Palestinians keep "losing" because the US doesn't send them $3 billion/year along with all the weapons they can fire and providing protection from multilateral international retribution.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd find it more interesting if www.fair.org didn't have a strong left-leaning bias.

They also have a tendency to litter their articles with supporting citations. Making assertions and backing them up goes a long way towards validating your argument.

Right. An argument, which is different than giving balanced coverage of the whole story.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Stop right there. Israel has never gone back to its border.

UH they did it for 20 years before 1967... and were attacked HUNDREDS of times.

Reality Can BE YOUR FRIEND...

Do you just want to have Holocaust II and get it over with ?

http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_border_wars.html

Israel and her Arab neighbors have fought major wars against each other in 1948-1949, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982-2000. In addition, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza met with opposition from the Palestinian inhabitants of those lands in the First and Second Intifada Uprisings (1987-1993, 2000-Present). Besides these conflicts, numerous other battles, cross-border commando and terrorist raids, air battles, sea battles, missile strikes, mini-invasions, and other acts of organized violence from the end of the 1948-1949 war through to the present day. This page attempts to chronicle and list these attacks in chronological order. This is a work in progress and more information will be added.
Visit the History Guy's Arab-Israeli Wars Links Page.





Qibya Raid (October, 1951)—Israeli troops, led by Major Ariel Sharon (Israeli Prime Minister 2001-) destroyed dozens of buildings in the West Bank (Jordan) town of Qibya. Civilian deaths reached 69.

Egyptian Seizure of the Israeli ship Bat Galim (Summer, 1954)—Egypt seized the Israeli ship Bat Galim as it attempted to enter the Suez Canal. According to various international agreements, the Suez Canal is supposed to be accessible to ships of all nations. This provoked worsening tensions between Israel and Egypt.

Gaza Raid (Feb. 28, 1955)—Israeli forces conducted a raid, a response to repeated guerrilla attacks and the seizure of an Israeli ship by Egypt, resulted in the deaths of 51 Egyptian soldiers and 8 Israeli troops. This raid was the largest of its kind against Arab forces since the end of the First Arab-Israeli War in 1949.

First al-Fatah (PLO) Raid (Dec. 31, 1964)—Yassir Arafat’s al-Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization conducted its first raid into Israel from Lebanon.

Israeli-Syrian Border and Air Battle (Nov. 13, 1964)—Israel and Syria both claimed sovereignty over several Demilitarized Zones along their border. These Zones were set up as part of the cease-fire ending the First Arab-Israeli War. Israel attempted to farm the land in these Zones, while Syria developed a project to divert water from the Jordan River, which Israel shared with both Syria and Jordan. Syrian forces often fired on Israeli tractors attempting to farm the Zones, while Israel looked for ways to interrupt the Syrian diversion project. On Nov. 13, 1964, Syrian forces stationed on the top of the Golan Heights, a plateau overlooking Israeli territory in the Jordan River valley, fired on Israeli tractors. Israeli forces returned fire. Syrian artillery then targeted Israeli civilian villages. Israel responded with air attacks on Syrian forces. This battle resulted in 4 Israeli dead and 9 wounded. Syrian losses included two tanks and machines involved in the diversion project. One result of this clash was Syria’s accelerated acquisition of more and better Soviet-made fighter planes. (Oren, 2001).

West Bank Raids (May 1965)—After Palestinian guerrilla raids resulting in the deaths of 6 Israelis, the Israeli military conducted raids on the West Bank towns of Qalqilya, Shuna and Jenin.

1966—Israel reported 93 incidents along its borders.

West Bank Raid (April 30 1966)—Israeli forces destroyed over two dozen houses in the West Bank town of Rafat, killing 11 civilians. This attack was in response to Palestinian raids on Israel. Most of these attacks on Israel

West Bank Raids (1966)—Israeli forces raided the Hebron area of the West Bank. These raids resulted in 8 civilian deaths and firefights with the Jordanian Army.

Israeli-Syrian Border Battles (Summer, 1966)—Continued artillery and tank duels along the Golan Heights front led to :

Israeli-Syrian Air Battle (July 7, 1966)—Responding to the continued fighting along the border, Israeli planes attacked Syrian forces, resulting in the loss of one Syrian MiG fighter plane.

Israeli-Syrian Air/Sea Battle (Aug. 15, 1966)—After an Israeli patrol boat ran aground on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (according to the 1949 cease-fire agreement, Israeli forces were not supposed to approach within 250 meters of the eastern shore, which was a Demilitarized Zone), Syrian planes attacked it. Israel responded, shooting down two MiG planes.

Samu Raid (West Bank) (November 13, 1966)—Following a land mine explosion which killed three Israeli policemen and wounded one, Israel decided to launch a large retaliatory raid (called Operation Shredder) into the West Bank, to strike at a Palestinian (al-Fatah) guerrilla base near Hebron. Designed to show Israeli military strength, the raiding force consisted of 10 tanks, forty half-tracks (a troop transportation vehicle) and around 400 soldiers. The force enjoyed air cover from Israeli war planes. This force destroyed a police station at the town of Rujm al-Madfa’ and then moved on to the town of Samu’. As the Israelis demolished houses in Samu’, a small Jordanian force approached and was ambushed by the Israelis. This battle resulted in 15 Jordanian dead and 54 wounded. The leader of the Israeli ambush was killed and 10 of his men wounded. Israeli planes chased off the Jordanian air force, shooting down a Jordanian fighter plane. This raid also resulted in 3 Arab civilian deaths and 96 wounded.

Besides the large numbers of casualties (on both sides) from what was supposed to be a relatively swift and easy raid, Israel suffered diplomatic setbacks. The United States was quite upset over this large attack on one of Washington’s few Arab friends (Jordan’s King Hussein) and at the lack of response to the Syrians, who were the true sponsors of most Palestinian attacks in Israel. Riots broke out in Jordan at the seemingly ineffectual response of the Jordanian military and its apparent inability to protect Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. The Samu raid inflamed Arab public opinion in the Middle East and turned out to be one of the factors leading up to the Six-Day War of 1967.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Stop right there.!!!

I gotta know right now!
Before we go any further--!

Do you love me?
Will you love me forever?
Do you need me?
Will you never leave me?
Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life?
Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?
Do you love me!?
Will you love me forever!?
Do you need me!?
Will you never leave me!?
Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life!?
Will you take me away and will you make me your wife!?
I gotta know right now
Before we go any further
Do you love me!!!?
Will you love me forever!!!?

What's it gonna be boy?
Yes?
Or.
No?