Lebanon fires rockets into Israel

[Pangloss]

Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that Hamas's position was "we hate Israel and our policy is that it should be destroyed, but we don't want our people to actually go out and do that right now because we really want peace with Israel, honest", I'm not sure how that would make any difference.

[bascule]

Also, when you refer to the increase of the rocket attacks (that Hamas took credit for), do you mean immediately following the cease fire itself, or following the attack on the tunnel that was being constructed to bypass border checkpoints?

 

Unless I am mistaken (and I could easily be) I thought that event and the subsequent increase in attacks happened during the tail end of the cease fire.

 

That would appear to be the case. Hamas resumed rocket attacks after the IDS incursion on November 4th.

 

So I suppose my question centers around the time period between when the ceasefire was signed and November 4th. Were there any rocket attacks by Hamas during this period?

[Pangloss]

This article looks like it might be helpful in that regard:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008

[bascule]

This article looks like it might be helpful in that regard:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008

 

Well, looking at that it would appear that the ceasefire, which began in late June, actually worked, at least for awhile.

 

I don't think any attacks by Hamas occurred between when the ceasefire was signed and November 4th, and the Israelis and the Palestinians enjoyed a 4 month period where the attacks virtually ceased altogether.

 

[iNow]

It's truly a sad state of affairs when we deem a ceasefire to be successful when it results in 12 rocket attacks and 14 mortar shells lobbed. Very sad, indeed.

[bascule]

It's truly a sad state of affairs when we deem a ceasefire to be successful when it results in 12 rocket attacks and 14 mortar shells lobbed. Very sad, indeed.

 

Well, that's a glass is half empty way of looking at it. You could also claim that, on average, it resulted in a 2900% decrease in monthly rocket attacks and a 5200% decrease in monthly mortar attacks.

 

I think the graphs speak for themselves. The ceasefire worked... for awhile.

[iNow]

That's fair. I certainly take your point. What I'm personally struggling with is the underlying purpose of a ceasefire. It's not generally intended to allow time for one of the actors in the conflict to build subterranian tunnels as an attempt to circumvent border patrols. It's like, "Hey, if we can't fire at each other right now, let's use the time instead to put an infrastructure in place that will allow us to do some SERIOUS killing later."

 

Either way, you're right. The ceasefire absolutely improved matters, and it's too bad the Israelis were ever put into the position of having to destroy that tunnel (the causative factor leading to the November increase of attacks).

[padren]

Well, that's a glass is half empty way of looking at it. You could also claim that, on average, it resulted in a 2900% decrease in monthly rocket attacks and a 5200% decrease in monthly mortar attacks.

 

I think the graphs speak for themselves. The ceasefire worked... for awhile.

 

I'd say there was a definite benefit of the ceasefire, but I don't know how well it "worked" overall. The purpose of a ceasefire is to move towards a general peace, allow heated views to cool, and get closer to a lasting stable coexistence.

 

It appears during the ceasefire, at the very least Hamas was building a tunnel for the purpose of attacking Israel, and I think there is fair grounds to suspect they were stockpiling and preparing for a larger conflict.

 

 

For a ceasefire to actually work, both sides have to be confident that the other side is not working towards undermining their side.

 

If another ceasefire can be established, I'd like to see it include "milestones" that are observable and increase the level of cooperation between Palestinians and Israel. Israelis have tried to help with reconstruction in Gaza but have been fired on - I wonder if a reconstruction plan could work where it is Palestinian workers that carry out the actual construction efforts. If radicals want to shoot them for taking Israeli resources (branding them as collaborators or such) it would cause a divide within Palestinians, instead of just increase the animosity between Israel and Gaza.

 

Restoring basic utilities and services would be paramount, and ensuring subsequent disruptions would be due to forces that are perceived as negative by the Palestinians.

 

Just as important, Hamas would have to support the ceasefire and denounce any attacks that occurred during it, and make an effort to actually stop unsanctioned attacks.

 

But the real problem is Hamas. If they truly just want to destroy Israel, there can be no real ceasefire - only strategic pauses in their struggle to destroy Israel. For that reason, I can understand Israel being skeptical regarding talks with Hamas.

If Hamas can embrace a different cause, say the welfare of the Palestinian people, there can be room for talks and a potential ceasefire. But if they remain committed to the cause of destroying Israel, how do you negotiate in good faith with a group like that?

[bascule]

I'd say there was a definite benefit of the ceasefire, but I don't know how well it "worked" overall. The purpose of a ceasefire is to move towards a general peace, allow heated views to cool, and get closer to a lasting stable coexistence.

 

You can certainly consider that a long-term objective of a ceasefire. However, I think the purpose of a ceasefire is to get people to shop shooting at each other.

 

It appears during the ceasefire, at the very least Hamas was building a tunnel for the purpose of attacking Israel, and I think there is fair grounds to suspect they were stockpiling and preparing for a larger conflict.

 

Yes, that's certainly a reasonable position.

[mooeypoo]

bascule, how is it that one incident by Israel (the attempt to destroy the tunnel that resulted in the death of 6 *armed* militants) a "declared end" of the cease fire, but repeated rockets during the so-called "lull" isn't?

 

Your own graphs (and mine, same ones, it appears), show that Hamas still fired through the "cease fire". Continously. For four months.

 

So.. their continuous disregard of the cease fire -- true, a "lighter" one that "usual", but still a multiple-incident disregard -- is not as bad as a single incident that "incited" the end of the cease fire?

 

Don't you think that's a bit of a double-standard on your part?

[Pangloss]

I think that there's at least a reasonable point to be made about the cease fire (re: bascule's point above), but I also think these statistics underscore my point about proportionality -- don't bother me with a little violence, just let me know if it tips onto the evening news.

 

I have to say that from watching the newsosphere and blogosphere over the last couple of weeks I've learned something about the pacifist movement. I had no idea it was so thoroughly fixated on proportionality. I thought they just auto-judged any Israeli violence based on their history of repressing the poor Palestinian people. Boy was I wrong.

 

Who'd have thought that pacifists, of all people, would have a quota?

[padren]

You can certainly consider that a long-term objective of a ceasefire. However, I think the purpose of a ceasefire is to get people to shop shooting at each other.

 

At the risk of drawing a straw man parallel what would have happened if there was an international demand for a ceasefire while US troops were trying to stabilize Basra in Iraq? It could never make it to the table, as long as insurgents were digging in with the ultimate goal of driving out US soldiers in body bags.

 

It would be almost impossible to conceive that any temporary staving off of violence wouldn't be ultimately eclipsed by much larger violence after the inevitable collapse.

 

If the Israelis have good reason to believe a ceasefire would just be used to stockpile more rockets, improve their capabilities, build more tunnels, and dig in deeper into Gaza - as Hamas still has the stated goal of the bloody, violent destruction of Israel - where is the faith it would spare lives, and not just postpone fighting until it can be larger and bloodier?

 

For a ceasefire to be viable, there has to be at least the hope both sides will pursue it in good faith, and not just stock up on their ability to wage greater violence in the near future. For that to happen either A) Hamas has to give on their stated goal, or B) Palestinians have to marginalize Hamas.

 

I want a ceasefire to come into effect immediately - that would be the very best thing that could happen - but it would have to be a real ceasefire, not just a stall to create greater death tolls a month from now.

[bascule]

Well, surprise surprise, Lebanon has fired more rockets at Israel

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, surprise surprise, Lebanon has fired more rockets at Israel

 

From the link:

There were no injuries or damage reported where they fell, near the Israeli city of Kiryat Shmona. The Israeli army responded with artillery.

 

No-one has yet admitted carrying out the attacks, which Israel has attempted to play down and the Lebanese government has condemned.

 

Fair enough. Someone lobs rockets at Israel from Lebanon (they miss), Israel fires artillery at the source of the rockets (probably also missed whoever it was), and, most importantly, the Lebanese government condemns the rocket attacks. No reason for this to escalate. Most likely someone wants to stir up trouble between Lebanon and Israel.

[mooeypoo]

Well, surprise surprise, Lebanon has fired more rockets at Israel

I don't understand what you mean to claim with this ..?

[bascule]

I don't understand what you mean to claim with this ..?

 

The violence continues...

[john5746]

The violence continues...

 

Yep, the terrorists just have to quit killing people and decide to live for something and it will stop. Too bad.

[mooeypoo]

The violence continues...

Right.. I agree... and yet, what should be done to stop it? As you can see, Israel does not respond. Do you know of many other countries that wouldn't respond? So.. when Israel is being fired upon (not the first time) and does not respond, it's bad. But when it is being fired upon, and responds, it's bad.

 

What's the solution?

[bascule]

What's the solution?

 

I think I answered that extensively when I responded to your previous (lengthy) post.

 

But to summarize: I don't know.

[mooeypoo]

I think I answered that extensively when I responded to your previous (lengthy) post.

 

But to summarize: I don't know.

Then how can you be sure that whatever action taken is good or bad?

 

It's one thing to criticize a solution you disagree with. But it seems to me that you admittedly have no solution, and yet seem to claim Israel is wrong no matter which decision is taken....

 

In the case of Gaza, Israel was attacked and responded..

In the case of Lebanon, Israel was attacked and did not respond..

(of course there are many more differences between the above cases, but it still works for the point)

 

Is there ever a chance for Israel to do something you would, theoretically, approve of?

[bascule]

bascule, how is it that one incident by Israel (the attempt to destroy the tunnel that resulted in the death of 6 *armed* militants) a "declared end" of the cease fire, but repeated rockets during the so-called "lull" isn't?

 

I wasn't saying it was a declared end to the ceasefire, however...

 

Your own graphs (and mine, same ones, it appears), show that Hamas still fired through the "cease fire". Continously. For four months.

 

Except none of the attacks were by Hamas. So no, they didn't. You can claim that Hamas was responsible... I could also claim Israel used white phosphorus on civilians. Right now the evidence for either is circumstantial.

 

My point was that until the IDS incursion (which was, undoubtably, provoked by Hamas) that Hamas did not attack Israel, which lasted for four months.

 

In the case of Gaza, Israel was attacked and responded..

In the case of Lebanon, Israel was attacked and did not respond..

(of course there are many more differences between the above cases, but it still works for the point)

 

Is there ever a chance for Israel to do something you would, theoretically, approve of?

 

My point here is that the attacks from Lebanon are fallout from their invasion in Gaza.

 

However, to answer your question (which I already did), I would approve of an immediate, temporary ceasefire followed by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.

[mooeypoo]

I wasn't saying it was a declared end to the ceasefire, however...

 

 

 

Except none of the attacks were by Hamas. So no, they didn't.

You mean to the mainstream media they didn't take responsibility.

There are other ways of knowing who *exactly* fired those weapons; and Israel didn't declare an all out war against neither the Palestinian people nor Hamas for *any* of those mortars. All Israel did was attempt a surgical strike against the group who launched the rockets.

 

Hamas's problem in that case was that the group launching those missiles and digging those tunnels had less fortune than the Israeli soldiers, and they were killed during the exchange of fire.

 

Your presentation, however, seems to suggest that Israel just "blew it" with the cease fire, when the reality was that Israel responded to whoever-was-shooting-the-rockets, killing the terrorists *who shot the rockets* and Hamas just threw off the gloves and declared an all out end to the cease fire.

 

 

You can claim that Hamas was responsible... I could also claim Israel used white phosphorus on civilians. Right now the evidence for either is circumstantial.

I don't need to claim Hamas was responsible, Israel didn't attack Hamas, it attacked *specifically* the perpetrators, who turned out to be Hamas.

 

 

My point was that until the IDS incursion (which was, undoubtably, provoked by Hamas) that Hamas did not attack Israel, which lasted for four months.

(Sorry, you mean IDF? Israel Defense Force? I am not sure what IDS is?)

 

Hang on one moment.

 

Israel did not attack Hamas after three months of supposed cease fire. Israel attacked the people who shot the rockets after three months of supposed cease fire.

 

Those people turned out to be Hamas militants. Armed Hamas militants who also tried to smuggle more (and better) rockets into the Gaza strip.

 

After the exchange of fires, 6 of those Hamas militants - who actively shot rockets and actively smuggled weapons - were killed, it was HAMAS who "declared war" by increasing the rocket attacks.

 

That was in November. The current operation began the end of December. That means Israel *continuned to do nothing* while it was AGAIN bombarded.

 

What broke the "Israeli Camel's Back" was that suddenly Hamas' rockets stopped being relatively SHORT range, and started threatening about 3 times the amount of peopel it used to.

 

Israel could no longer STAND THIS QUIETLY, and then began the operation.

 

You are completely misrepresenting the situation bascule. You are talking about the cease fire, but the end of the cease fire was not this current operation. The current operation came 2 months after Hamas bombarded Israel continously, again.

 

How long do you expect a country to try speaking while being beaten? How long do you expect a country to have its citizens in bomb shelters? Seriously.

 

 

 

My point here is that the attacks from Lebanon are fallout from their invasion in Gaza.

Israel is surrounded by Arab countries that are its enemies. For the past 60 years of its existence, it has seen wars in more than one front, for the simple reason that these countries wish to completely obliterate it.

 

The relative "better" aspect, in our current times, is that Hizbullah is not the Lebanese government. Which is probably why Israel did not go on a much more massive attack to prevent more missiles (that are STILL being fired, mind you) from the northern border.

 

However, to answer your question (which I already did), I would approve of an immediate, temporary ceasefire followed by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.

But Hamas didn't accept a cease fire where Hamas is obligated to STOP smuggling weapons and STOP firing rockets.

 

That's not a ceasefire, and that would mean that Israeli citizens will KEEP being bombarded. If the suggestion was realistic, and accepted by Hamas *fairly* (I'm sorry, but a one-sided withdrawal with no promise of cease-of-fire and no promise of continuous talks and no promise of stopping armament for future conflicts is NOT a solution Israel will accept) then a cease fire would be signed.

 

I bet with you that when an offers come that Hamas *and* Israel agree to, a cease fire *WILL BE* signed. This isn't about the destruction of Gaza. If it was, Israel wouldn't have had to risk soldiers. It would carpet bomb the strip. Like America did in parts of Afghanistan..

 

So your suggestion is unrealistic.

 

It's very comfortable to criticize Israel for everything it's doing while you are not the one being constantly threatened and shot at in your own home.

 

~moo

[bascule]

Mooey, clearly you have a vested interest in the situation, and I don't mean to step on any toes here. However, you are giving a lot of conflicting invective here...

 

Your own graphs (and mine, same ones, it appears), show that Hamas still fired through the "cease fire". Continously. For four months.

 

Source? Citation? Something definitive which ties these attacks to Hamas?

 

You are talking about the cease fire, but the end of the cease fire was not this current operation. The current operation came 2 months after Hamas bombarded Israel continously, again.

 

I don't disagree that the 2 months of continuous bombardment were partly within the ceasefire period. I'm just concerned about the previous four months, where the ceasefire was, for all intents and purposes, working. Furthermore, you're trying to attribute attacks within the preceding 4 months to Hamas. What's your evidence?

 

After giving me so much grief for Israel's white phosphorus attacks, you owe me that much.

 

Israel was certainly provoked. Does that justify the situation? Both sides have been provoking each other for decades. Israel invaded Gaza because Gaza was firing rockets at them because Israel engaged in surgical strikes against Gaza because Hamas was digging tunnels to invade Israel etc. etc. etc.

 

Is an invasion really the best way to resolve this situation? Are a thousand dead Palestinians, including hundreds of dead children, justified by Hamas's attacks?

 

It's a vicious cycle, and unless one side breaks it it's just going to continue.

[Pangloss]

But apparently one side breaking it doesn't seem to work either.

 

What is this ghost organization that you think can operate in Gaza right under the nose of Hamas?

[mooeypoo]

Mooey, clearly you have a vested interest in the situation, and I don't mean to step on any toes here. However, you are giving a lot of conflicting invective here...

OMg. I wrote a full page answer and my browser just crashed.. (which is really a shame, 'cause I was *totally* convincing... jk)

 

 

Okay, let me try again.

 

I know you don't mean to step on any toes, and I don't mean to make it sound as if I think you do.. (if that makes any sense). I don't claim to be objective, though I try to be as much as I can, and I don't claim to have the best solutions. In fact, I don't have any solutions, which is what makes me so frustrated.

 

I am trying in this discussion to separate myself from the State of Israel, and if you notice, I keep phrasing myself as "Israel is" instead of "we are", for two main reasons:

1. I don't agree with everything my country is doing.

2. I am trying to be as objective as I can, knowing that I can't really be 100% objective.

 

But this situation is VERY frustrating to me, which is why I am so curious as to trying to figure out possible solutions. I have friends who were drafted for this conflict, and if I weren't in NYC at the moment, I probably would have too (though not to the front). If - at any point in this conversation - I make it sound like I "like" this situation, bash me over the head with a shoe and I'll rephrase myself better, because I *don't* like this situation. I'm scared, I'm frustrated, and I'm very very annoyed with the fact that civilians die on BOTH sides.

 

But that's my point. It takes more than one side to create such a mess.

 

The really sad thing about these conflicts is that they are usually started by an extreme minority. The problem with such extreme minorities is that they're vocal, so they don't SEEM like theyre the minority, and they do a lot of trouble.

 

When the extreme-right in Israel hijacks a hill in the middle of *PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES* for the purpose of having a "bargaining chip" in future peace talks, I get angry. I get angry because they ruin it for *ME*, who risked my life and lost friends to make *THEM* safe from the minorities of the other side, so *someone* is left to do the talking. I did this for *PEACE*, while they seem to do this for land.

 

I get utterly pissed off.

 

I also think that in the past 20 years we've been completely neglecting Gaza. That's not to say we have made them an "open air prison" like some extremists *outside of Israel and Palestine* say, but we should have done more to encourage them in building their own state.

 

I *want* the palestinians to have their own state. I want them to have a THRIVING state, because that would mean chances for peace. I am willing to support the creation of that state with my tax money, and I am willing to put effort and resources into encouraging them to transform into a productive and peace-loving society.

 

Because I want *PEACE*. I don't want to lose any more friends to bus bombings, or restaurant explosions, or random shooting. I don't want war, and I don't want conflict, and I don't want to rule over another society; there's no point to it, it doesn't give me any pleasure, and I don't give a rat's ass about any special pieces of land. I am willing to give htem land.

 

*But*

 

Hamas is no longer a "small extreme terrorist organization". It's part of the palestinian government, which means that *talks* are no longer possible. They claim - loud and clear - that Israel should be obliterated. that makes me more frustrated than you could ever imagine. Because that means that the chance for peace is down the drain.

 

I see my country with all its flaws, but I also see the situation as it is. Israel has been continously bombarded by Hamas. During the cease fire, Israel was still bombarded. Intel says Hamas, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter, because Israel did not respond against Hamas, it responded against the militants who fired the rockets.

 

The people of Southern Israel has been blaming the government for doing nothing for them for 7 years already; their economy is practically nonexistent, because they live in bomb shelters and safe-rooms, their kids go on-and-off to school, and when they come back home their sole thought is which way they should choose that includes a safe place they can get into within 15 seconds.

 

Israel didn't respond even after Hamas declared the cease fire is over - in November.

It took Israel three more months of rockets to respond back, and by that time, it was either *FINISH THE ROCKET ATTACKS* or don't do anything.

 

"Dont do anything" *obviously* didn't work. Israel has tried that for the entire duration Hamas was in power, and after Israel *one-sidedly* evacuated the Gaza strip from the settlments there.

 

My sister was one of the soldiers who helped evacuate the Gaza strip from Israeli citizens. Those people - most of them right-wing - were NOT about to be kicked out nicely. They cursed, they kicked, they screamed, they called the soldiers names I will not repeat here. And yet the government did this, and I - along with a very large part of my fellow citizens - felt HOPE finally, because *FINALLY* we might have peace.

And then Hamas went into the evacuated zone, and started shooting rockets from there, getting closer to the border.

 

.. what do you do? Nothing?

 

It seems like whatever Israel does, it's being scorned in the world. So, at some point, your decision stops being about what the world will say, and starts being about how to make sure your own citizens are SAFE.

 

 

Can you imagine living under constant rocket bombardment for 7 years?

Your own government is stalling and stalling its reaction so that we have attempts for talks, and more attempts for talks, and get Germany into trying to attempt talks, and all this time these cities in southern Israel are being attacked.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter who shot those rockets during the cease fire, because it wasn't the end of the cease fire that's in question here. The current operation started 2 months AFTER the end of the cease fire.

And the cease fire ended not because Israel engaged Hamas, but because Israel engaged 6 *ARMED MILITANTS* that were smuggling arms and planning shooting rockets. The fact Hamas took them later as his martyrs just means they took responsibility for these specific attacks, apparently.

 

 

 

I don't disagree that the 2 months of continuous bombardment were partly within the ceasefire period. I'm just concerned about the previous four months, where the ceasefire was, for all intents and purposes, working. Furthermore, you're trying to attribute attacks within the preceding 4 months to Hamas. What's your evidence?

Why are you so concerned with those three months? Let's say an extreme faction in Israel was constantly shooting rockets at Gaza -- do you think Israel would just "let it happen"?

Whether or not Hamas took responsibility is irrelevant; Israel's *only response* was to prevent more rockets from hurting more of its civilians.

 

If Hamas was so worried about keeping this cease fire, it could have ignored this incident - just like Israel is ignoring the incident in the Northern Border (with Lebanon), to avoid further escalation.

But Hamas *wanted* an escalation, and the proof is its actions: Mortars and rockets that had THREE TIMES the range of the previous ones; which means that now the situation *escalated even further*.

And yet Israel did not respond.

 

For three months. Talks, attempts for talks, engaging europe to try and engage talks.. nothing. Just more and more rockets, further and further into Israel.

Until Israel had enough.

 

I *really* don't see the alternative here. Really.

 

After giving me so much grief for Israel's white phosphorus attacks, you owe me that much.

I don't see it as same, but I'll accept this. Give me a bit to look for the references and get back to you. I promise that if I find no adequate references, I'll take back my statement that it was Hamas who shot those rockets. To be honest, I don't think it's *that* relevant even if Hamas didn't take responsibility.. I am curious, though, of knowing who else do you think would've done it?

 

 

Israel was certainly provoked. Does that justify the situation? Both sides have been provoking each other for decades.

Hang on, though, that's what bothers me here. It's NOT for decades.

 

First off, Israel has been provoked for a VERY long time *WITHOUT* reaction. Israel only reacted NOW. After 8 years. I think that's meaningful.

 

Second, the situation with Hamas is *not* the same situation that was with the PLO and the Intifada (with Arafat). So grouping those together is just unfair for *both* sides.

 

And your question seems to be moot. Let's say it's not justified; what would have been justified? I still don't get your solution. If you say that a cease fire would've been justified, I completely agree -- but the POINT is that it *wasn't* a cease fire. Hamas used this cease fire to build arsenals of weapons and arm itself.. that's not a cease fire, even if we both accept the idea that someone else shot those rockets during that cease fire.

So Israel shouldn't have responded with force. Okay. What should it have done? Israelis were being targetted - with increasingly advanced weaponary. Grad missiles are more accurate and go a lot further than Qassam missiles. They've hit a kindergarten (luckily after hours), a hospital, people's houses... What was the solution to this?

 

 

 

 

 

Israel invaded Gaza because Gaza was firing rockets at them because Israel engaged in surgical strikes against Gaza because Hamas was digging tunnels to invade Israel etc. etc. etc.

Wait a minute. Israel signed agreements with the Palestinians, agreement that ever since Hamas came to power were COMPLETELY ignored.

While I agree with you that both the Palestinians and Israel had their problems, I disagree that Hamas is to be described equally. It has declared it wants the destruction of ISrael, it REFUSES to talk, it ANNOUNCES it wants bloody murder of Israeli civilians.... Unlike other incidents which we may examine at another time, this one was one sided. How do you talk to someone who REFUSES to talk back?

 

 

Is an invasion really the best way to resolve this situation? Are a thousand dead Palestinians, including hundreds of dead children, justified by Hamas's attacks?

No. A peace talk is. If they were only willing.

A cease fire is. If they werte only willing.

A presence of UN/NATO forces in the GAZA strip to help their govt prevent those "who knows who shot them" rockets from the cease fire, would be better. If they were only willing.

 

So.. they're unwilling to cooperate. They keep shooting. The solutions you suggest are patently unrealistic.

What else should Israel have done, then?

 

It's a vicious cycle, and unless one side breaks it it's just going to continue.

Well, in 2005, Israel decided that it leaves the Gaza strip as a sign of good will towards *peace talks*. That was *after* Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat in the early 1990s.

So it seems like there is a will on the part of Israel (why would Israel give land away if it didn't think it will bring forth PEACE? or at the very least *TALKS*?)

 

It takes two to tango. Show me ONE TIME where the Hamas did what Israel has done, and tried to talk *realistically* about peace.

 

How do you expect Hamas to break this cycle -- or even to join Israel if Israel is the one who "breaks" the cycle, if Hamas exclaims it wants the *DESTRUCTION* of Israel??

 

~moo