EU aid chief: Hamas 'enormously responsible' for Gaza war

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Califa on January 30, 2009 at 3:09am

Ramsey's plan is lacking. He doesn't offer any solution to the 'Right os Return' issue. He touches many subject but doesn't touch or offer solution the the most important of them all. The 'Right of Return' issue has been the stumbling block of many peace plans.

With all due respect, if someone says : "The resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict is extremely simple, especially concerning Gaza. What is the world waiting for?" and doesn't touch the right of return issue, he has no idea what he's talking about.

I say that peace between the Palestinians and Israel is possible and WILL happen, but it's anything but simple.

Permalink Reply by David Califa on January 30, 2009 at 4:45am

Much work has already been done. I just started a discussion about the 'Geneva Initiative' http://www.ipeace.me/forum/topics/is-the-geneva-initiative
Which has gained support both of prominent Israelis and Palestinians. Next I hope that we can discuss the Arab (Saudi) peace plan.

Permalink Reply by John Fisher on January 29, 2009 at 8:50pm

Robert I can promise this. When the rockets stop falling and the suicide bombers stop blowing themselves up the IDF will stop, peace can be made. I have called for the Israeli government to unilaterally declare an independent state if Palestine along the green line, and that is what should be done.

The greatest crime perpetrated on the Palestinians is not committed by Israel but by the leadership of the Palestinian people. Over and over again they have rejected peace, and an independent state, starting in 47with the Mufti of Jerusalem and Aman Pasha calling for holy war and rejecting the first partition plan. All the way up to the rejection of Olmerts plan. The Palestinian leadership have kept 4 million people hostage in the "refugee camps" as a tool to gain sympathy from the world. In the process of killing their own people. And all you see is Israel trying to protect itself, and call that evil.

The leadership of the Palestinians who refuse to live in Gaza and the west Bank but live in palaces in the rest of the Arab world need to be overthrown. The people of Palestine need ot rise up against their leadership and demand peace. The Jews I know are tired of war they want peace, they want to live in peace. However they also want to walk down the streets of S'derot without dodging rockets. They want to ride the buses and go to the mall and the disco without fear of a suicide bomber killing them. If the Palestinian people rise up and demand a cessation of the violence then peace will come. If they rise up and say you are not hiding your munitions in my home my school my hospital or my mosque then no innocent civilian children would have to die. If the Palestinian people demand that the charters of Hamas and Fatah be changed to accept Israel as a state where it is then there will be peace.

As long as the Palestinian people keep putting Hamas and other groups in power that promote violence and war with Israel then there will be no peace. I am told over and over that Hamas and Fatah and the extremists are a small minority and the moderates who want peace are the majority. Where are these people? Stand up and demand your freedom. Stand up and demand a cessation of violence.

http://truthinjustice.ning.com

Permalink Reply by John Fisher on January 30, 2009 at 4:44pm

Until the moderates stand up for themselves the only thing Israel can do is kill the extremists, as they find them and every once in a while invade the Palestinian areas.

I do not think Israel will ever win the PR war. Israel gave up Gaza and was condemned by the world because it was done unilaterally. Nothing Israel does receives positive press. I doubt that they ever will. Except on Fox News where Israel is supported.

Yes I believe that there is a real chance for a real peace in the near future. The question is how bad does the Palestinian want peace? Are they willing to oust their extremist leadership? Israel starves for peace.

Permalink Reply by John Fisher on February 1, 2009 at 2:40am

Why don't you like me? Because I make you face the truth? Here is some more truth

Attachments:

• World_Demonstrations_for_Gaza.pps, 1.4 MB

Permalink Reply by Gabby Shalala on February 3, 2009 at 8:47pm

Hi Robert, I really like your questions and remarks and will try to answer some :o)

But first John, I'm impressed by your ability to make people dislike you LOL.
Really it is not what you say I think it has more to do on how you say it ...
For example the attachement above, do you mean to tell the world they are blind? That is obviously true - even with the Gaza conflict, most demonstrators were arabs and some peace activists. People do not like to be faced with harsh realities, we can say the same about Israelies disregarding the palestinian problem for so many years and let it grow as it has grown. Or maybe of the Israeli plan to "kill the extremists" - I do not think this is the Israeli agenda - you can see there are lots of diplomatic efforts to solve the situation since Israel are not waiting for "moderates" to take responsibility but rather do whatever they can (still not neglecting the security of its population) also in the political level.

Now for Robert's questions:
-- what can Israel do to support these moderates?
One thing Israel is trying to do is politically is make Hamas illegitimate and have the Palestinian Authoroty become responsible again for the Gaza population as well. We'll see if this works in the near future after Egypt, Europe and the US promised to help stopping the rearming of Hamas militants (hope is that because Hamas agenda is "resistance" i.e. violance if they have problems smuggling rockets etc, their legitimization will decrease and they will have hard time in suppressing opposition among their people).

-- how can Israel win the "public relations" war?
One of the biggest arguments of the Israeli public againts its leadership was that they never cared about public relations, this is changing now (some people argue this may be too late) - many diplomatic efforts where put before the Gaza operation to explain the world leaders (this is one of the reasons many leaders from Europe and even some moderate Arab states did not come out and condemn the operation as harsh as they used to for earlier operations).

-- do you think there is a real possibility for peace in the near future?
I hope so, but to me it looks like there are some major issues here to solve. I think that issues of water (a major concern in this area between Israel and Syria) and Israel security needs around its borders will still hinder any current effort (does not mean we should stop trying), not even mentioning the issue with Iran's nuclear agenda and the abducted Gilad Shalit situation.

-- what is Israel willing to do for peace?
The willingness is shifting as expected according to when you ask it:
When public opinion going more to the extreme (after more aggressions from the other side) people tend to hold their stance and not give up anything noting that security is more important since the other side cannot be trusted.
But the average public opinion is for peace, people are fed up with all this, an example would be the evacuation of many settlements in 2005 (the disengagement plan) that was supported by most Israelies even when we paid for with less security (if Gaza would not have been evacuated Hamas could not assume power, arm itself and fire these rockets) and with a major argument inside the Israeli public that almost resulted in internal war among Israeli fractions.

Gabby

Permalink Reply by omarkhayam on January 31, 2009 at 1:30am

hello alex good travelling along the history.but here you are noit objective in this chronological narrating of violence .here you show or you represent yr self as israel defender, and you make propaganda which is not of the aims of this website.the conflict start before all these dates you present here, the conflict started in 1948. i think i do not need to explain what happened.secondly you equate between the occuper and the occuped.you equate between a state and occuped territories.i think i will listen and beleive israelis complaints when we have two state, one of iSRAEL(which is already existed) and another for palestinian(which does not existe) then if some attacks come from palestinians i will condomn it and run to streets to protest against it.but to jail all people of GAZA and WEST Bank, by closing all entrances,i think in such situation israel do not leave any other choice but violence, the choice is in the hands of israel, or you think palestians should welcome israeli soldiers by flowers?any freeman in the world gonna not accept this.can you tell why israel refuse permitting to palestinains have their state and to finish this conflict?listen we were occuped by france some time a ago, during the occupation people resisted frenchs as occupers, when we gor independance, we turned back the page and we become friends.i mean people here do not long to get revenge or they hate french for today.

Permalink Reply by Stephanie on January 29, 2009 at 1:04am

Ruach
I see the discussions are very heated once again - I am following somewhat from the sidelines.
And thinking of you as well.
Remember when you were not being terribly active here a while ago? I guess you are making up for it now.
Good night
from Steph in Italy

Permalink Reply by omarkhayam on January 31, 2009 at 1:57am

Q&A: "U.S. and Iran Share an Equal Monopoly on Violence"
Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAERRobert Baer

Credit:Hossam el-Hamalawy

BERKELEY, California, Jan 23 (IPS) - "Obama is going to have continuous pressure from Israel to attack Iran and, in some way, their nuclear facilities, and this is going to be tied up with Gaza and Lebanon," according to Robert Baer, a former top Central Intelligence Agency operative and the author of "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower."

In an interview with IPS, Baer discussed the regional implications of the Gaza conflict and his take on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hamas and Hezbollah, three major groups in the Middle East which have been called terrorist organisations.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: Some analysts believe that attacking Hamas in Gaza, two years after the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, is a part of a bigger plan which will end with attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Is Israel walking this path?

Robert Baer: No. I think that there is a military veto in attacking Iran. It's just not possible.

IPS: Why is that impossible?

RB: Well, for one thing, we know there will be an Iranian reaction in the Gulf. Iran will not be attacked like Hamas and just respond locally. It will respond internationally. It has no choice. This is their deterrence power. In Iran, it is very important to understand a lot of lessons.

If you look on the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] website, you see the lessons they learned from the Iran-Iraq War. These wars are wars of attrition; they go on forever. You just can't win them, especially against the United States. So they have developed secondary asymmetrical warfare ability, guerilla warfare, which is very effective.

You know some of the best minds in Iran went into the Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards], and they weren't necessarily fanatics. In a sense, they were much more nationalists. And in my experience, these people in the Pasdaran, in the operational level, are probably the most capable, intelligent/guerilla force/political thinkers in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. And they knew exactly what they were doing. And they do not clearly fit in to any political definitions in Iran.

IPS: Is the possibility of a limited attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel also out of question? Especially given what we learned in a recent New York Times article that last year, Israeli leaders asked President Bush to carry out such an attack, though the president did not accept.

RB: Totally out of the question. Even Bush understood this. The New York Times is right when it says that Bush vetoed an Israeli attack, simply because there is a balance of power in the Middle East between the U.S. and Iran, and it's a fairly even balance of power. I mean not in terms of aircraft tanks or submarines, but in a monopoly of violence, there is equality.

There is no question there is equality. We could bomb Tehran, but what does that get you? Nothing. It's sort of like bombing the U.N. compound in Gaza by Israel. What does that give the Israelis? Nothing. Yeah they could destroy it, but what does that give them? Hamas still is going to exist.

You can bomb all military bases in Iran over a period of two weeks, but Iran is still there - it still has the ability to project power, project its will and maybe even come out of that type of conflict even stronger. And Iran's power is so economical, the price of oil is not going to make any difference, simply because the idea of arming Hezbollah or supporting Hamas in Damascus is nothing in terms of money. I mean the price of oil could go down to 10 dollars, and it's still an affordable defence for Iran.

IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his promises?

RB: Dennis Ross - the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won't betray them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He's Jewish, he's been honest with the Israelis; he's gone along with their projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis know they won't be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in, some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn't know, they would immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political blowbacks.

IPS: Regarding Ross's positions on certain issues in the Middle East and particularly Iran over the past decade, how will Obama be able to adopt a new foreign policy path in the region?

RB: Well, he [Obama] needs the backing of the Democratic Party to get these things through politically, and that's why he has brought in people like Dennis Ross and Denny Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, simply because he needs that political backing. He cannot bring in untried people and run them against the Democratic Party, because if there is an opening with Iran, there will be a connivance of Israel, maybe a silent one, simply because the Israelis have to go along.

In American politics, you can't do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It's impossible. I mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can't even think of it.

IPS: And why is that?

RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I'm not Jewish. I'm not anything. I don't care about the Israelis. And I'm not anti-Semitic. It's just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it. You can't talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States.


IPS:like what ?

RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had to live in a prison, wouldn't you be unhappy? You would never get that in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it's almost an extension of Israel.

IPS: What is the impact of the Gaza conflict on the future of Iran-Israel and United States relations? Have the recent attacks destroyed Hamas entirely?

RB: No, it's impossible. Hamas is an idea. Hamas is not an organisation. Hamas is an idea, and unless the Israelis go in and force 1.5 million people into Egypt, they will never subdue Gaza. They can go in and they can slaughter the leadership and put 10,000 people in jail, and Hamas will come out stronger. The losers in this will be Fatah.

IPS: What are the main characteristics of Hamas and Hezbollah's military and political behaviour?

RB: They redefined the idea of warfare in geography. The fact that Hezbollah dug into caves or the fact that they use fiber optics to communicate shows enormous sophistication and primitive warfare in combination. I mean, what army in the world uses fiber optics except Hezbollah? You can't intercept fiber optics. There is nothing you can do.

You look at [Hebollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, and he has redefined Islamic politics because he's gone into an alliance with a Christians. Bin Laden wants to kill Christians; I'm going to reduce it to that. Nasrallah is looking at them as allies.

(END/2009)
Source;Inter Press Service News Agency

Permalink Reply by rspwan on January 31, 2009 at 2:33pm

>> "When you kill innocents, it is not resistence, it is terrorism!"

Alex: "That's exactly what the Palestinians have been doing for 40 years"

You are not saying that Israel has not done the same -in much greater numbers-, do you?

Permalink Reply by Gabby Shalala on January 31, 2009 at 10:16pm

Is it really about numbers? How about intention?
Israeli soldiers do not intend to kill inocents but to protect themselfs and their fellow soldiers (you'll have to trust me on this, but you don't have to)

Permalink Reply by rspwan on February 1, 2009 at 2:30pm

"Is it really about numbers?"

It certainly is about bias: why would anyone mention civilian casualties on Israel's side but not civilian casualties on Palestine's side?

"How about intention?"

Regardless of intentions, killing scores of civilians is a predictable consequence of bombing an area as densely populated as Gaza.

"have to but don't have to"

Fascinating.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page