Cease Fire Called Between Israel And Palestinians

[Diamond Cross]

Nov 25, 6:16 PM (ET)

By AMY TEIBEL

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel and the Palestinians agreed to a cease-fire Saturday to end a five-month Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip and the firing of rockets by Palestinian militants into the Jewish state, officials from both sides said.

The cease-fire was to go into effect at 6 a.m. Sunday (11 p.m. Saturday EST), both sides said.

The agreement was reached after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert late Saturday to tell him that all Palestinian militant groups had pledged to stop rocket attacks into Israel, Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.

She said Abbas asked that Israel reciprocate by stopping its military operations in Gaza and withdrawing its forces, and Olmert agreed.

Nabil Abu Rdeneh, an Abbas spokesman, later confirmed that Palestinian armed factions - including those allied to the Hamas militant group - had agreed to stop their military activities in Gaza and reinstate a truce reached in Egypt in February 2005.

"There is a signed agreement between the president and Prime Minister (Ismail) Haniyeh and all the Palestinian factions to resort to the agreement of the factions in Cairo in 2005, including ceasing all the military activity from Gaza, starting from Sunday morning," Abu Rdeneh said. "The Israeli prime minister has agreed, and it is going to start tomorrow morning."

Israel launched its offensive after Hamas-linked militants staged a cross-border raid in June and captured an Israeli soldier, whom they are still holding. Despite international criticism over Palestinian civilian deaths, Olmert had pledged earlier this month to continue the offensive until Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza significantly decreased.

Earlier Saturday, Hamas' leader said his group was willing to give peace negotiations with Israel six months to reach an agreement for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but threatened a new uprising if the talks fail.

The comments by the group's Syria-based supreme leader Khaled Mashaal were double-edged. It was the strongest confirmation by the Hamas political chief that the Islamic militant group would allow Abbas to try to negotiate with Israel. But it was also the first time he has set a deadline with an explicit threat of a new uprising.

"We give six months to open real political horizons ... We agreed on the national accord to establish a Palestinian state, with the June 4, 1967 borders," he told a news conference in Cairo, referring to Israel's borders before it captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

"They have to seize this opportunity," Mashaal said.

If an agreement is not reached within that time frame, Mashaal threatened a new confrontation with Israel. "Hamas will become stronger and the resistance will resume ... and will go on with a third uprising," he said.

Israel had no immediate comment on Mashaal's proposal.

Mashaal suggested there was still no breakthrough on two main issues: the formation of a Palestinian unity government and a possible prisoner swap for the Israel soldier held by Hamas. Hamas, which now leads the Palestinian government, is considering forming a coalition with the rival Fatah faction led by Abbas.

Abbas has been trying to work out a package deal with Hamas that would include a prisoner swap, a comprehensive cease-fire and the creation of a more moderate government of professionals to replace the one led by Hamas, which does not recognize the Jewish state. Abbas has hoped the deal would lead to the lifting of punishing Western and Israeli economic sanctions imposed following the Hamas election victory in January.

The United States and other Western countries are demanding that Hamas recognize Israel and renounce violence as part of any national unity government, but Hamas has rejected those demands.

Mashaal said "great strides" had been made in negotiations over a new government.

But he said "more time" was needed and stuck to Hamas' rejection of a Cabinet made up of technocrats rather than politicians from the two parties.

He also blamed Israel for failure to reach a deal for the release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit in return for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
"We are not the reason behind postponing the decision; the postponing of a settlement is due to the other side," Mashaal said of a prisoner swap.

My Way News - Israel, Palestinians OK Gaza Cease-Fire

[RMNIXON]

Should we do a countdown to the first violation?

[Diamond Cross]

And what do you consider is the first violation?

Some, especially the Palestinians, believe it to be the very formation of Israel and refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

[infinite loop]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And what do you consider is the first violation?

Some, especially the Palestinians, believe it to be the very formation of Israel and refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

why would/should the palestinians acknowledge israel's right to exist (which by the way is the stupidest fucking line ever) when israel doesn't recognize or respect the palestinians?

[Kytro]

I don't really have a great deal of sympathy seeing as both sides are self righteous about their positions

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by infinite loop

why would/should the palestinians acknowledge israel's right to exist (which by the way is the stupidest fucking line ever) when israel doesn't recognize or respect the palestinians?

Why should the Israelis have to recognise their right to exist in a conflict they never started in the first place? Why should they respect a pack of animals who're trying to kill off every Israeli there is? The blame for the conflict is not Israel's in the first place.

[infinite loop]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Why should the Israelis have to recognise their right to exist in a conflict they never started in the first place? Why should they respect a pack of animals who're trying to kill off every Israeli there is? The blame for the conflict is not Israel's in the first place.

israel has killed how many innocent palestenians now? pack of animals.. please :jerkit:

must be nice to live in such a polarized world. let me guess, you're one of those "the bible gives me moral clarity" types?

edit: your claim that israel didn't start the conflict(s) is laughable: how many fucking preemptive wars does it take to satisfy instigator status in your book?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't really have a great deal of sympathy seeing as both sides are self righteous about their positions

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by infinite loop

israel has killed how many innocent palestenians now? pack of animals.. please :jerkit:

must be nice to live in such a polarized world. let me guess, you're one of those "the bible gives me moral clarity" types?

edit: your claim that israel didn't start the conflict(s) is laughable: how many fucking preemptive wars does it take to satisfy instigator status in your book?

Palestinians have killed how many innocent Israelis now? Israel has never started any of the conflicts it is involved in, past or present.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Palestinians have killed how many innocent Israelis now? Israel has never started any of the conflicts it is involved in, past or present.

Not very many.

In the last 5 years Israeli soldiers have killed over 2,000 unarmed men, women, and children. Often dragging them by the hair and then beating them, before these innocents are executed by IDF.

They are also holding 10,000 Palestinians (many Lebonese, notably) in dank dungeons without charge or trial. Israeli powers lied and duped the Lebonese Sheikh Hassam Nasrallah in 1996, and Israel instigated the 30-day Lebanon war by witholding prisoners it promised to exchange. Nasrallah's strike was called "Operation Just-Promise", an ode to the lies Israel has told the Lebonese people.

Israel is the over-arching, rich and spoiled bully of the region

[Diamond Cross]

Bullshit.

Thousands of innocent Israelis have been killed over the years. Israeli soldiers don't specifically target civillians like the Palestinians do.

And what lies did the Israli tell the Lebonese people? Those people were harboring terrorists who specifically kill Israeli civillians.

And maybe if those terrorists who hate Israel would stop attacking Israel, Israel wouldn't have to resort to using strong arm measures.

But the popular thing is to blame Israel, regardless of the circumstances. It's okay to kill Israli civilians but not Lebanese civillians. It's okay to fire thousands of rockets over the years into Israeli civillian centers but it's not okay for Israeol to act against those people because obviously, Israeli's lives are valued less then than others. That's the ugly truth of the war that people expect Israel to just sit and twiddle their thumbs at the animals who're killing her children month after month but they fucking denounce Israel because innocent Lebonese lives are going to be killed, but only America's trying to help Israel at this point.

Any other country would act militarily under these kinds of circumstance, but Israel's just supposed to twiddle the thumbs. The United States went in guns a blazing with WTC and the world grieved with Americans. But this was just one incident while Israel face3s rockets being fired at civllian centers each and every month. And some groups are not honoring the current cease-fire even now.

Why didn't the United Nations act on Israel's behalf when those soldiers were kidnapped off of Israeli soil until after they led their mi8litary into Lebanon? Maybe if those soldiers would not have nbeen kidnapped then Israel would not have had to act, but oh no, most don't think about the Israeli side of the equation.

Until Israel acts militarily then there's an outcry against Israel. What about the Lebanese civillians? They say.

Well, what about the Israeli civillians? Little to no outcry there.

And that's the ugly truth.

[motivez]

lol, it's hardly popular to "blame Israel," you'll not find the Palestinian position represented really anywhere in the American media. The Israeli media lobbies make sure that stories are presented in a way that are favorable to them.

The Lebanese situation was slightly different because of how overreaching the Israel action was, and how many innocent people were killed due to it. It was harder to ignore than when every Israeli action in Palestinian lands is somehow framed as a 'response' to something, even when Israel is the aggressor.

Let's not forget that also in the Lebanese conflict, civilian areas were targeted and roughly 35,000 homes were destroyed, as well as 25% of Lebanese infrastructure.

"The vast majority of casualties were civilians, around 1,056 Lebanese and 44 Israelis. Almost one third of the Lebanese civilian casualties were children under 13 years of age."

People say less about the Israeli civilians who died because there were FAR less than them which died in the conflict. For all of Israel's superior (US) military technology, they killed thousands of civilians while less than 50 Israeli people died as a result of Hezbollah's rockets.

I have little sympathy for Israel as a nation because of their brutal military occupation of Palestinian territory, harsh treatment of the Palestinian people, and this just adds on to it. They're a militarized society, requiring everyone to serve in the military.. so when they act like they do, they shouldn't be surprised when groups that dislike them find their entire nation a valid target.

That's not to place all of the blame on them though, obviously Nasrallah should have not carried out the raid and stuck to diplomatic channels. More would be accomplished without violence... on both sides.

[Diamond Cross]

There is no such thiung as a brutal occupation of "Palestinian" territory. When people say "Palestinian" territory they mean Israel because they believe all of Israel is occupied territory.

And maybe those civillians would not have died and alol that ddestruction would never have happened if those soldiers weren't kidnapped.

But that doesn't matter.

Just the Lebanese people do.

Why can't people understand this point?

If those soldiers had not been kidnapped, if rockets would not be fired into their civillian centers every single month, if the United Nations would act more on behalf of Israel especially in acting to free those soldiers, than the terrorist nations who're hell bent on destroying Israel,


THEN MAYBE NONE OF THAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED!

Nobody understands this point. Israel has always made concessions in the name of wanting peace, but no one else has.

And yes, the popular thing is to blame Israel. And the news is lop-sided against Israel, not the Palestinians. Oh only 44 Israeli civillians died so that's not important as the Lebanese civillians dieing.

And far more than those 44 have been killed over the years of rockets being fired into Israel.

But nobody cares.

[motivez]

Of course there is. It's easy to dismiss if you try to frame it from the perspective of irrational people, but that's not what I'm talking about.

As far as your hypothetical, and maybe those soldiers wouldn't have been kidnapped had Israel lived up to its agreements? And maybe none of this would have happened if Israel was never created?

It's easy to think up hypothetical situations that support whatever conclusion you'd like them to, but that's simply intellectual laziness.

Everyone understands the point, but we can't control what other people do, we can only control how we respond to certain situations.

As far as Israel making concessions, the first real concessions were withdrawing from the gaza strip and west bank, but it wasn't even a full withdrawal, so it can hardly be considered a full concession. They still have control over access to roads which connect the two areas, resources like water, electricity, etc.. not to mention they never respect the "borders" of those territories, entering whenever they feel like it, carrying out military operations, forcing the Palestinian people to remain in their homes or villages for hundreds of days per year..

There's never been a push to give the Palestinian people the kind of real autonomy that's needed for a nation to begin building itself.

And sorry, but the popular thing is to support Israel regardless of what they do, regardless of how they act, and regardless of whether or not they're right. The media coverage reflects this, US policy reflects this, as does popular opinion about the Palestinians. What you say is simply incorrect and not based on fact.

And hey, I'm not trying to lessen the importance of the deaths, but again, it's about placing things into perspective.. far more innocent Lebanese died in the conflict. Far more innocent Palestinians have died as a result of Israeli military operations than have been killed by suicide bombings.

Your view is myopic and fails to take into account the larger picture from any view that's not stringently pro-Israel.

[Diamond Cross]

It's a simple solution, stop the vilence against Israel and Israel won't have to act militarily or in other ways, what ever they may be. Israel has never initiated any conflict, but has always reacted to it. And the popular thing is to blame Israel.

The solution is simple, stop the violence twards Israel. Israel will not have to use the military in such a manner. This is not myopic. Being myopic only focuses on the acts of Israel. Putting things into perspective would make people realise Israel is true underdog and a lot of lies have been spread, such as the lie of the brutal occupation of the "Palestinians".

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a truth.

[motivez]

The idea that Israel has never initiated any conflict has no basis in reality. Just because Israeli media lobbies help frame issues always as "Israel responds to X", or "Israel retaliates" doesn't make it so.

I've created another thread on the subject that proves your assertion wrong, so I'm not going to spend much time on it. Can search for it if you're interested in the facts.

Once again you've not shown any evidence to support your claim that it's "popular" to blame Israel. On the contrary, it's not, because those people are labeled anti-Semites for daring to speak out against Israel's brutal military occupation.

You always seem to bring up "Israel is true underdog," who cares who the underdog is?

Despite being wrong since they receive billions of dollars in advanced military technology and other aid, as well as veto-power through the US in the UN, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Diamond Cross]

You haven't proven your assertions either of the media being biased against the Palestians.

[motivez]

Because there have already been several threads on the subject here.

Why the US media shouldn't be relied on for mideast coverage

Feel free to read this and watch the video. It's easier to continue to cling to a belief than to critically examine it.

[Diamond Cross]

All it does is proves that the media is biased because all it does is concentrate on the actions of the Israelis. Leaving out some information from the whole story is one method that indicates bias, because in order to be truly objective, one would have to look at the whole story, that means the cause and effect as well as the casualties and actions after.

Yes, civillian deaths are a bad thing, but it is not the whole story.

The whole story would be fair and objective, not just concentrating on one side, giving each side's contentions of the conflict, and have the whole story, not concentrate on one aspect of it, such as the civillian deatghs caused by Israel's action in Lebanon. include the cause and effect which would be the kidnapping of those soldiers off of Israeli soil, which I believes violates Geneva conventions, and the results afterwards on both sides.

But we don't get that. Thus that tends to color perceptions, encouraging the myopic views on either side, those overly critical of Israel and of course the corollary.