Israel Rejects Hamas Ceasefire Proposal « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Israel Rejects Hamas Ceasefire Proposal

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Israel Rejects Hamas Ceasefire Proposal”.

Tags: gaza, gilad-shalit, hamas, qassam-rockets

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 26th, 2008 at 2:00 AM and is filed under Humor, Mideast Peace. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

37 Responses to “Israel Rejects Hamas Ceasefire Proposal”

Blonfelfelch says:

April 26, 2008 at 2:42 AM

Are you saying it’s untrue to suggest that Hamas would use a six month truce to re-arm/consolidate etc?

Reply
Einstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 4:05 AM

”And don’t forget those media talking points–Israel is the one who wants peace. ”

Richard, since when has any \’hudna\’ (ceasefire) between Hamas/Fatah and Israel led to peace in this region? Do you believe a 6 month ceasefire with Hamas equates to peace?

Reply
ellen says:

April 26, 2008 at 4:50 AM

“1.5 million Gazans subsisting on UN food rations”
Not.
The United Nations says it has had to halt food distribution in the Gaza Strip because it has run out of fuel, due to Israeli restrictions on vehicle fuel deliveries.

Distributions to 15,000 refugees took place on Thursday, but were then halted. Officials said deliveries due on Saturday will also not take place.
BBC Thurs

Reply
Einstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 5:49 AM

Ellen-
The Nahal Oz attacks are directly related to the fuel shortage. UNRWA had to cease some services recently in the W.Bank also due to palestinian attacks. Of course, when palestinians attack their helpful distributors it’s always Israel’s fault.

Reply
Daga says:

April 26, 2008 at 7:20 AM

Predictions are never true or untru.

On the other hand. I find it highly plausible that when you have been banging your head against the Wall for 60 years it would be wise to try some thing new.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’m saying that Hamas & Israel may both use it for that purpose. But I believe in karma & if Israel negotiates in good faith for a final status settlement w. Abbas & ceases military operations in Gaza that Hamas would reciprocate in kind. There was an 18 mo. ceasefire that worked quite well until Israel mounted offensive operations that killed it. Hamas & other militant groups also contributed to the end of the ceasefire. But Israel’s actions were more determinative.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM

See my comment about the most recent 18 mo. ceasefire which Hamas honored. Isn’t it interesting that people who view Israel as all right & Palestinians as all wrong are so quick to forget anything that might reflect well on the latter?

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 2:52 PM

There were fuel shortages well before the Nahal Oz attack. To what do you attribute those? Ah, yes to Qassam attacks on Sderot. If you want to justify inflicting suffering on innocent Palestinian civiilans you can always find a reason, can’t you?

Reply
Einstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Which 18 months in particular are you referring to? Thanks.

Reply
Einstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Any fuel shortage pre-Nahal Oz was incomparable to what is happening now, as supplies are half of what they were before Nahal Oz. I’m not justifying suffering on innocents at all. It’s their elected govt. Hamas who is to blame for continuing attacks. No such fuel shortages existed before the Gaza pullout in August 2005. Lastly, Gaza could get their fuel from Egypt, and ergo, no fuel crisis.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Is that facetious or serious? If serious, do a search in my blog for ‘Hamas ceasefire’ or similar keyword search & you’ll find references to the ceasefire. You can also search Google News if you like.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 26, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Gaza has been suffering for a year or more under siege like conditions. The latest fuel shortage is merely the nadir of what was already a horrendous situation.

The mess that is going on there is not solely the fault of Hamas, nor solely the fault of Israel. But Israel is FAR MORE responsible than Hamas is.

Israel is responsible for Gaza, not Egypt.

Reply
Einstein says:

April 27, 2008 at 4:52 AM

Serious question. I did what you advised but couldn’t find anything about Hamas honoring any past 18 month hudna or ceasefire.

Reply
Einstein says:

April 27, 2008 at 5:08 AM

I can’t see why Israel is “FAR MORE” responsible than Hamas. The Gaza occupation ended nearly 3 years ago. Hamas has bombed Sderot and other parts of Israel ever since, rather than try to build a genuine, free state. Also, if Tikkun Olam is truly your goal – why would you not implore Egypt to assist Palestinians and try reducing their suffering? Egypt is fully capable of bringing Tikkun Olam faster by helping rather than waiting for Israel to help what they perceive to be a hostile enemy.

Reply
ellen says:

April 28, 2008 at 7:42 AM

I wonder how much “Einstein” knows about world politics. The Egyptian government tortures and imprisons its own subjects, including bloggers who say things critical of the government. This is the government that you are calling on to provide healing and reduce suffering?!
Very strange.

Reply
Einstein says:

April 28, 2008 at 7:48 AM

There’s no reason Egypt cannot supply power and fuel, or allow UN aid into Gaza and be reimbursed from other nations for their trouble. If people who really care for Palestinians want to help Palestinian women and children, this is a no-brainer.

Reply
Daga says:

April 28, 2008 at 8:38 AM

True
A whole World wants to help the people in Gaza and are appalled by Israel is doing to these people. Personally I think that they are fed up by Isreal’ demand of exceptionalism. Regarding international law, and regarding acceptable human behaviour. Israel has, as the occuping/sieging power obligations which are iindisputalbe under the Geneva comvention. The wellbeing and health of people in Gaza are their responsiblity, and theirs alone.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM

I’d say it IS a “no-brainer” but in the literal sense of the phrase rather than the meaning you intended.

Gaza is Israel’s problem, not Egypt’s. If Israel wanted Egypt to take responsibility for Gaza it shouldn’t have conquered it in 1967. SInce it did it would be awfully convenient for Egypt to take the problem off Israel’s hands. But I’m afraid that’s not in the cards.

And yr comment implies that Egypt should really “care for” the Palestinians while Israel has no responsibility to or for them–which is in fact both unfortunate & wrong. Again, Israel is the occupying/controlling power acc. to international law, not Egypt.

Reply
Einstein says:

April 28, 2008 at 5:20 PM

So if the world is appalled and fed up at Israel, why not bypass Israel and make life better for arabs in Gaza by going through Egypt and making it as easy as possible for Egypt? It doesn’t seem that being appalled and fed up at Israel is doing innocent Gazans much good. Besides, arabs are less likely to attack at the Egypt border as they are Israel’s. Why would Israelis be motivated to keep trying to assist and aid people who are attacking them?

Reply
Einstein says:

April 28, 2008 at 5:33 PM

How can you say Israel shouldn’t have conquered Gaza/Egypt in ’67 after Egypt clearly provoked the war by amassing its troops at the Sinai/Israel border and closing the Staits? Are you implying Israel should have immediately gone back to dangerous pre-67 borders and just allowed Egypt to try again – maybe send much more Fedayeen through Gaza?

I never said Israel shouldn’t care for Palestinians. They seem to be the only ones who do despite all the attacks, as Israel sends tons of food and aid daily, cares for Palestinians in their hospitals, employs Palestinians, etc.

Israel disengaged from Gaza almost 3 years ago. There is no occupation there any longer. Rather than blame Palestinian misery solely on Israel, maybe the world needs to step in and bring true Tikkun Olam if it really cares more for Palestinians than it does blaming Israel. Or is the world concerned that Hamas will attack their volunteers and distributors at the Gaza/Egypt border – so it may as well be Israel taking the brunt, and the blame?

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 28, 2008 at 9:35 PM

Oh Lord how I hate people who insist on refighting wars & battles of 50 years ago. I was alive in 1967. Were you? Egypt didn’t provoke the war. Israel actually initiated the war through a pre-emptive air attack. Whatever actions Egypt took before the war were more than matched by Israeli actions.

Besides, Israel conquered Gaza plain & simple. You conquer you’re responsible plain & simple. If they didn’t want to be responsible they shouldn’t have conquered. Now they’re stuck w. it.

And pls. do tell us how Israel is “caring for” Palestinians. Fr. what you say, Israel must be the most charitable nation on earth. How does its charity manifest itself?? Israel sends in “tons of food” daily. So that’s why 80% of Gaza subsists on UN food rations. Israel cares for Palestinians in its hospitals? Aren’t you leaving out the hundreds of Palestinians refused entry to Israel for emergency life-saving treatment by the Shin Bet who denies them permission. Would you care to tell us exactly how many Palestinians are being treated in Israel.

Of course, if Israel allowed in the medicines, fuel & other things hospitals needed to function then Gazans wouldn’t need to travel to Israel for treatment. But that never crossed yr mind, did it?

Gaza is occupied. Even now. According to international law. Go look it up. Or are you a specialist in the subject with superior knowledge to international law experts, including Israelis, who accept this fact as a given.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 3, 2008 at 3:23 AM

Richard,

Egypt initiated the 1967 war in May by amassing its troops at the Sinai border after tossing out the UN, blockading the straits of Tiran, and convincing the Syrians to amass their troops along the Golan Heights. These acts alone were a declaration of war, by all UN and Geneva definitions.

Are you claiming Israel provoked such actions? Or is it that Israel shouldn’t have acted until the arab forces started physically attacking?

This is crucial. I can understand better your position if you believe the 1967 war was all or mostly Israel’s doing – and therefore the OT are Israel’s problem, not Egypt/Jordan or the arab world.

Reply
Daga says:

May 3, 2008 at 4:54 AM

Einstein..
Rewriting history is a zionist speciality,but you are extreme..and..sorry to say so ,a phoney and a fool. Commander of the air force General Ezer Weitzman said Egypt posed no threat, Moshe Dayan said in his memoirs the same, and most important Menachem Begin said ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’
From Jewssansfrontieres.
http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html

You said that according to UN and Geneva “definitions” (???????) is build up of military forces tantamount to declaration of war. First of all ..the Geneva conventions are about humanitarian aid during conflict. Haag convention states that preemptive strike is a war crime. I understand your confusion.. Why should you have any knowledge of conventions Israel refuse to abide by ?

I suggest you change your “nick”. I hate to see the name of a great man (and antizionist) dragged into the mud.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 3, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Daga,

If you want to believe in Noam Chomsky’s distortions and falsehoods which artfully transforms victims into aggressors and vice-versa, that’s up to you. Maybe you should seriously investigate Chomsky by matching his rantings and screeds with actual primary sources.

I recommend Michael B. Oren’s book on the 1967 war. Unlike Chomsky, Oren is an respected historian who has done his homework and backed up his work with primary sources.

Two more things.

1. Einstein was a zionist. Maybe ‘cultural zionist’ is confusing to you, but that’s what he was.

2. If rewriting history is a “zionist specialty” (can you feel the love) and our very own Richard S. here describes himself as a zionist, what does that say about his views on history? Do you agree with Mr. Silverstein’s account of history, despite the fact he describes himself as a progressive zionist?

Reply
Daga says:

May 3, 2008 at 10:13 AM

I dont intend to discuss Noam Chomsky with you, ..His works speaks for themselves so do your lies and “ad hominem” attack instead of adressing the issue. Is it your assertion that neither Moshe Dayan nor Menachem Begin have stated what the link showed..that an academic of Chomsky’s caliber would stoop to falsifying ..and such banal and easily controllable statements? I dont think so, and neither can you.

It is true that Einstein was a cultural zionist in the early 20ties. His idea, was to create a jewish univerity. I was also an ardent supporter of Israel untill I realized what maiignant cancer the West had implanted in Palestine. Always destructive, always demanding more “Lebensraum” under the guise of state security.

In -48 Einstein ,Arendt and a dozen other leading jewish intellectuals wrote an open letter in NYT, ending :

“The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.”

So: Einstein called you and your comrades-in-arm fascists, still you use his name,,I find your behaviour quite bizarre.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM

@Einstein:

Unlike Chomsky, Oren is an respected historian who has done his homework and backed up his work with primary sources.

First, Chomsky is one of the world’s most respected linguists AND political analysts. Second, Michael Oren is an intellectual partisan of the Israeli right. He works at the Shalem Center funded by supporters of Bibi Netanyahu. It is the equivalent of the American Enterprise Institute though farther to the right. Third, Oren favorite publication is the Wall St. Journal where he published regulary. To think I would let that one slip by, Einstein, is pretty pathetic on yr part.

If Einstein was a Zionist then why did he refuse Israel’s offer to be its first president? If he was a Zionist he was not your kind. He was much more of the Buber-Magnes mold which held that the Zionist movement must avert a full-scale violent confrontation with the Arabs at all costs.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 4, 2008 at 4:22 AM

1. Chomsky has been caught many times fabricating and distorting facts while rarely ever citing legitimate primary sources. Need I point to anything more than Chomsky endorsing Robert Faurisson’s holocaust denying book, as proof of Chomsky not being anyone who remotely resembles a respectable scholar? On the other hand, Michael Oren’s latest Six Day War book, no matter his political persuasion (and he worked for Yitzhak Rabin, mind you), is comprehensive and exhaustive, reviewed as very evenly balanced (by Benny Morris for one), and footnoted meticulously with legitimate primary sources and interviews. It’s a joke to compare Chomsky’s op-ed screeds with Oren’s scholarly research.

2. Einstein was clearly a zionist. Here’s the proof with actual citations:

http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_zionism.htm

And like Einstein, I would have condemned the Irgun’s terrorist actions as well – but remained a staunch zionist regardless. Human life is far more important than a piece of land. I’d gladly hand over 3/4 of all Israel including the OT if it resulted in genuine peace without anymore bloodshed, and I wouldn’t think twice about it.

Reply
Daga says:

May 4, 2008 at 6:11 AM

you are as usual remarkably cavalier with any idea of truth and decency Einstein

Chomsky did of course not endorse Robert Faurisson’s book. How can any sane person endorse holocaust or naqba denial ? What Noam Chomsky did, and rightly so, was to write ” Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression”, as an introduction to Faurisson’s book.

The french philosopher Voltaire emphasized the human rights of criminal suspects, saying to a suspect who was in custody on charges of murder, “I do not agree with your ideas but I will fight for your right to state your opinions.”
To make holocaust denial illegal when blasphemy is legal makes a mockery of the legal system and obscure ordinary peoples sense of justice. Jews might be “The Chosen People”–at least according to their own “folie de grandeur”, but to place themselves above God is to stretch it too far,dont you think ?

I disagree with Chomsky. Writing the introduction was not a good idea. But Im no anarchist,neither am I thirsting for a fight with the zionist nomenklatura in USA.
It is important that freedom of speech is absolute,and not at the whim of the ruling elite. So we need more Chomskys ,people who can breach the compact stupidity,ignorance and compliance of an outfoxed public.

We are ,dear friend,straying away from the issue at hand. Your assertion was that Chomsky was a liar writing what the leadership in Israel have told of the events leading up to the war in 67. You have failed to prove your case-even worse, you prove again and again that you are a liar. You need some self-examination. Ask yourself,” do you want to find the truth, or are you wasting your time defending a failed state and a lost case ?

2. Your proof of Einstein’s love for zionism is zionism-israel’s website ?
You must be joking.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

@Einstein:

Read my comment rules carefully. If you wish to make a serious charge against someone you MUST provide proof of yr claim. Otherwise, you have zip credibility. That is what you have done. Claiming that Chomsky fabricates evidence is a far cry fr. actually proving it. So prove it or don’t claim it. I don’t know that Faurisson has written a Holocaust denying book and I don’t know that Chomsky has endorsed it. Frankly, it’s not a subject that interests me very much. But the fact that you claim it doesn’t make it so.

I don’t give a hoot who Michael Oren worked for 13 yrs ago or more. He now gets paid by people who fund Bibi Netanyahu which would make him a Likud partisan. The fact that he publishes in the Wall Street Journal does NOT indicate he is a serious, non-partisan scholar. Just the opposite. I always laugh when rightists think they’ve proven something by using Benny Morris as proof. They seem to think that Benny Morris is a legitmate source for a progressive like me because he ONCE was on the left. Benny Morris is just as much a right wing ideologue as Michael Oren. THe former has certainly written important scholarly works, but mostly before he had his ideological conversion.

You’re mischaracterizing Einstein’s views. I believe a good part of the reason he refused the presidency of Israel is because he felt deep discomfort with Israel’s hostile relations with its Arab neighbors. He was a pacifist after all. Not an unqualified pacifist since he supported the resarch that led to the atom bomb. But Israel’s relationship with its neighbors had to have made him extremely uncomfortable.

I’d gladly hand over 3/4 of all Israel including the OT if it resulted in genuine peace

That’s mighty generous of you. But considering it will take the return of far more than 3/4 of the conquered territory Israel has appropriated, there isn’t a hope in hell that you will ever have to be tested. Israel will end up returning more like 95-98%, while retaining a few major settlement blocs, in any final peace agreement. You’ll have to think more than twice about it since you’ll hate the idea so much. But it will happen.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 4, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Daga and Richard,

1. If you’d look at that link from my May 4 post on Einstein’s zionism, you’d see it’s quite ridiculous to continue to claim he was not a zionist. Or do you guys maybe believe the quotes are fabricated and the link is complete rubbish, just because it comes from a pro-Israel source? Why mock the source, or the politics behind the source, when the evidence against your position is so overwhelming? If you have reason to believe that the site’s quotes and letters attributed to Einstein are hoaxes or forgeries, and can prove the site I referenced is terribly misleading, please let me know and I’ll write immediately to the organization responsible.

2. As for Chomsky and Faurisson, you can easily google information on this episode. It is beyond dispute that Faurisson is a holocaust denier. Chomsky signed a petition written by a known neo-nazi that affirmed Faurisson’s alleged “scholarly” credentials. Chomsky went further and stated that Faurisson’s Holocaust denying work was extensive historical research while giving credence to Faurisson’s outlandish lies (stuff that can be found on Stormfront) as “findings”. When questioned, Chomsky found nothing antisemitic about holocaust denial. Chomsky then called Faurisson an apolitical liberal. This episode alone disqulifies Chomsky as a respected scholar. We all know very well that if some rightwing hack did the same as Chomsky, that person’s literary career would rightly be deemed a joke.

If you’ve heard of Israel Shahak, you’d know of Shahak’s screeds against the Talmud, jewish kids supposedly taught to curse when passing nonjewish cemetaries, washing hands = worshipping Satan, etc. You can easily google this information and find it. Of Shahak, Chomsky wrote: “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” All this can be googled.

I ask you, what is a respected scholar doing by endorsing antisemitic tripe like that? Why is it Chomsky gets a free pass for this when no one should? As for Chomsky’s ridiculous claims, there are many that can be googled under keywords Chomsky and lies. Since we mentioned the 1967 war, here’s a doozy:

“It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Jordan and Syria entered the conflict much as England and France went to war when Germany attacked their ally Poland in 1939. One might argue that the Israeli attack was legitimate, but to convert it into an Arab invasion is rather audacious — or would be, if the practice were not routine”. What’s not controversial, in reality, is that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all had their infantry and armor positioned at Israel’s borders. Nasser himself stated just days before the war: “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations”. (May 30, 1967 – Nasser)

I don’t see how anyone can take Chomsky seriously.

Reply