This was expected. Of course Israel is pulling out now, President Bush is out of office. They knew there was no way they could continue this kind of treatment of the Palestinians after Bush was no longer in office. The Gaza massacre - another GIFT from the Bush Administration. I don't think we can stand any more of these GIFTS!

They're using the usual orwellian technique of calling it a cease-fire while reserving the right to fire at any Hamas member (which is sure to happen as long as they have any troops in Gaza), and if a few civilians get hit that's Hamas's fault as usual.

It's all the better to blame the victims, assist in the propaganda war, and appeal to U.S. audiences.  Never underestimate the malice and double-speak of dedicated Zionists, the Israeli government and army.

It is time for Mr Obama to say to Israel enough is enough and it is time to sit down and solve all these problems that causing both sides death and destruction, of course palestinians have sufferd more for so long and it must be stopped once for all. Peace and justice must come during Obama adminstration. George Bush one of the worst president in history of the United State of America and will be dumped in garbage of history.

kiling of lot of cildran and weman and ateking with fasfors bambs way nat terarizm what is th terarizm anlythe muslims riply is the terarizm        wehr is u n and whr is th chepyan of humenrights us and e u
 whay nat see un the terarizam of indea in kashmeer and israeel in gaza  if u n had seen th terarizam in bambey becas thy war muslim and athers are nan muslim

i want pec in gaza and juresdektion tayl of israeel inworld cut

it's a lie Israel killed a palestinian this morning they still in Gaza and Fawzy Barhoum spokesman in Hamas inside Gaza said Hamas will not stop fighting unless the occupation of Gaza is over and the siege is over also 

As an American, I feel queasy about Israel firing the first shots on November 4th and 17th to provoke a Hamas response and then timing and invasion and massacre of Palestinians to our lame-duck President and then declaring a temporary ceasefire to come out as 'good guys' not wanting to spoil the inauguration of a new President.
They have invaded a sovereign land, occupy it and kill at will.
Now they demand to remain in Palestine and remove its democratically-elected leadership with its choice and expect the US to provide troops in Egypt to help them contain the Palestinians.
No doubt the 'good guy' routine will buy them out of the war crimes and genocide prosecution.
Does anyone else smell a charade for us dumbos?

A very good article in the Guardian
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/18/gaza-ceasefire-israel-hamas

israel never intended to stop firing. with what right does it occupy the city of Gaza??? First they should pull out and then try for a cease-fire. Of course Hamas will not stop either as long as israeli troops are still i the city. would anyone act differently??? and in the meantime, while Hamas is firing home-made missiles that can't do any more damage than fire-crackers, israel is firing with real weapons that actually kill people. the stats are: deaths: 13 israelis VS over 800 Palestinians. Isn't anyone listening????? or do people just choose to dismiss the subject?

1300 killed half of them women and children

thank you mohammed for the correction. thoses stats are even worse

Israelis helping Gazans:


As Operation Cast Lead draws to an apparent close, hundreds of Israelis, including those from rocket-battered communities in the Gaza periphery, are mobilizing to help suffering civilians on the opposite side of the border.

What started on Thursday as the private initiative of two young women - Lee Ziv, an activist in peace organizations, and Hadas Balas, a student at Sderot's Sapir Academic College - has mushroomed into a countrywide drive to help the civilians of Gaza. Jerusalem Post 1/18/09

There are thousands of Israeli's, including some draft resistors who refuse to be in the Israeli military, who recognize and speak out about the murder of Palestinians and the degradation and inhumane acts committed by the government. There are also those Israeli's who want to help the Palestinian people, and call for an end to the dispossession. Unfortunately the radical Zionists are in control in Israel like the neocons have been here in America.

Israeli officials: Gaza troops out by inauguration -Teibel reported from Jerusalem, Barzak from Gaza City.
After reading this and what everyone has said on here....
All kind of mixed feelings here... Did Hamas learned a lesson? Did Iran learned a lesson? Will Egypt be more proactive in taking real control over its own borders with Gaza? What approach will European politicians take? So many unanswered questions! Something tells me that first two didn't learn... they will be back, more evil then ever. Food for thought I guess.

You forgot one thing andrea and that is that this massacre--there is no other word--had nothing to do with rockets and everything to do with political posturing on the part of Israel: Israeli elections (in Feb.) and an uncertainty with regards to the changing political climate in the US.

Nothing to do with rockets? Not even a tiny teensy bit?

nop. not even a teensy bit

Rockets are an excuse for propaganda purposes: the ever victim syndrome, not the cause.

They seem to be an awfully good excuse. Excellent for PR purposes. I wonder if Hamas realizes that rockets function strategically as a propaganda asset for Israel? And if so, why is there not more resistance to the rockets from more sophisticated Palestinian strategists?

I find David Cohen's post about "Israelis helping Gazans" amusing. While the efforts of the civilians in Israel are to be praised - don't dare take credit for it by association, David. Those people helping the Gazans would also be the first to denounce the attempts by you and the Israeli government to white wash their acts of violence. The people in Israel and the people in Gaza are just as diverse in opinion as those who comment here in these threads. Efforts to bunch all of Hamas/Gazans together in group "A" and all of Israelis in Group "B" and assign western philosophical stamps of good and evil on one or the other based on your point of view is a hindrance to the peace process. Embrace the Yin and Yang. Accept that there is no pure evil and no pure good - both at the macro level and within each person - recognize that there is love in everyone - feel driven to nurture that desire within your fellow humans and you shall have peace. Efforts to assign blame to either side is futile - both are acting in what they think is in their own best interest, both want peace, both are incapable of realizing how to acquire it. Military suppression by Israel will not work, neither will guerilla/terror tactics work for Hamas - these are the languages of hate and cannot be used if trying to reach peace and justice. A modern Babel. 

I do have an issue with calling for Cease-fire. If war was started this should end with permanent peace as a result. Its been 60 years how long more we will see this go on like this?

this shows that Hamas doesn't want a cease-fire, they continue pouring rockets into Israel and are getting better with their aim.

I can only hope that President (elect still) Obama will stand by the ethics that brought the US to the top of the world.

The problem with this cease-fire, is that it isn't, Israel has stopped attacking, but Hamas has not. this is the furthest thing from peace that i can imagine

You're correct, Steve, this isn't a ceasefire... but it seems as if you only read the title of this blog post. A splinter group - consisting of people who no longer even reside in Gaza, declaring themselves leaders of a political (or terrorist, if you will) organization who's infrastructure (and communications and therefore coordinations and agreements) is nonexistent now (thank you IDF) - are the ones declaring that they wont honor the ceasefire. 
This isn't remotely evidence that "Hamas" doesn't want a ceasefire. This is the radical, uncompromising group I spoke of that would exist even if the greater Palestine decided to move towards peace that Israel will continue to use as an excuse to subjugate all of the Palestinians. Your comment is also an example of the gross generalizations that are so easy to make. You ABSOLUTELY HAVE to remember that not all of the people there are the same. It's dehumanizing, and making the atmosphere fertile for conflict. You're corralling all Palestinians into a group guilty only by association. You cannot accuse all Gazans, or even all of Hamas, for wanting to continue violence when one part of a group - incapable of collecting a consensus from the entire population - makes a declaration about their political/war stance. This is only indicative of the ego of the splinter Hamas "leaders" in exile. 
Lest we forget that Israel itself is only using words to sound better. They're calling for a ceasefire - but not upholding it either. Again, actions speak louder than words. By keeping ground forces in Gaza they guarantee continual violence. If Israel wanted real peace, they would pull out and start talking.
Rizhan Elahi - the notion that when wars end, there's permanent peace has rarely existed, especially in modern times. The only instances of war bringing peace was when the conquered population was completely or virtually wiped out (consider the case of First Nations in North America.) You can't do that in this day-and-age. Not with modern media. Not with modern ethics. The obliteration of populations is no longer tolerated - unlike before the 20th century. 
Now - if you can't wage a war, without destroying the population and usurping their resources (ie: Israel can't kick all the Palestinians out, and likewise, the Palestinians will never fully kick the Israelis out) - what the heck do you do? You work together and sort out your problems! Both sides need to realize that they're both there for good. Permanently. Now with limited land, they need to provide those resources EQUALLY between those willing to cooperate. ("Equally" is key, Israel throws scraps and pretends to be the humanitarian and if the Palestinians were in power - it'd be the same way except backwards.) 

Well, Jeremy, i only say hamas because it is only hamas, in no way do i say that it's the Palestinians who are at fault (though technically they voted hamas in [if for other reasons], so they are partially at fault here)

now let's look at the definition of a cease-fire here, it's the discontinuing of all military activity. Technically if they are still in Gaza and are not doing anything (besides patrolling, that's a basic soldier's duty) then it's not a breach of the cease-fire, but a withdrawal would be, logically speaking.

However, the first military action that broke this cease-fire was Hamas, since they said (without representing their people i might add) that the war will continue and they continued sending rockets into Israel with a much better aim than before. who is sending these rockets over? Hamas, or at least their leaders (and obviously the lower ranks that are following).

Now, Charles says that Israel's troops will stay in Gaza (the cease-fire is not in violation yet) and that Israel will not make any dealing with Hamas. These are understandable since obviously the exiled Hamas leaders don't want a cease-fire. Also, the Israeli government probably wants the Palestinians to either over-throw Hamas or have a new election, where Hamas is not voted back in. Either way they want the Palestinian people to take action against Hamas which brought all this pain in the past 4-8 years.

Honestly, i don't see how Israel will get their wish, after all they did invade and shell Gaza, why would the public attempt peace?

To be honest I didn't forget anything. I stated that I had mixed feelings on the matter from both sides and the questions that came from those feelings. Thank you for you input by the way and I try to understand where each person is coming from. Like I said these are the question's I'm left with. And here are a few others....Do you hope anybody learns from such destruction? Will they have peace or must more dead bodies be made ? True peace is the absence hate ....until they can overcome that the death toll will be worse .

> by Steve Maloney.
Ah... you're getting closer.
Also, I wasn't just saying you were associating Gazans with Hamas. You were associating the entirety of Hamas with the small group of exiled Hamas "leaders" who are the ones claiming not to uphold the ceasefire. They can't speak for all of Hamas, much less the Gazans. 

For some reason it didn't work in my post above - but I was quoting Steven's last paragraph.

Well Jeremy, it's still Hamas who is making these attacks, the paragraph before that says that rockets that are STILL coming out of Gaza is from Hamas, meaning that some of the lower ranking of Hamas are still listening to their leaders, so how do we know that all of them are not listening. We don't know every little detail over there so we can't assume that either one is right Jeremy without proof

That's exactly my point. We don't know every little detail over there. That's why we can't allow ourselves to make gross generalizations. Anyone in Gaza with a rocket, any connection -even a vote - to Hamas, dead family members and a taste for vengance can say: "Hey, I represent Hamas and we want to destroy you." Who's "we" ? With the constant bombardment and destruction of infrastructure (which includes many communications) when has "Hamas" and their supporters had a chance to sit down and discuss a consistent stance or message they want to convey towards Israel? Little to none. 

Not that it matters in the grander scheme because even if Hamas does collectively want to continue violence (which according to recent reports, it's acknowledging the cease-fire) Israel is still holding the entirety of Gaza accountable for the actions of a few. It's still using military force which will inevitably lead to violent retaliation - breeding a new generation of terrorists. It's completely counter-productive. 

that's not true, just an hour ago (maybe earlier) Hamas violated their cease-fire again with mortar fire

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/20/1002387/hamas-launches-mortar-shells

That doesn't prove anything. This is an Israeli news report (most likely biased) and can very easily - without any real investigation-  blame mortar fire on "Hamas" simply because someone with a mortar who supports "Hamas" fired upon a rocket launcher (which no doubt pummelled his home.)

It's very easy to find news reports that support your point of view. One Googling of "Israel Breaks Ceasefire" yields several reports including this one: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=82950&sectionid=351020601

Biased? Maybe... the point is, I'm not convinced either side is taking the cease fire seriously. Both are guilty. Both are victims. Peace will not be reached until at least one side moves towards it and they exercise some patience for the other side to realize it and respond appropriately. It takes time, and every knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye response by either side is just going to prolong it. Get it?

Another example as to why media unfortunately can't offer accurate details about what is going on - Israel has not allowed reporters into Gaza - and don't begin to repeat sentiments by Israeli officials who supposedly care about the safety of the press. The press is only ever stopped when you're trying to cover something up and many reporters are more than willing to cover wars putting truth before their own lives.

Here's an example of the impotence of press:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnLyDOjfusQ&eurl=http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3124&updaterx=&feature=player_embedded

yes yes, i think we're arguing on the same side Jeremy. However, i do not believe that if Israel is the first to back down that Hamas (or at least it's leaders) will back down... sorry but i don't see that happening if Hamas continues to break cease-fire after cease-fire (though one argues that Israel does it, it's Hamas who actually starts to break it)

the only way i can see a cease-fire becoming permanent is if Hamas goes out of the way to stop attacking immediately and agrees that Israel has a right to exist

[note: i am using Hamas as the term for anyone who breaks the truce, because the majority is not only Hamas but almost all of it is]

also, that is not true about how you think Israel is trying to cover things up and people are not allowed inside Israel: for one the BBC has their respected people inside Israel, and in a war zone (because that is what Gaza is right now) you don't want reporters inside to be in danger, that's not hiding something, that is protecting something, they don't want a hostage crisis to happen (though that would help their PR substantially)

Inside Israel, yes. Gaza? No. The BBC itself has said they're not allowed in. (link at bottom)

Your belief that Hamas does not have the will to stop attacking is routed in propoganda. But let's say that you're right and that the current leaders wont ever stop attacking. I said the non-violent road must be taken with patience. If Israel stops attacking AND stops blockades, unlawful colonization, and anything that reduces Palestinians to less than human, then the next generation of Palestinians will be able to move towards peace. I'll share an excellent comment that was made by someone using the name Nara52 in response to an article by Chris Hedges. It's very appropriate:

The nonviolent struggle Mahatma Gandhi followed against the brutal British empire was much more than mere pacifism.  Gandhi advocated a struggle for transforming both the oppressor and the oppressed.  He did not hesitate to call off protests, even when they are at the cusp of success, if his followers failed to adhere to the strictly non-violent means.  The end result is a transformed society.  Critics point to the bloodletting that occurred during the partition of India to cast doubts about Gandhi.  But what they ignore is that Bengal, where Gandhi went during these cathartic times, was absolutely peaceful.  Sadly, we had only one Gandhi for the entire nation of more than 300 million at that time.

It is easy to respond to seemingly intractable conflicts with violence.  Peaceful struggle is never easy.  It requires enormous patience and commitment.  It may take years before we see any changes.  The personal cost is also heavy.  One must be prepared to face death or bodily harm, not to mention humiliation and ridicule.  But the changes that finally result are uplifting, permanent, and devoid of resentment.  Everybody wins.

Take for example the struggle for voluntary land redistribution efforts of Vinoba Bhave and his followers.  In 1968, 42 landless women and children were burnt alive by the landlords in Thanjavur District of Tamil Nadu, India, following a wage-dispute.  Jagannathan and Krishnammal, following the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Bhave, organized peaceful nonviolent struggle against the landlords.  Initially the landlords refused to even sit with the landless laborers.  But, after 40 years of struggle, the descendants of the landlords who perpetrated the brutal atrocity in the 60’s, were transformed to the extent they expressed profound regret for the actions of their parents and voluntarily redistributed part of their land holdings to the poor.  A violent struggle may have given quick result, but there is no guarantee that the gains will not be reversed through counter violence.  (Jagannathan and Krishnammal were awarded the alternate Nobel prize for 2008.)

The goal of peaceful struggle, which Gandhi called Satyagraha, is not to defeat an opponent, but to transform the opponent.  In the end, the oppressor becomes one with the oppressed. 

Having endured long years of violence, it is difficult for Palestinians to eschew violence and adopt Gandhian methods against the Israeli oppressors.  This does not mean advocates of peaceful protest are self-delusional.  In this day of internet, independent media, instant world-wide communication, nonviolent protest from the grieving Palestinian populace will be much more powerful in outraging the conscience of even the American apologists of Israeli oppression.  They have tried violence for 60 years, where did it get them?  More than 1000 lives have been lost in a matter a few weeks, to the cowardly bombardment by the IDF.  Are they any closer to justice than a couple of months ago?  What if Hamas went on a mass protest at border crossing like the ones organized by Gandhi against the British?  If IDF killed 1000 unarmed Palestinians protesting at checkpoints and border crossings, what would the world opinion be?  If Hamas organized waves of protesters to burn ID cards issued by IDF and march through checkpoints without showing papers, what would IDF do?  Would they shoot them dead? 

I have a lot of respect for Hedges.[As do I, Jeremy]  He is a rare kind of journalist who wishes to tell the truth and is outraged when others in his profession do not.  But I would like to respectfully disagree with Hedges that advocating “moral suasion and nonviolence” to the grieving families in Gaza or Iraq or Afghanistan is delusional.

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/01/covering_gaza.html

First, sure, the West Bank is owned by the government of Israel thanks to favoritist policy of imperialistic forces in the UN. The fact is innocent people lived there, and now the Israelis are taking away their land and making it nearly impossible for them to get back by colonizing the area. Just because it's legal, does that make it right?

Second, Britain's history of imperial conquest and the violence it wielded is well documented. I shouldn't have to educate you about the atrocities committed in India. You're right, Britain didn't want to completely obliterate the entire population, but neither do the Palestinians, and that's where I think your commitment to violent reactionary-ism comes from. Someone needs to show you that Palestinians are human too. They're not some foreign entity hell-bent on the destruction of life - these are lies spread by the powers that be to convince people to go to war.

I know all dreams don't come true. I have no delusions of Peace and Prosperity in La-La Land. There's no doubt that a FEW hatred-fueled radicals will continue to commit their evil if Israel were to lay down arms and reach out positively towards the Palestinians. But they wouldn't kill all the Jews! They wouldn't have the power to do that. Not even close. And the Jews wouldn't sit by not resisting, there's a myriad of non-violent strategies! Just look at history. The citizens of Le Chambon, France saved over 5000 Jews during Nazi occupation by remaining commited to non-violent tactics. More Jews were saved per capita in Denmark who surrendered unconditionally to Germany than any other country in Europe and they had well coordinated, country-wide, NON-VIOLENT resistance movements to save them.

The point is to help raise a new generation of Palestinians, ones who cannot witness atrocities committed by Israelis which in turn would lead to more violence against the Jews. It's a spiral! Don't you see that? Only one generation is needed on either or both sides, Israeli or Palestinian, to have the perseverance and determination to end this cycle of violence. One has to say enough is enough and the next generation on both sides of the border will see that! A Palestinian baby isn't going to grow up hating Jews if they've done nothing but good towards them, likewise an Israeli child wont want to hurt a Gazan if the Gazans reach out as neighbors instead of aggressors to the Israelis. History has proven that this can be accomplished! It can happen in Israel/Palestine. You have to look to the future, you have to use preventative tactics, and the best way to prevent conflict with someone tomorrow is to try and become their friend today.

Answer this, fundamentally and from your heart, not with irrelevant IF's AND's or BUT's because they don't matter. While circumstances may differ from country to country and people to people - do you honestly believe that by striking a group of people violently (whoever), it will prevent them from striking back, forever? Without completely removing all of them from existance - which is so morally wrong, I won't even allow that as an option for you - will hating and violently attacking a group of people - for whatever reason good or bad - truly bring everlasting peace between the two opposing groups? Do you or anyone reading this honestly believe that violence can be used to end an a cycle of violence?

ok, i understand that the west bank is owned by Israel, and they have since they were created, does it make it right to just let it go? Israel is the rightful owned starting from 1948, so why should they let it go? this is exactly like some neighbor who you may not always agree with but you get along, suddenly starts to build a large pool into your yard, say you let him, suddenly he's in your home watching your plasma and filling an eviction notice. that is essentially what will happen if Israel does not defend itself. That is why i believe if anyone should start with non-violence it's the Palestinians of Gaza, not Israel, since Israel can not let it's guard down from Gaza, the West bank, or any other countries in the area that wish to destroy it (like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, ect.)

the people in Le Chambon HID the Jews from the Nazi SS guards, which can not be done in Israel, but Hamas, or at least it's leaders, do want the entire destruction of Israel and the return of that land to Muslim rule. there is no way to non-violent way to resist this. above all Israel needs to find these exiled leaders and shut them up, they are obviously beyond human reasoning. Only then can i say that there is a chance for peaceful demonstrations.

also, my post was deleted, STOP IT CHARLES! we're having a discussion here, we need both sides to be represented here please

 You are not paying attention to what I'm saying - and you did not answer my question.
Yes or no? Do you honestly believe that violence can end a cycle of violence?

actually i am paying attention, you are saying that someone needs to step out and try to peacefully go for... peace, and i actually agreed with you, saying that it should be the Palestinians who do that, so how is that not paying attention and not answering your question?

Because you can't understand that it will take either. You'll only accept it if the Palestinians move towards peace, you don't believe that it will work if the Israelis did it instead. Also, if Israel is indeed, so much morally higher than Palestine, they're in a better position to do it first. You're not getting that these are equal and opposite forces. You're putting Israel on a pedestal. You can't do that. 

My question continues to go unanswered. I will repeat it exactly as I phrased it before. This is it. here it comes. Don't miss it:

Yes, or no? Do you honestly believe that violence can end a cycle of violence?

Twice:

Yes, or no? Do you honestly believe that violence can end a cycle of violence?

when you look at the position that Israel is in, they can't afford to look 'weak' (because that's what you do when dealing with the anti-Zionist movement if you try for peace) other countries like Syria and Lebanon will jump at the chance and the result would be only MORE violence, not less. please treat Israel like a nation instead of a movement, because at the end of the day, they ARE a nation, nations can't be weak with enemies surrounding them. it's not a pedestal, it's reality.

and FINE, i'll accept your 'question' no matter how loaded it is. in SOME cases, violence ends a cycle of violence, however, sometimes peaceful action ends a cycle of violence. such things can not happen with Israel trying for peace, but it can if the opposition does.

Peolple like ML King and Gandhi are two examples of many of the bravest, most accomplished people in the 20th century. They hardly look weak and they both took action to help preserve populations - there's no reason that similar action wouldn't work in the Middle East either. Violence has never ultimately succeeded. 

http://www.ifor.org/faq.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=yBSH8tZ_b-wC&dq=For+Pacifists,+Gandhi&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=DuTUZq10HD&sig=DXHZevgE23eovVQXSVhd2-owM8Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Jeremy and everyone, quick note: I tend to delete links on their own, and multiple comments from the same person one after another.

Not because I want to silence folks, but to keep this forum open and inviting for new people and prevent a kind of domination by a handful of individuals.

I understand, spammers. I couldn't include the first link with the original comment for some reason. It goes to the book "For Pacifists" by Gandhi, in Google books. I will include the link here so it doesn't stand alone, feel free to delete the other.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yBSH8tZ_b-wC&dq=For+Pacifists,+Gandhi&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=DuTUZq10HD&sig=DXHZevgE23eovVQXSVhd2-owM8Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA51,M1

JKH, "can violence end violence"? We have a good example of a yes, after the toppling of Sadam (not that I am for this war) Gadafi renounced his seek for nuclear weapons. So the threat of force stopped a rogue nation from developing nuclear weapons.

A second example is MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) the whole ballance of the cold war was based on mutual destruction, just that fear, after the destruction of two cities in Japan has held back violence for decades after WWII.

Another example might the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish terrorist. This act might well be the reason why the peace process failed; Rabin and Arafat were uniquely positioned to move things along, and both enjoyed an enormous amount of trust (relative to today's leaders.)

By killing him, the peace train was derailed.

And another would be the Baruch Goldstein massacre, which led to the first suicide bombings in Israel. While fundamentalist Jews have not carried out that many mass killings overall, historians mark that action as the spark that led to Hamas use of 'Samson' option as a main strategy for some years.

Has violence removed evil men from power? Yes. Just as in your example. Has it ultimately succeeded? No. Iraq is no where close to stable. If anything it's breeding new tyrants to replace him. We wouldn't be in this mess if we hadn't punished the people of Iraq for the aggressions of their leader in Kuwait with crippling economic sanctions which prevented them from recovering from our massive bombardment of their infrastructure. Why was someone like Hitler able to convince Germans to rise against us and conquer most of Europe? Because we humiliated and crippled them after their defeat in the first world war. Why haven't they continued aggressive tendencies after WWII? Because we began real and reasonable negotiations, treating them as humans and a nation worth working with. Instead of boycotting Germany, we nurtured economic ties with their CENTURIES old enemy, France.

Also, the toppling of Iraq was not what convinced Gaddafi to renounce seeking nuclear weapons - Libya had been in tight negotiations (nonviolence) with Europe and an arms embargo (nonviolent tactic) was in place. Had we moved into Libya militarily, it would be a very different place now... most likely resembling Iraq and Afghanistan - splintered countries with rivaling factions aggressively vying for power. It was the threat of being ostracized from the international community, not the threat of being attacked by it which halted Libya's nuclear program.

Charles, I don't think we can reason that a single event ended the peace process, it may have been the straw that broke the back of the camel.

I contend that after years of the Palestinians teaching hatred in their schools, they have created an uncontrollable monster that wants revenge, and even if Abbas wants peace and reaches an agreement, his people will kill him for it.

I think this will take decades, and has to start with reeducating the population that Israel is not the enemy, but Iran and the fundamental Islamic fanatics are, and that they are pawns in a much larger plot, so is Israel.

The puppet masters today are Russia and Iran. I have high hopes that Obama/Clinton are sharp enough to see that.

Jeremy, you're not listening to me, i said that AS A NATION Israel can not try to be peaceful non-violence, it just doesn't work for nations. Diplomacy, whatever form it takes (negotiations are usually not violent as you suggest, but war is also a diplomatic tool when you look back at history [Atomic bombs, biological weapons, ect.]), is the only thing that works for NATIONS, you gave examples of powerful MEN, not NATIONS which non-violence was the cause of peace.

Now, what Michael gave are legitimate forms of violence that 'ends' direct violence, but i can see Charles is giving a direct example of how violence becomes more violence in the face of peace, even if Michel believes that fact is debatable

now Jeremy, violence has removed evil men from power and succeeded, first there is the largest example of Hitler (*gasp* i used Hitler in a Jewish discussion!) we removed him and his entire government out of office and implemented it directly back into the system of representative democracy that it enjoys today. that wasn't negotiations, it was direct implementation of a new government. Iraq will get there eventually, it's the right way to do it, just not the fastest, we have to hold their hand for a while they start to get it right. it's the same as Gaza, so far they have not gotten this right, so instead i think we should allow Israel to occupy Gaza, allow a new nation to be born under it's wing (perhaps allow more land to the Gaza Strip for more room, since it's over crowded) and then the nation should become a pro-peace, pro-Israel nation

Michael, while the puppet master pair are pulling strings, one can argue that we caused them to become these nations who pull the strings, after all we de-stabilized Iran's main opposition Iraq, letting them go away from the MAD (essentially) balance of power that kept Iran on a tight leash

and Charles, i was joking with you, Jeremy got what i was saying so it was all good

Looks like we have an anarchist here, look out

i'm just kidding Michael, however, the faith you have in Obama is troubling, almost no foreign experience in his cabinet (or Beiden just gets it wrong), No economic experience (he choose a guy who made a mistake on his taxes to be head of the IRS, favoritism if i've ever seen it), however, there is one thing i like about him, he's left handed (thank god, he's a fer left person to the end, lol). I'll admit he's our president, and that though he's young and has some new ideas, i'll be scrutinising it (partisanship actually makes republics work better than the whole 'let's all back obama' speech that is common these days). not to mention that you violated his whole idea that 'change has come' in one sentence

Now, back to the discussion, i used the example of representative democracy, that's a FORM of government, not an economic structure (capitalism isn't one, neither is pacifism, though communism and socialism is both). so it's not really a problem

Looks like our censor removed my earlier remarks, he doesn't like being called a pacifist, even though he is against all violence, if I am not correct, then please say so Charles, this is an open forum.

Charles, you can come out and state your opinion, just removing someone's post because you disagree does not encourage discussion, either we have an open discussion or not.

"I think this will take decades, and has to start with reeducating the population that Israel is not the enemy..." - Michael Ross.

This part is very true, Michael, and is very much in the nature of Satyagraha by trying to convert the enemy instead of coerce or defeat them... but it seems contradictory to the strategies you, Steven, and David have advocated so far. You can't teach someone that you're a kind, moral, compassionate person when you're holding a gun against their head. 

"A second example is MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) the whole ballance of the cold war was based on mutual destruction, just that fear, after the destruction of two cities in Japan has held back violence for decades after WWII"
M.A.D. did not ensure that the USA and USSR did not fight eachother in N. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Afghanistan and countless other smaller conflicts in Africa and S. America. 

now you are assuming things Jeremy, you assume, firstly, that the IDF would literally be holding guns to Palestinian heads, but do you understand what an occupation is? not mindless killing or anything like that, it's the continuous deployment of ground troops in an area for an amount of time. no direct threats are involved if they are not attacked. and if they ARE attacked they fire only in the direction the fire came from, not use buck-shot all around. this road to peace that lasts longer than any treaty, movement or cease-fire would ever last, but the costs do not outweigh the benefits, sure thousands of people die, only to prevent millions of deaths through war later

second you assume that the US and soviet forces directly engaged each other, but that never happened, those countries are either US lead military campaigns or Soviet lead campaigns. never did the two armies met (on record). MAD is a political tool to keep two super-powers from attacking each other, not keeping both of those superpowers from using their military might elsewhere. i believe you interpreted this incorrectly.

First war tally: 1,284 Gazans dead, 4,336 wounded (AP)Yasser Abdel Ghafar's work is part of a painstaking endeavor by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights to count the casualties of the 23-day war. The group released a final tally Wednesday, saying 1,284 Gazans were killed and 4,336 wounded, the vast majority civilians.Israel has accused Hamas of inflating the civilian casualties, saying it has the names of more than 700 Hamas militants killed in the fighting.The two sides disagree on the death toll, particularly the ratio of combatants and civilians.
» Full Story on Yahoo! News


When will or will we ever know the truth? Each side says something different. Each side says the other is at fault. Nothing new there. Even we can't agree. Well, at least we had a few hours peace guess thats all we can hope for at the moment.

@ Andrea - History will reveal the truth. In the past, the spoils went to the victor, including bragging rights and the capacity to record their "good" deeds. Fortunately we live in a new age where technology enables us to share more information. The stories of victims will be preserved. Unbiased efforts will be undertaken to reveal exactly what happened. And the truth about war will be more easily accessible. 


You help identify one of the characteristics of war. The lies. A sympathetic soldier isn't an effective one and therefore the truth about war, that it is an abomination, is hidden. Terrible myths are formed about the enemy, and self criticism is punished. What's worse is that it is so easy because as Chris Hedges describes it... war is a drug. It's attraction comes from certain qualities of war that are glorified particularly by government, media and the military itself: excitement, exoticism, power, chances to rise
above our small stations in life, and a bizarre and fantastic universe that has a grotesque and dark beauty. War makes the world seem understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. But like a drug - this is all instant gratification and the consequences of war are often hidden and wait to be felt.


"The most powerful antiwar testaments, of war and what war does to us, are those that eschew images of combat. It is the suffering of the veteran whose body and mind are changed forever because he or she served a nation that sacrificed them, the suffering of families and children caught up in the unforgiving maw of war, which begin to tell the story of war. But we are not allowed to see dead bodies, at least of our own soldiers, nor do we see the wounds that forever mark a life, the wounds that leave faces and bodies horribly disfigured by burns or shrapnel. We never watch the agony of the dying. War is made palatable. It is sanitized. We are allowed to taste war's perverse thrill, but spared from seeing war's consequences. The wounded and the dead are swiftly carted offstage. And for this I blame the press, which willingly hides from us the effects of bullets, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, which sat at the feet of those who lied to make this war possible and dutifully reported these lies and called it journalism.


"War is always about this betrayal. It is about the betrayal of the young by the old, idealists by cynics and finally soldiers by politicians. Those who pay the price, those who are maimed forever by war, however, are crumpled up and thrown away. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they bring is too painful for us to hear. We prefer the myth of war, the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism, words that in the terror and brutality of combat are empty, meaningless and obscene." (1)


He paints a dark picture - but I'm optimistic. Efforts to reveal the truth (2) are greater than ever. As I said, technology will save us. 


Included in the myth of war are lies about the enemy, because you can't kill someone without defining them as subhuman. In every conflict, the enemy loses their individuality and their collective efforts to harm us are highlighted. For instance, "In civilized discourse, suicide is understood as an act of desperation by someone trapped in conditions, whether real or imagined, so extreme that death is seen as the only available option." (3) Yet, when two unconvicted men in Guantanamo hang themselves, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the prison, says: "They are smart, they are creative, they are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us." (3)

An enemy that has no sanctity for life is very easy to kill, especially in self defense, that's why this lie is so frequently propagated - it justifies the use of the drug of war, that instant gratification.

And that is why, Andrea, we will continue to hear conflicting reports about casualties. It's like two children after a fight, crying to their mother that the other hit him/her first or more. They want to gain sympathy, they want to feel justified. But the good mother knows that they were both misbehaving.



(1)Excerpt from Chris Hedges book, "What Every Person Should Know About War.":http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294

(2)Winter Soldier coverage:  http://www.democracynow.org/features/winter_solider

(3) "Wartime scripts: to view the enemy as subhuman and having no regard for life is a rational used in all our wars" by James M. Wall http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_/ai_n16598280

Jeremy, All I'm saying is that ideology does not work, any ideology. MAD was not the stop all war solution it appplied only to the Soviet Union, and worked.

In general nations must and will always apply force and the use of force as an extension of diplomacy, and nothing will change that, we have to accept that as part of reality, that's what pragmatic means.

It does not mean we can't find peace in the real world.

"But the good mother knows that they were both misbehaving."
... and still loves them ;-)

@ Michael - Your idea of education was much more pragmatic. We are provided evidence for the force of love every day. "Little quarrels of millions of families in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this force. Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot take not of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers quarrel ; one of them repents and reawakens the love that was lying dormant in him ; the two again begin to live in peace ; nobody takes note of this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors or some other reason, take up arms ... their doings would be immediately noticed in the press, they would be the talk of their neighbours and would probably go down in history. And what is true of families and communities is true of nations. there is no reason to believe that there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, being natural, is not noted in history.

"If we turn our eyes to the time of which history has any record down to our own tiem, we shall find that man has been steadily progressing towards ahimsa (non-violence). Our remote ancestors were cannibals. Then came a time when they wer efed up with cannibalism and they begain to live on chase. Next came a stage when man was ashamed of leading the life of a wandering hunter. He therefore took to agriculture and depended principally on mother earth for his food. Tus from being a nomad he settled down to civilized stable life, founded villages and towns, and from member of a family he became member of a community and a nation. All these are signs of progressive ahimsa and diminishing himsa (violence). Had it been otherwise, the human species should have been extinct by now, even as many of the lower species have disappeared.

"Prophets and avatars have also taught the lesson of ahimsa more or less. Not one of them has professed to teach himsa. And how should it be otherwise? Himsa does not need to be taught. Man as animal is violent, but as Spirit is non-violent. The moment he awakes to the Spirit within he cannot remain violent. Either he progresses towards ahimsa or rushes to his doom. That is why the prophets and avatars have taught the lessons of truth, harmony, brotherhood, justice, etc. -- all attributes of ahimsa. 

If we believe that mankind has steadily progressed towards ahimsa, it follows that it has to progress towards it still further. Nothing in this world is static, everything is kinetic. If there is no progression, then there is inevitable retrogression.

"The present war is the saturation point in violence. It spells to my mind also its doom. Daily I have testimony of the fact that ahimsa was never before appreciated by mankind as it is today. All of the testimony from the West that I continue to receive, points in the same direction." 

M. K. Gandhi.

ok Jeremy, i condone your definition of war as a drug, it is often a last case scenario, not a drug to be jumped on. i am sure that Israel wants peace more than war and therefor this proves that War is not a drug. Not to mention that all war is horrible, the worst kind being the guerrilla warfare fought in Vietnam and what is being fought in Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan every time there is ANY attack against occupying forces. I may sound pro-war to you, but that is false, i am against war and for negotiation WHEN POSSIBLE, which i have yet to see in Gaza, but i have said that i'll jump on Israel when they refuse to negotiate when no offencive attacks by groups in Gaza are present.

As for B Tasker, i'll leave Michel to deal with him (i don't have the time... college calls -_-' )

Thank you B. Tasker for that wonderful excerpt from Gandhi. Love truly is universal and makes the grounds for negotiation between any people, anywhere fertile. 

@ Steven, The fact that you are "sure" Israel wants peace does not mean that they do, neither does that disprove Chris Hedges' description of war. That argument is a gleaming fallacy.

as i said, i didn't have time for a good argument, since i'm working on homework, so just to let you know this (if you subscribe via- e-mail you'll see this).

Charlies please delete this when you see this, it's useless and does not pertain to the discussion