TOPICS:
NOV 21, 2012 11:29 AM
Probably just fatigue from this being par for the course. Sounds like a recap of the last 20 years.
NOV 21, 2012 01:41 PM
Can cease-fire between Israel and Hamas result in real change?
by Marco Vicenzino -- CNN
The brief but bloody Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas marks a clear wake-up call to both sides, and their supporters, on the indispensable need to start serious talks beyond the new cease-fire.
This development must be seized upon to convert the recent crisis into an opportunity after years of inaction. A desperate injection of diplomatic energy is required. The alternative is renouncing responsibility and initiative to continuous unpredictability, and becoming its hostage. In an increasingly volatile region experiencing historic transformation and shifting alliances, the potential for simultaneous conflict on multiple fronts remains real.
Diminishing the threat, and its catastrophic consequences, through a credible process is critical to regional stability and international order.
The cease-fire alone simply marks the end of another chapter in the decades-old vicious cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Ideally, a next phase of negotiations should focus on a permanent end of hostilities. Although its duration would be unknown, it is best to commence sooner rather than later.
The regional status quo is simply unsustainable in the long-term. Time is of the essence. A continuing game of brinksmanship risks miscalculation and another descent into the abyss at any given moment. After all, there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum.
Although no match for Israel's superior firepower, Hamas's rockets reached alarmingly deeper into Israeli territory. This provided a psychological boost to morale despite relentless Israeli attacks and considerable physical damage.
Post-conflict reconstruction is nothing new: Hamas will emerge politically strengthened at home and abroad and it will continue to overshadow Fatah, which controls the West Bank. The credibility of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is further undermined, even as he actively pursues non-member observer status for Palestinians at the United Nations.
The presence of intermediaries in Cairo to negotiate the cease-fire reaffirms the centrality of Egypt's role to any peace process. Clearly, without Egypt, no solutions are possible. For now, the cease-fire also marks the most important foreign policy test and achievement yet for new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy.
Since Hosni Mubarak's ouster and its departure from Syria, Hamas remains increasingly dependent upon Egypt ideologically, politically, diplomatically and economically. Throughout the week-long conflict, Morsy skilfully influenced Hamas. Furthermore, sending Egypt's prime minister to Gaza at the very start of the crisis proved symbolically important, although practically ineffective.
Through the cease-fire, Morsy has raised his standing at home and abroad. A process of establishing himself as a reliable regional broker has begun. However, responsible continuity and critical follow up is required.
Statements alone will not suffice. In concrete terms, he must prove able to restrain Hamas when necessary and guide it on a constructive path toward peace. Sustained diplomatic support from the Arab League and Turkey, and particularly financial assistance from Qatar, will further strengthen Morsy's hand.
The increased leverage from positive crisis management must be used effectively by Morsy at home. While he is developing a pragmatic accommodation with the military, serious concerns still linger for political opponents and minorities of his broader agenda. Morsy must reach out beyond his political base and take a more inclusive approach.
The crisis also underscored the need to strike a balance between public expectations, particularly in Islamist ranks, and what is realistically achievable in the diplomatic realm. While in opposition during the Mubarak era, Islamists scored easy points with public opinion when condemning government inaction during Israeli-Palestinian violence.
Now the reality of power demands greater rhetorical responsibility and restraint from Islamists in government.
The current cease-fire also offers President Morsy the opportunity for renewed, and closer, engagement with the U.S., particularly after President Barack Obama's election victory and Morsy's initial blunders following the killing of America's ambassador to Libya.
With the U.S. election over, the burden is also on President Obama to assume a more proactive role in fostering a productive peace process, in collaboration with allies and regional powers. Obama's first attempt immediately following his 2009 inauguration ended in humiliation at the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although once bitten, Obama cannot be twice shy. American national interests and international order cannot afford it.
With a drastically transforming Middle East and in search for a foreign policy legacy, Obama must seize the historic opportunity for a new start. There is no room for reluctance or excessive caution. Troubles with Iran and Syria cannot be obstacles to a Palestinian state.
Furthermore, the growing perception of exclusive American interest in east Asia and neglect and indifference to the Middle East is very destabilizing.
It creates an increasingly dangerous power vacuum and encourages nefarious forces to fill it. Obama's penchant for re-start buttons should not lose focus on the Middle East, and particularly Egypt.
Approximately two months away from election, the cease-fire was the best possible outcome for Israel's Netanyahu. He emerges politically stronger and brandishes his leadership credentials as the guarantor of Israel's security. Averting a ground invasion was crucial. He exits the crisis with ample support in the West and avoided greater international isolation.
However, the regional game has dramatically changed for all players. Netanyahu no longer enjoys Mubarak's passive acquiescence in Egypt or a reliably predictable enemy like President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. New realities require new approaches. Failure to adapt will have considerable consequences for Netanyahu and Israel.
Ultimately, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not a panacea to the ills plaguing the broader Middle East. However, it would provide indispensable momentum and unleash new dynamics in confronting other outstanding grievances around the region and beyond.
NOV 21, 2012 02:41 PM
Coyotemike said:
Not sure why we haven't been discussing this topic.
Short version:
Israel killed a Hamas leader;
Hamas fired rockets;
Israel set up the "Iron Dome" defense system (which has, I think I heard, a 90% success rate);
Israel prepared to invade Gaza with ground troops;
More rockets;
More missiles;
Lots of dead children
And today, a possible Cease Fire.
I admit, I may have some things out of order, and, no, I'm not going to assign blame. As far as I can tell, nobody's hands are clean in this one. Except for the dead civilians who are piling up on both sides.
just some problems with your order of events. the rocket fire started before the military took out the Hamas leader (it had increased to hundreds of rockets per day). Also, the iron dome system was already in place, as southern Israel is constantly under rocket attack and has been for around a decade. the iron dome system was put into place around a year ago (i'm pretty sure) and has been operational ever since.
Israel took out the Hamas leader as a direct response to the rocket fire. The leader was the mastermind behind the rocket fire and one of the planners of Gilad Shalit's kidnapping.
Let me be clear: Israel only attacked in response to the rocket fire coming from Gaza.
NOV 21, 2012 02:49 PM
I am told it was a rival group that started firing rockets, the Hamas leader was killed because they did not rein in the rival group. Of course, after the Hamas leader was killed all hell broke loose with everyone shooting.
NOV 21, 2012 03:02 PM
Birger said:
I am told it was a rival group that started firing rockets, the Hamas leader was killed because they did not rein in the rival group. Of course, after the Hamas leader was killed all hell broke loose with everyone shooting.
told by who? rival group of who? of Hamas? Hamas not only smuggles the weapons into Gaza, they do most of the shooting themselves. But on days when hundreds of rockets are launched into Israel it is usually more than one group doing it. For Hamas to ever claim that they aren't involved (I'd really like to see where you read this?) is a total joke.
All hell broke loose in Israel before the Hamas leader was killed, because 1 million people in Israel were spending the day and night in bomb shelters. The world started paying attention once Israel started shooting back.
NOV 21, 2012 03:23 PM
As I said before, there are no clean hands in this.
And to be honest, both sides can point backwards to some "event" that caused them to react; maybe it was last week, last month, last year, or last century, but they're going to claim that they are "justified" in their actions. And both will keep on killing people who aren't involved.
NOV 21, 2012 10:53 PM
I know it's probably a bit naive of me to say so, but perhaps one of the reasons Palestinians have been lobbing rockets at Israel has to do with an ongoing and unresolved issue related to the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Of course, one of the reasons Israel has been enforcing the blockade is to try and prevent more of such weapons from entering the hands of Hamas, who's very existence is to combat against the occupation of Palestinians lands... That or Israel and the Bush Administration were upset that Hamas ousted Fatah in the 2006 elections and decided to orchestrate a war of attrition as punishment, I forget which.
Kind of a Catch-22 situation until someone decides to extend a olive branch and trusts it will be received in kind. Until then, I can only say good luck with trying to "win" any wars, it's pretty clear that approach has failed to result in a lasting peace.
For everyone's sake though, I hope that the cease-fire holds and that new roads are lain upon a common ground between all parties involved.
NOV 21, 2012 11:43 PM
Coyotemike said:
As I said before, there are no clean hands in this.
And to be honest, both sides can point backwards to some "event" that caused them to react; maybe it was last week, last month, last year, or last century, but they're going to claim that they are "justified" in their actions. And both will keep on killing people who aren't involved.
is there no difference between deliberately killing people who are not involved, and doing everything in your power (besides simply NOT fighting back) to avoid killing people who are not involved?
i'm really sick and tired of the criticism that Israel needs to "exercise restraint." The Israeli army exercises more restraint than any other army in the world. Any other army fighting an enemy who not only does the opposite of exercising restraint but makes it known that they are deliberately aiming at civilians and their main goal is total destruction of your country wouldn't think twice about exercising restraint.
Israel hit 1500 targets in 7 days resulting in a little over 100 casualties, half of them Hamas terrorists. Hamas launched over 1000 rockets at civilian areas. If we didn't have shelters and a missile defense system, there would be thousands of casualties, not to mention the casualties that would have already resulted from the rocket fire.
The only reason that Israel checks what goes into Gaza is so they don't keep building bigger and better rockets. Nobody in Gaza is starving. Where's all the criticism of Egypt for doing the EXACT same thing?
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
NOV 22, 2012 12:14 AM
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
NOV 22, 2012 02:02 AM
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
NOV 22, 2012 02:26 AM
Birger said:
I am told it was a rival group that started firing rockets, the Hamas leader was killed because they did not rein in the rival group. Of course, after the Hamas leader was killed all hell broke loose with everyone shooting.
Wendy said:
told by who? rival group of who? of Hamas? Hamas not only smuggles the weapons into Gaza, they do most of the shooting themselves.
The rival group would presumably be Islamic Jihad Palestine. I don't know what percentage of rockets in 2012 were fired by Islamic Jihad, but their role in the attacks has been getting media attention as having consistently grown throughout the year. Hamas unquestionably still remains involved in a number of the attacks.
Note that I'm not particularly interested in the question of who started it (I'm much more concerned about the innocents trapped on both sides and what can be done to end the conflict). I'm only commenting on the rival group because I assume that's who Birger means.
Wendy said:
Nobody in Gaza is starving.
Starvation isn't an issue, but at least 70% of the population is under the poverty line now, malnutrition and anemia are major issues, agriculture is largely halted, and the fishing industry is crippled. Tens of thousands of people are homeless, electricity is limited, medical supplies are low, and civilian consumer items are incredibly scarce. Most Gazans have no normalcy in their lives.
It's mind-boggling to complain about 1 million Israelis living in fear when 1.5 million Gazans live in much more fear. Statistically speaking, they are much more likely to die in the conflict. On top of the fear, they are living in conditions that are many, many times worse that what Israelis enjoy. I can't see many valid reasons to be an apologist for Israel's blockade of Gaza given that it's politically motivated (intended to put pressure on Hamas) and clearly ineffective at producing change in the Hamas leadership (which frankly doesn't seem to care about the conditions under which Gazans are living).
The claim that Israel only cares about arms smuggling is untenable. Israel blocked imports of pasta, fruit juice, chocolate (important in malnourished areas due to its high fat content), and many other goods with no valid military uses, such as tennis shoes, refrigerators, crayons, and musical equipment. Some of the more ridiculous bans have fortunately stopped by now but they reveal how flimsy the claim that the IDF only cares about arms is.
If Israel was only restricting the importation of arms (and likely dual use technology such as cement), then its policy would be much more defensible. As it stands, though, it's collective punishment. The Gaza blockade is one of the places where Israel could afford to exercise a great deal of restraint but fails to do so. Equally importantly, if Israel pursued a more restrained plan in regard to places like Gaza, they wouldn't be handing Hamas and other terrorist groups easy propaganda victories. I agree that a huge component to the peace process is the Palestinian militants' ending of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. At the same time, one of the best ways to encourage that change is for Israel to minimize the potential of its actions to create conditions under which terrorists thrive. Shifting their policies away from negative reinforcement (deterrence) and towards positive reinforcement in Gaza would help marginalize the most radical elements in Palestine.
NOV 22, 2012 02:37 AM
Bill_the_Cat said:
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
this.
NOV 22, 2012 05:31 AM
Wendy said:
Coyotemike said:
As I said before, there are no clean hands in this.
And to be honest, both sides can point backwards to some "event" that caused them to react; maybe it was last week, last month, last year, or last century, but they're going to claim that they are "justified" in their actions. And both will keep on killing people who aren't involved.
is there no difference between deliberately killing people who are not involved, and doing everything in your power (besides simply NOT fighting back) to avoid killing people who are not involved?
i'm really sick and tired of the criticism that Israel needs to "exercise restraint." The Israeli army exercises more restraint than any other army in the world. Any other army fighting an enemy who not only does the opposite of exercising restraint but makes it known that they are deliberately aiming at civilians and their main goal is total destruction of your country wouldn't think twice about exercising restraint.
Israel hit 1500 targets in 7 days resulting in a little over 100 casualties, half of them Hamas terrorists. Hamas launched over 1000 rockets at civilian areas. If we didn't have shelters and a missile defense system, there would be thousands of casualties, not to mention the casualties that would have already resulted from the rocket fire.
The only reason that Israel checks what goes into Gaza is so they don't keep building bigger and better rockets. Nobody in Gaza is starving. Where's all the criticism of Egypt for doing the EXACT same thing?
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
Israel launched the offensive on Nov. 14 to halt renewed rocket fire from Gaza, unleashing some 1,500 airstrikes on Hamas-linked targets, while Hamas and other Gaza militant groups showered Israel with hundreds of rockets.
It was the worst fighting since an Israeli invasion of Gaza four years ago.
The eight days of relentless strikes killed 161 Palestinians, including 71 civilians, and five Israelis. Israel also destroyed key symbols of Hamas power, such as the prime minister's office, along with rocket launching sites and Gaza police stations.
NOV 22, 2012 07:06 AM
Bill_the_Cat said:
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
The problem is that this issue is far too complex to be solved that simply. There are multiple problems to the idea of establishing an independent Palestine:
-Borders:
What will be the borders of this new Palestine? The borders as of 1948 (when the state of Israel was founded)? The borders after the Six-Day War? Just the Gaza Strip? The West Bank? Who will control Jerusalem? Will it be partitioned? Will the establishment of a Palestinian state allow Israel to maintain it's own security (several proposed partition maps had strips of Israeli territory as thin as, I think, 10 miles across, making it fairly easy to cut off one part from the other should warfare break out)?
Security is an important issue for Israel, considering the fact that it is surrounded by enemy nations that have declared for its destruction, and no Palestinian state is going to be formed so long as that security can easily be compromised.
-Recognition:
Any lasting peace will require that the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab countries recognize the establishment of the state of Palestine. This is important for the Israelis and Palestinians because it will limit the possibility of a future territorial war between the two neighbors.
It's also important that the surrounding Arab countries also recognize the new Palestinian state. However, this may be difficult because the leaders of those states have used the Palestinian issue to both legitimize their own regimes while at the same time using it to distract their own people: "Support us, we're fighting for our fellow Arabs in Palestine!" "Don't look at how we abuse our own people, look at how bad the Israelis are treating your Palestinian brothers and sisters!"
Even terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda have used the Palestinian issue to legitimize its actions. However, this is merely an excuse (even if tomorrow an independent Palestine were created that lived in peace with its Israeli neighbor, these terrorist organizations would just move on to another excuse)
-Other issues:
There are also other issues such as Israeli settlement expansions into Palestinian territory and loss of property. For example, following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either fled or were forced from their homes in an event known as Yawm an-Nakba (Day of the Catastrophe). Many Palestinian families still carry the keys to their old homes (homes which have since been resettled). In order for issues such as this, some type of restitution will likely need to be made.
Then, of course, you still have the issue of terrorist organizations. You can't blame the Israelis for being concerned about their safety and security. Their country is surrounded by enemies that want them wiped off the face of the earth. There are terrorists that intentionally target civilians. But you also can't blame the level of dissatisfaction felt by the Palestinians, either. For many, in order to get to and from work, they have to pass through numerous checkpoints that dehumanize you (think of the TSA on steroids).
These are just a few examples of why this is a VERY complex situation. Ever since the establishment of Israel (1948), many countries and international organizations (notably the United Nations) have attempted to resolve the issue. To this date, we haven't. Is it possible? I believe so. But it won't be easy...
(P.S. Sorry for the long post. Don't hate me!)
NOV 22, 2012 02:15 PM
Bill_the_Cat said:
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
ok? I don't really know what you guys want me to say in regard to the fact that you haven't heard it before.
Are you aware that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state multiple times and that the Palestinians have rejected it? Are you aware that Hamas is fighting for all of Israel?
NOV 22, 2012 02:30 PM
Look, I thought posting here as an Israeli who has been in a bomb shelter on and off for the past week would be something of interest to people wanting some insight into the conflict, but this is just going to turn into an "Israel/Palestine conflict" argument and I really don't have the energy or time. I'm way too passionate about the issue to have a civilized conversation that involves the bigger picture, and that's my problem, not anyone else's. To be honest, most Palestinian Arabs that I'm close with agree more with my line of thinking than with the majority of opinions I see on this board, which is interesting.
At the end of the day, Iran got to check out how well the iron dome works, Gaza got to see how much Egypt could have their back, and at the same time test out the new long range weapons that they learned to manufacture, which they will now begin to mass produce instead of putting the money towards the people and the economy of Gaza. Fun for everyone! See you next time.
NOV 22, 2012 03:17 PM
It seems to me that this is and has always been a religious war, and I don't see any end to it. From my perspective (well-researched beyond US media), Israel is a far richer country with a lot more firepower and Palestine is a country that is currently under an anti-Islam (if you really want to get into that, I have read the Koran and grew up Sufi) terrorists. Are either of them right? No. But should children, or innocent civilians die over it, absolutely not. Israel seems like a bully in this conflict and has for a very very long time. No disrespect to Wendy as she has a much closer view in this. But this isn't a new story, and I do NOT support the US supporting Israel any longer militarily. Israel has violated so many human rights laws it is ridiculous. I know that Hamas and Gaza have also done horrible things, but we are talking about government actions vs. extremist actions. And that distinction is VERY important.
NOV 22, 2012 08:13 PM
Will the future serve the past, or will the present serve the future?
The current generation in power had no part in either the founding of Israel or the wars that immediately followed. If I had to choose whether to be a part of occupied Gaza or a part of Egypt, I think I'd prefer Egypt despite the obvious difficulties there. If I had to choose the West Bank or Jordan, I'd consider Jordan the obvious best choice.
Maintaining political power seems like the best argument against the three-state solution. I dislike the peiple who propose the idea, but rationally I don't see a good argument against it. Am I missing something?
NOV 22, 2012 08:16 PM
Priapos said:
Will the future serve the past, or will the present serve the future?
The current generation in power had no part in either the founding of Israel or the wars that immediately followed. If I had to choose whether to be a part of occupied Gaza or a part of Egypt, I think I'd prefer Egypt despite the obvious difficulties there. If I had to choose the West Bank or Jordan, I'd consider Jordan the obvious best choice.
Maintaining political power seems like the best argument against the three-state solution. I dislike the peiple who propose the idea, but rationally I don't see a good argument against it. Am I missing something?
3 state solution? Which is what?
NOV 22, 2012 09:02 PM
I don't know a thing about the history of this conflict so I have no clue how accurate wikipedia can be on this but here... 3-state solution
NOV 22, 2012 09:07 PM
Yeah, that.
I guess I missed that Jordan wants no part of it, for one.
NOV 22, 2012 10:36 PM
The response I keep coming back to when I try to follow this story is, "I already saw this episode." The only real point of interest was watching the Iron Dome pass a good real-world test. Everything else is just status quo. Hamas continues to target civilians almost exclusively. Israel still hasn't acclimated to the existence of YouTube (hilariously, Hamas's crappy rockets and the Iron Dome conspire to give Hamas a better public image--they inflict fewer casualties). Civvies are still getting killed--though, less civilians, this time around, which is a nice change of pace. Both sides continue to use those civilians as human shields for their respective operations--Hamas to protect its launch sites, materiel depots, and leadership; Israel to colonize the oft-proposed Palestinian state. It's just... unremarkable.
NOV 23, 2012 10:48 AM
Wendy said:
Bill_the_Cat said:
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
ok? I don't really know what you guys want me to say in regard to the fact that you haven't heard it before.
Are you aware that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state multiple times and that the Palestinians have rejected it? Are you aware that Hamas is fighting for all of Israel?
My only thought was that it may not be clear to the rest of the world because our news hasn't reported anything like that.
NOV 23, 2012 11:07 AM
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
Bill_the_Cat said:
Thistle said:
Wendy said:
It has been said time and time again. The minute the Palestinian militants stop terrorizing Israel, there will be a Palestinian state. This is very clear to everyone in Israel (also to the Palestinians), I really don't understand why it isn't clear to the rest of the world.
I'm hardly a student of the issue, but I had never heard that before.
Me neither. And I've seen no evidence in the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine that this might be the case, so I highly doubt Palestine has either. I'd be really keen to know what evidence there is of what is or isn't clear to the Palestinians.
ok? I don't really know what you guys want me to say in regard to the fact that you haven't heard it before.
Are you aware that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state multiple times and that the Palestinians have rejected it? Are you aware that Hamas is fighting for all of Israel?
My only thought was that it may not be clear to the rest of the world because our news hasn't reported anything like that.
Whether that speaks more to the general ignorance of the world media, or the pro-Isreal bias of the Israeli media is hard to say, though I personally find the latter more believable.
CoyoteMike
Iowa City, IA
May 2006
NOV 21, 2012 10:42 AM