All arguing aside, this is israel.

If you're talking about the 12 hour cease fire, it was supposed to start at 8 a.m. Jerusalem time. and last until 8 p.m. When I hit "reply" it will be 7:52 p.m. local time. An 8 minute violation? And who broke the cease fire first?

There is nothing in the RT article to indicate the Israeli's broke the cease fire. If Israel had broken it, surely RT would have been all over it.

It appears there was no violation of the cease fire, you can start breathing again.

originally posted by: charles1952
There is nothing in the RT article to indicate the Israeli's broke the cease fire. If Israel had broken it, surely RT would have been all over it.

It appears there was no violation of the cease fire, you can start breathing again.

That's not how I interpreted the article. There was an announcement for Palestinians "not to return home" because the IDF campaign to destroy tunnels will continue. However, many did return home to find it in ruin. Specifically speaking of the northern town of Beit Hanoun

originally posted by: charles1952
If you're talking about the 12 hour cease fire, it was supposed to start at 8 a.m. Jerusalem time. and last until 8 p.m. When I hit "reply" it will be 7:52 p.m. local time. An 8 minute violation? And who broke the cease fire first?

I think you kind of proved my point. It's now 10 after 8 pm Jerusalem time and the bombing has already continued? How's the atmosphere over there? I assume that is where you are.

a reply to: FlySolo

Dear FlySolo,

Amazingly enough, this time the Israeli's were the good guys. Before the cease fire ended, they agreed to a four hour extension. Then, after the four hour extension started up, Gaza fired three mortar shells at Israel. At the moment Israel doesn't seem to want to respond to that.

It was probably some sad sack terrorist who hadn't gotten the word and sent a few down range before they could slap some sense into him.

Of course, the US and Hamas will want more extensions, but Israel has already rejected a week long cease fire, so the horse traders are going to start rolling up their sleeves. In the real world, Hamas should concede something to Israel to get them to stop remodeling the houses in Gaza, but we'll see soon enough.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Do you have a source for the Hamas rocket?

And to think though, Israel turned down a week ceasefire for reasons that Hamas will just regroup and start over. 12 hrs is all they get so clearly it shows this bombardment is until Hamas completely surrenders and all the tunnels are blown up. That is the agenda and bottom line. But Hamas will never completely surrender. 13 year olds laying in a hospital beds are already vowing. Don't you see?

a reply to: FlySolo

Thanks for that name drop. I have more reading to do.
I do agree with BuzzWigs as well wish people would watch before commenting.

It's sad a very sad thing when people are so blinded by whats going on they
will always go against what is being shown because they are not willing to learn.

a reply to: FlySolo

Dear FlySolo,

This isn't the source I had in mind, but it might do.

UNITED NATIONS - UN chief Ban Ki-moon condemned Gaza rocket attacks on Israel Tuesday, and called on both sides of the conflict to halt their aggression.

Ban "reiterates his call on all actors to exercise maximum restraint and avoid further civilian casualties and overall destabilization," his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

He added that Ban "condemns the recent multiple rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza" and that "these indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas must stop."

now.mmedia.me...

Both sides are attacking civilian areas (although, civilian vs. military in Gaza is tough to discern), but "Indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas" are in reference to Hamas' rockets. I would expects that rockets which are unreliable in their flight path would count as violations of the Geneva Conv. (It's seems to be kind of like a shotgun spread, who knows who a pellet will kill or wound?)

But, I've got to run. Off to visit my mother. Much to the surprise of many ATSers, I have a mother.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: FlySolo


I really don't understand this point. The same logic can be applied to ANY conflict and land grabs predating the 19th century. In fact, you can apply that logic to ANY indigenous nation including the Mayans after the Spanish inquisition,

Then if the Mayans decided they wanted the land back, that is their right. If the Native Americans grew strong enough and decided they wanted their land back, I wouldn't blame them. They wouldn't be wrong.

a reply to: charles1952

Yes, I heard. RT reported they rejected the 4 hour extension and started firing. (shrugs) Hmph, I guess I would too. What's the point anyway? Everyone knows what happens after four hours. One would really have to dig into what was going on during those 12 hours anyway but it doesn't look good, I know..

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: FlySolo


I really don't understand this point. The same logic can be applied to ANY conflict and land grabs predating the 19th century. In fact, you can apply that logic to ANY indigenous nation including the Mayans after the Spanish inquisition,

Then if the Mayans decided they wanted the land back, that is their right. If the Native Americans grew strong enough and decided they wanted their land back, I wouldn't blame them. They wouldn't be wrong.

Do you know what kind of precedence that would set? Besides, in the 'civil' world, it's done with negotiations, not war. You never 'truly' have something if it's taken by force. It's only when it's given to you. And besides, I doubt anyone has land titles from 1300 AD seeing it was owned by the Ottoman Empire. How far back is it fair to go? Beginning of time?

a reply to: FlySolo and BuzzyWigs

Dear FlySolo and BuzzyWigs,

I think we can can have a useful discussion. I despair of it with some people, but it seems you both have a desire for peace and some thinking skills, I just hope I'm not too outclassed.

Let's assume that this can be solved. That's a huge assumption. I was at a dinner party tonight. The consensus seemed to be that Israel can't shoot at Hamas because that will kill innocent civilians, and that Hamas will keep shooting, because that's what they've always done.

if they're right, then I see two choices. Israel can die a slow death by being slowly shot to death, attacks on airports, roads, population centers, etc. Or Israel will just say "Obscenity! If we're going to go, let's at least have a decent war and clean them out first. I don't like either of those choices.

Let's try to find something. Here's one idea, bad, but it may get your thoughts started. Israel goes to Hamas and says, "OK, here's the deal. We stop shelling or performing any military actions in your areas. We also lift all blockades, we just have the standard customs inspections every country has. We'll even put in neutral nation custom officials. Have your own policemen and patrols. We'll make sure you have the same water that everybody in this desert land has. We'll make sure you have full electricity.

"We'll also stop building more settlements. Sounds good? Great! We're happy. Now if you ever build a tunnel into our country with out our permission, launch attacks from your country, or allow another country or group to attack from your country, you will not have to worry about any consequences. The reason for that is that you will be dead. Everyone in the Palestinian territories will be killed. We may accept individual surrenders or we may not. The only places in which a stone will be left on a stone will be where we want there to be.

"We are going to broadcast this to the people of the world, and make sure your citizens know all about the deal. Your people now have a real incentive to make sure their government is peaceful. Neither of us will ever attack the other ever again.

"If you reject this deal, the world will know you don't want peace, you want to fight. We'll pencil you in on our calendar."

I'm just going a little out of the box.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: FlySolo

In war there are many tools in use and information is one of them and sadly, Israel is winning it so far. They are good at suppressing information and news media. Sooner or later the world will a full look at both sides though.

a reply to: charles1952

Let's try to find something. Here's one idea, bad, but it may get your thoughts started. Israel goes to Hamas and says, "OK, here's the deal. We stop shelling or performing any military actions in your areas. We also lift all blockades, we just have the standard customs inspections every country has. We'll even put in neutral nation custom officials. Have your own policemen and patrols. We'll make sure you have the same water that everybody in this desert land has. We'll make sure you have full electricity.

"We'll also stop building more settlements. Sounds good? Great! We're happy.

I read this part above, and I was happy.

Then I read the rest of the post.
Why can't it just be: "We'll stop, and how' 'bout you stop, too?! Would you like some tea?"

I weep for this world.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Dear BuzzyWigs,

Oh, I would dearly love for that to happen, but Israel has accepted, what, the last four cease fire agreements, and Hamas has accepted two? (I think my numbers are right (?)) But I don't think Israel is too impressed with just Hamas' promise anymore.

Israel is afraid, rightly or wrongly, that Hamas will just get more supplies, clear away some rocket firing pits, build a few more tunnels, re-establish their communications network, etc. Then, when they're refreshed and re-supplied, start in again. What's to prevent it?

Oh, what really made me sad was finding out that Hamas is claiming credit for sending their newer, longer range rockets towards Israel's nuclear reactors at Dimona. One rocket was shot down, the other two missed.

What if they had hit?

So, dear BuzzyWigs, what can we try? It's pretty much a certainty that Kerry isn't going to come up with anything. If you can, we can put you in for Secretary of State. The world would be better off.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Israel is afraid, rightly or wrongly, that Hamas will just get more supplies, clear away some rocket firing pits, build a few more tunnels, re-establish their communications network, etc. Then, when they're refreshed and re-supplied, start in again. What's to prevent it?

I'm afraid, too!
Tonight my husband and I watched several hours of WW1 documentaries on the History Channel....


I just want it to stop.
I'm not pro-Israel, nor pro-Palestinian, nor pro-Hamas, nor pro-Zionists, nor pro-ISIS....
I'm just exhausted. I'm tired, and I'm sad...
I'm sorry for all of this.
And NONE of it is my personal fault.

a reply to: daaskapital

We all must have forgotten that you were kidnapped by the Israelis and tortured.

This is what the problem is with the world. I can take a video of poop in my toilet and call it the truth in the water. //
Someone, somewhere on this pathetic planet will believe it.

Illegal activities mean nothing to me. Plus, not to mention the fact that Australia is part of a Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement.

Do you honestly think that Australia does not conduct illegal activities with the US government? Tons of US military soldiers jump ship and go work for the Australian military.

How is this any different than Israel "doing illegal" stuff? Just because it isn't all over the MSM doesn't mean YOUR country is any better.........................Israel just isn't going to hide it. WHYYYYYY?????????????? Because it is war.

You do what you can in WARRRRRRRRRRRR to make sure your country is still standing. The US does it along with anyone allied with the UNITED STATES.

Where is the uproar?

A country of about 7.9 million people and the world hates them. Now, less than 0.2% of the world's population is Jewish but almost 23% is muslim and some how, somewhere, there was a Islam parade and YOU PEOPLE joined in on the band wagon.

I say good! Why? Because it means most of you follow the MSM and get feed from a petri dish.

So, what happens to all of you when the SHTF? You DIE. You can't handle not having someone around feeding you out of a petri dish and that is fine with me.

Means a better chance of survival for me because at least 65% of the world's population will die when it happens.

I will still ask the question...when the time comes to an end.

Still think Israel is evil and bad when Islam brought the world's to it's knees?
Most of you HAVE NO CLUE about who these people are. They are deceitful, disrespectful and violent. They do not have any morals and HATE WHITE PEOPLE. I know this because I have spent time with them while I was deployed.
They do not follow their religion and only twist it to fit their reasoning.

Understand the facts before spewing out crap.
Want to know who these people are...go spend time with them before thinking your opinions are fact.

And, for all of you complaining about violence and war...these things WILL NEVER END as long as humans live on this planet.

a reply to: johngrissom

So, what do you suggest should happen?

Do you have a solution?

a reply to: charles1952

None of that is going to work. The true art of negotiations is to make the other person feel they have won something. There must always be a win/win for both parties. First, you need to ask "What do you want?" and "What am I prepared to give?"

I think we can easily hack through the BS and get right to the main points. Let this be a draft for a pseudo agreement.

Palestine:
- wants Israel to give up the Zionist entitlement to the entire region
- wants Israel to open the borders
- wants more territory
- wants to be recognized as a sovereign state and a right to self-determination
- wants peace

Israel:
- wants Palestine to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and accepts them to be the rightful *owners of the geographical area including the West Bank to rule without question and dominate for the rest of time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's really all Israel asks. Any other subsequent requests or addendum from Israel would only be a byproduct of Gaza's aggression. No tunnels, rocket attacks, etc.

So there's the framework, let's begin with that. Who's has the most to offer/lose? Are they equal? It seems, if I were to place both on a virtual scale, Israel's demand is quite a tall order. Clearly, she tips the scales and is in complete control of the negotiations table. She has to give something up.

So now, this is where things get complicated. Realistically, peace won't happen overnight. What needs to happen is, a 5-point stage of border definitions incremented on milestones. Israel gives up some land, Gaza behaves. Wash, rinse, repeat. But they can't do this alone, there must be a governing body to oversee the progress and enforce the rules. This is where I propose it gets hairy.

Israel must agree to a two-state solution. Gaza must agree to never ever ever fire an attack on Israel again. Something similar to how Germany and Japan relinquished their right to militarize for offensive purposes after ww2. Palestine gets promised a full member status on the UN after a predetermined amount of time provided there are 0 escalations. This should be incentive. If Israel does anything, all foreign aid immediately halts, all allies move to a neutral position and sanctions begin immediately. During completion of these milestones, an economic link needs to be established between the two states. Some mutual business framework is created to allow a co-dependency to happen. This is crucial. IE: Exclusive commercial fishing permits, silicon production, licensing agreements. There must be a viable economic plan for the future in order for this to sustain itself.

Then finally, after an x-amount of time, mediation will be withdrawn and both states can act like civil nations in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the prize is bigger for Palestine than it is for Israel. You tell me, what else could Israel want?

a reply to: FlySolo

Dear FlySolo,

Not a bad place to start from, but it won't work as a final agreement.

Consider what the Arabs give up. A one sentence post card saying "Israel is a Jewish state, and they own the land they're on. Which of course is worth the post card it's written on. First, after the next election, the post card is torn up. What's Israel going to do about it?

Second, the Palestinians have a terrible record of abiding by agreements. Why should Israel trust them?

In exchange for the post card, Israel gives away land, supports Palestinian statehood, opens the borders allowing peaceful and military goods to come in, and a couple of other things.

Gaza must agree to never ever ever fire an attack on Israel again. Something similar to how Germany and Japan relinquished their right to militarize for offensive purposes after ww2. Palestine gets promised a full member status on the UN after a predetermined amount of time provided there are 0 escalations. This should be incentive.

If Israel does anything, all foreign aid immediately halts, all allies move to a neutral position and sanctions begin immediately.

And what happens if Hamas does anything? Will we let Israel invade Palestine? Will we send them a nasty note?

Forgetting any of the emotion involved, this seems to be a one sided, pro-Palestinian deal.

With respect,
Charles1952