WILL PEACE EVER COME TO THIS REGION ?
Gaza ceasefire broken with Hamas rockets
(Photoshot)
Israeli troops took part in a ground assault on Gaza
Times Online
The Gaza ceasefire has already been broken, just hours after the unilateral truce took hold, as Hamas militants fired a volley of rockets into southern Israel.
No one was injured in the attack, in which five rockets were fired into Israel shortly after dawn. But shortly after, security sources in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun reported an airstrike that wounded a woman and her child. The Israeli military made no comment on the claims.
In another incident after the truce took hold, militants fired small arms at an infantry patrol, which returned fire, according to the Israeli military.
"Israel will only act in response to attacks by Hamas, either rockets into Israel or firing upon our forces" Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said. "If Hamas does deliberately torpedo this cease-fire, they are exposing themselves before the entire international community as a group of cynical extremists that have absolutely no interest in the well-being of the people of Gaza."
The cease-fire went into effect at 2 a.m. Sunday local time (0000 GMT) after three weeks of devastating war that killed some 1,200 Palestinians, about half of them civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. officials. At least 13 Israelis also died.
In announcing the truce late Saturday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would withhold fire after achieving its goals and more.
"Hamas was hit hard, in its military arms and in its government institutions. Its leaders are in hiding and many of its men have been killed," Olmert said.
If Hamas holds its fire, the military "will weigh pulling out of Gaza at a time that befits us," Olmert said. If not, Israel "will continue to act to defend our residents."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 539321.ece
Israel finaly putting Hamas in its place
by saravakos » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:24 pm
Chomsky: Undermining Gaza
Sameer Dossani | January 16, 2009
Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. Sameer Dossani interviewed him about the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?
CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it's a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the ground.'" So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous population.
I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar.
There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel's history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it's crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the West Bank. That's the place that they really care about and want.
What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we'll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.
Ehud Olmert was in the United States in May 2006 a couple of months after the withdrawal. He simply announced to a joint session of Congress and to rousing applause, that the historic right of Jews to the entire land of Israel is beyond question. He announced what he called his convergence program, which is just a version of the traditional program; it goes back to the Allon plan of 1967. Israel would essentially annex valuable land and resources near the green line (the 1967 border). That land is now behind the wall that Israel built in the West Bank, which is an annexation wall. That means the arable land, the main water resources, the pleasant suburbs around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the hills and so on. They'll take over the Jordan valley, which is about a third of the West Bank, where they've been settling since the late 60s. Then they'll drive a couple of super highways through the whole territory — there's one to the east of Jerusalem to the town of Ma'aleh Adumim which was built mostly in the 1990s, during the Oslo years. It was built essentially to bisect the West Bank and are two others up north that includes Ariel and Kedumim and other towns which pretty much bisect what's left. They'll set up check points and all sorts of means of harassment in the other areas and the population that's left will be essentially cantonized and unable to live a decent life and if they want to leave, great. Or else they will be picturesque figures for tourists — you know somebody leading a goat up a hill in the distance — and meanwhile Israelis, including settlers, will drive around on "Israeli only" super highways. Palestinians can make do with some little road somewhere where you're falling into a ditch if it's raining. That's the goal. And it's explicit. You can't accuse them of deception because it's explicit. And it's cheered here.
DOSSANI: In terms of U.S. support, last week the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire. Is this a change, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. did not veto the resolution, but rather abstained, allowing it to be passed?
CHOMSKY: Right after the 1967 war, the Security Council had strong resolutions condemning Israel's move to expand and take over Jerusalem. Israel just ignored them. Because the U.S. pats them on the head and says "go ahead and violate them." There's a whole series of resolutions from then up until today, condemning the settlements, which as Israel knew and as everyone agreed were in violation of the Geneva conventions. The United States either vetoes the resolutions or sometimes votes for them, but with a wink saying, "go ahead anyway, and we'll pay for it and give you the military support for it." It's a consistent pattern. During the Oslo years, for example, settlement construction increased steadily, in violation of what the Oslo agreement was theoretically supposed to lead to. In fact the peak year of settlement was Clinton's last year, 2000. And it continued again afterward. It's open and explicit.
To get back to the question of motivation, they have sufficient military control over the West Bank to terrorize the population into passivity. Now that control is enhanced by the collaborationist forces that the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt have trained in order to subdue the population. In fact if you take a look at the press the last couple of weeks, if there's a demonstration in the West Bank in support of Gaza, the Fatah security forces crush it. That's what they're there for. Fatah by now is more or less functioning as Israel's police force in the West Bank. But the West Bank is only part of the occupied Palestinian territories. The other part is Gaza, and no one doubts that they form a unit. And there still is resistance in Gaza, those rockets. So yes, they want to stamp that out too, then there will be no resistance at all and they can continue to do what they want to do without interference, meanwhile delaying diplomacy as much as possible and "building the facts" the way they want to. Again this goes back to the origins of Zionism. It varies of course depending on circumstances, but the fundamental policy is the same and perfectly understandable. If you want to take over a country where the population doesn't want you, I mean, how else can you do it? How was this country conquered?
DOSSANI: What you describe is a tragedy.
CHOMSKY: It's a tragedy which is made right here. The press won't talk about it and even scholarship, for the most part, won't talk about it but the fact of the matter is that there has been a political settlement on the table, on the agenda for 30 years. Namely a two-state settlement on the international borders with maybe some mutual modification of the border. That's been there officially since 1976 when there was a Security Council resolution proposed by the major Arab states and supported by the (Palestinan Liberation Organization) PLO, pretty much in those terms. The United States vetoed it so it's therefore out of history and it's continued almost without change since then.
There was in fact one significant modification. In the last month of Clinton's term, January 2001 there were negotiations, which the U.S. authorized, but didn't participate in, between Israel and the Palestinians and they came very close to agreement.
DOSSANI: The Taba negotiations?
Yes, the Taba negotiations. The two sides came very close to agreement. They were called off by Israel. But that was the one week in over 30 years when the United States and Israel abandoned their rejectionist position. It's a real tribute to the media and other commentators that they can keep this quiet. The U.S. and Israel are alone in this. The international consensus includes virtually everyone. It includes the Arab League which has gone beyond that position and called for the normalization of relations, it includes Hamas. Every time you see Hamas in the newspapers, it says "Iranian-backed Hamas which wants to destroy Israel." Try to find a phrase that says "democratically elected Hamas which is calling for a two-state settlement" and has been for years. Well, yeah, that's a good propaganda system. Even in the U.S. press they've occasionally allowed op-eds by Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniya and others saying, yes we want a two-state settlement on the international border like everyone else.
DOSSANI: When did Hamas adopt that position?
CHOMSKY That's their official position taken by Haniya, the elected leader, and Khalid Mesh'al, their political leader who's in exile in Syria, he's written the same thing. And it's over and over again. There's no question about it but the West doesn't want to hear it. So therefore it's Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel.
In a sense they are, but if you went to a Native American reservation in the United States, I'm sure many would like to see the destruction of the United States. If you went to Mexico and took a poll, I'm sure they don't recognize the right of the United States to exist sitting on half of Mexico, land conquered in war. And that's true all over the world. But they're willing to accept a political settlement. Israel isn't willing to accept it and the United States isn't willing to accept it. And they're the lone hold-outs. Since it's the United States that pretty much runs the world, it's blocked.
Here it's always presented as though the United States must become more engaged; it's an honest broker; Bush's problem was that he neglected the issue. That's not the problem. The problem is that the United States has been very much engaged, and engaged in blocking a political settlement and giving the material and ideological and diplomatic support for the expansion programs, which are just criminal programs. The world court unanimously, including the American justice, agreed that any transfer of population into the Occupied Territories is a violation of a fundamental international law, the Geneva Conventions. And Israel agrees. In fact even their courts agree, they just sort of sneak around it in various devious ways. So there's no question about this. It's just sort of accepted in the United States that we're an outlaw state. Law doesn't apply to us. That's why it's never discussed.
Sameer Dossani, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is the director of 50 Years is Enough and blogs at shirinandsameer.blogspot.com.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5802
Sameer Dossani | January 16, 2009
Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. Sameer Dossani interviewed him about the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?
CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it's a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the ground.'" So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous population.
I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar.
There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel's history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it's crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the West Bank. That's the place that they really care about and want.
What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we'll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.
Ehud Olmert was in the United States in May 2006 a couple of months after the withdrawal. He simply announced to a joint session of Congress and to rousing applause, that the historic right of Jews to the entire land of Israel is beyond question. He announced what he called his convergence program, which is just a version of the traditional program; it goes back to the Allon plan of 1967. Israel would essentially annex valuable land and resources near the green line (the 1967 border). That land is now behind the wall that Israel built in the West Bank, which is an annexation wall. That means the arable land, the main water resources, the pleasant suburbs around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the hills and so on. They'll take over the Jordan valley, which is about a third of the West Bank, where they've been settling since the late 60s. Then they'll drive a couple of super highways through the whole territory — there's one to the east of Jerusalem to the town of Ma'aleh Adumim which was built mostly in the 1990s, during the Oslo years. It was built essentially to bisect the West Bank and are two others up north that includes Ariel and Kedumim and other towns which pretty much bisect what's left. They'll set up check points and all sorts of means of harassment in the other areas and the population that's left will be essentially cantonized and unable to live a decent life and if they want to leave, great. Or else they will be picturesque figures for tourists — you know somebody leading a goat up a hill in the distance — and meanwhile Israelis, including settlers, will drive around on "Israeli only" super highways. Palestinians can make do with some little road somewhere where you're falling into a ditch if it's raining. That's the goal. And it's explicit. You can't accuse them of deception because it's explicit. And it's cheered here.
DOSSANI: In terms of U.S. support, last week the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire. Is this a change, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. did not veto the resolution, but rather abstained, allowing it to be passed?
CHOMSKY: Right after the 1967 war, the Security Council had strong resolutions condemning Israel's move to expand and take over Jerusalem. Israel just ignored them. Because the U.S. pats them on the head and says "go ahead and violate them." There's a whole series of resolutions from then up until today, condemning the settlements, which as Israel knew and as everyone agreed were in violation of the Geneva conventions. The United States either vetoes the resolutions or sometimes votes for them, but with a wink saying, "go ahead anyway, and we'll pay for it and give you the military support for it." It's a consistent pattern. During the Oslo years, for example, settlement construction increased steadily, in violation of what the Oslo agreement was theoretically supposed to lead to. In fact the peak year of settlement was Clinton's last year, 2000. And it continued again afterward. It's open and explicit.
To get back to the question of motivation, they have sufficient military control over the West Bank to terrorize the population into passivity. Now that control is enhanced by the collaborationist forces that the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt have trained in order to subdue the population. In fact if you take a look at the press the last couple of weeks, if there's a demonstration in the West Bank in support of Gaza, the Fatah security forces crush it. That's what they're there for. Fatah by now is more or less functioning as Israel's police force in the West Bank. But the West Bank is only part of the occupied Palestinian territories. The other part is Gaza, and no one doubts that they form a unit. And there still is resistance in Gaza, those rockets. So yes, they want to stamp that out too, then there will be no resistance at all and they can continue to do what they want to do without interference, meanwhile delaying diplomacy as much as possible and "building the facts" the way they want to. Again this goes back to the origins of Zionism. It varies of course depending on circumstances, but the fundamental policy is the same and perfectly understandable. If you want to take over a country where the population doesn't want you, I mean, how else can you do it? How was this country conquered?
DOSSANI: What you describe is a tragedy.
CHOMSKY: It's a tragedy which is made right here. The press won't talk about it and even scholarship, for the most part, won't talk about it but the fact of the matter is that there has been a political settlement on the table, on the agenda for 30 years. Namely a two-state settlement on the international borders with maybe some mutual modification of the border. That's been there officially since 1976 when there was a Security Council resolution proposed by the major Arab states and supported by the (Palestinan Liberation Organization) PLO, pretty much in those terms. The United States vetoed it so it's therefore out of history and it's continued almost without change since then.
There was in fact one significant modification. In the last month of Clinton's term, January 2001 there were negotiations, which the U.S. authorized, but didn't participate in, between Israel and the Palestinians and they came very close to agreement.
DOSSANI: The Taba negotiations?
Yes, the Taba negotiations. The two sides came very close to agreement. They were called off by Israel. But that was the one week in over 30 years when the United States and Israel abandoned their rejectionist position. It's a real tribute to the media and other commentators that they can keep this quiet. The U.S. and Israel are alone in this. The international consensus includes virtually everyone. It includes the Arab League which has gone beyond that position and called for the normalization of relations, it includes Hamas. Every time you see Hamas in the newspapers, it says "Iranian-backed Hamas which wants to destroy Israel." Try to find a phrase that says "democratically elected Hamas which is calling for a two-state settlement" and has been for years. Well, yeah, that's a good propaganda system. Even in the U.S. press they've occasionally allowed op-eds by Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniya and others saying, yes we want a two-state settlement on the international border like everyone else.
DOSSANI: When did Hamas adopt that position?
CHOMSKY That's their official position taken by Haniya, the elected leader, and Khalid Mesh'al, their political leader who's in exile in Syria, he's written the same thing. And it's over and over again. There's no question about it but the West doesn't want to hear it. So therefore it's Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel.
In a sense they are, but if you went to a Native American reservation in the United States, I'm sure many would like to see the destruction of the United States. If you went to Mexico and took a poll, I'm sure they don't recognize the right of the United States to exist sitting on half of Mexico, land conquered in war. And that's true all over the world. But they're willing to accept a political settlement. Israel isn't willing to accept it and the United States isn't willing to accept it. And they're the lone hold-outs. Since it's the United States that pretty much runs the world, it's blocked.
Here it's always presented as though the United States must become more engaged; it's an honest broker; Bush's problem was that he neglected the issue. That's not the problem. The problem is that the United States has been very much engaged, and engaged in blocking a political settlement and giving the material and ideological and diplomatic support for the expansion programs, which are just criminal programs. The world court unanimously, including the American justice, agreed that any transfer of population into the Occupied Territories is a violation of a fundamental international law, the Geneva Conventions. And Israel agrees. In fact even their courts agree, they just sort of sneak around it in various devious ways. So there's no question about this. It's just sort of accepted in the United States that we're an outlaw state. Law doesn't apply to us. That's why it's never discussed.
Sameer Dossani, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is the director of 50 Years is Enough and blogs at shirinandsameer.blogspot.com.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5802
-
saravakos - Contributor
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: N London
by insan » Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:00 am
miltiades wrote:Where do you dig this shit out from mate !
Oh yes I know you are a typical Greek , mainland Greek , that hates anyone that hates the USA !!
l
Noam Chomsky - Facts abt Palestine and Israel - typical Greek - mainland Greek - hate - USA - Shit
What u trying to point out, miltiades?
-
insan - Main Contributor
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]
by saravakos » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:14 am
lol you keep showing your stupidity miltiades...i'm pretty sure you dont know who the fuck Chomsky is. Obviuosly he mustnt exist if you havent seen him on Sky news!
You are a fool who has nothing else to say, nothing else to contribute to this debate so you resort to personal insults. At least this shows your stupidity. My God, and how old are you?!
You are a fool who has nothing else to say, nothing else to contribute to this debate so you resort to personal insults. At least this shows your stupidity. My God, and how old are you?!
-
saravakos - Contributor
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: N London
by miltiades » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:54 am
saravakos wrote:lol you keep showing your stupidity miltiades...i'm pretty sure you dont know who the fuck Chomsky is. Obviuosly he mustnt exist if you havent seen him on Sky news!
You are a fool who has nothing else to say, nothing else to contribute to this debate so you resort to personal insults. At least this shows your stupidity. My God, and how old are you?!
Mate all you do constantly is dig out any thing and everything that is detrimental to Israel and the West in order to satisfy your insatiable hatred of Israel , you are not being objective but utterly one sided.
The enemy , the cancer of the Palestinians is bloody Hamas , they dont give a shit about the suffering of their people if they did they would sit down and negotiate , instead the bravado continues , rockets will again be launched against Israel and the stupid sods will proclaim victory.The Palestinian people are the victims of their own worst enemy , Hamas and Hezbollah , and of course Al Queda .
ps. I know of one called Noam Chomsky , an American born Jew well known as a political dissident and an anarchist . I remember him mostly for his anti Vietnam war and his consistent critique on American foreign policy , is he the one you are referring to ?
-
miltiades - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 19837
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm
by saravakos » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:49 am
If you bothered reading what i posted you'd see why Hamas are doing what they're doing. I am anti innocent people losing their lives while the world sits back and does nothing because America is the number 1 superpower and backs their little Zionist mates.
so you think it all comes down to greeks being anti-american?
the worldwide outrage comes down to the greeks??
vast majority of people in the streets across the world are sympathetic towards the palestinians.
as far as anti-americanism goes.. it is not exclusively a greek thing.
i have said on numerous occasions... people all over the world dont trust the world superpower being in bed with "the influential wealthy chosen ones"...
usa foreign policy is looked upon as "financial sympheron" rightly or wrongly thats the way most thinking people view it..
only the extreme right wingers view america as the savior no matter what.. you know the ones that think all muslims are terrorists because its not a white man religion.. the ones that cant tell the difference between a sikh,hindu,muslim or mexican (shit i have just described 95% of anglo-white scum!!!)
so you think it all comes down to greeks being anti-american?
the worldwide outrage comes down to the greeks??
vast majority of people in the streets across the world are sympathetic towards the palestinians.
as far as anti-americanism goes.. it is not exclusively a greek thing.
i have said on numerous occasions... people all over the world dont trust the world superpower being in bed with "the influential wealthy chosen ones"...
usa foreign policy is looked upon as "financial sympheron" rightly or wrongly thats the way most thinking people view it..
only the extreme right wingers view america as the savior no matter what.. you know the ones that think all muslims are terrorists because its not a white man religion.. the ones that cant tell the difference between a sikh,hindu,muslim or mexican (shit i have just described 95% of anglo-white scum!!!)
-
saravakos - Contributor
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: N London
by Free Spirit » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:55 pm
saravakos wrote:If you bothered reading what i posted you'd see why Hamas are doing what they're doing. I am anti innocent people losing their lives while the world sits back and does nothing because America is the number 1 superpower and backs their little Zionist mates.
You can't be concerned about innocent people losing their lives if you don't condem hamas for firing rockest/mortars whilst hiding behind the skirts of women.
What heros.
What victims.
What cowards.
What scum.
- Free Spirit
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:44 pm
by saravakos » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:14 pm
Maybe i didnt make myself clear...any innocents dying regardless of race. So the 3 Israeli civilians who died have died for nothing imo, and they can blame their government for that.
Its people like you and miltiades who only see things through rose tinted glasses. You have this image just because they're Arabs that that automatically makes them terrorists. This has been flying around for years during the so-called 'war on terror'. Not everyone with a hijab or beard is a terrorist...and if you wanna blame anyone about terrorsit attacks look closer to home and the foreign policy of western countries like the US and UK. That should be more obvious on this site due to their medling with Cyprus!!
Its people like you and miltiades who only see things through rose tinted glasses. You have this image just because they're Arabs that that automatically makes them terrorists. This has been flying around for years during the so-called 'war on terror'. Not everyone with a hijab or beard is a terrorist...and if you wanna blame anyone about terrorsit attacks look closer to home and the foreign policy of western countries like the US and UK. That should be more obvious on this site due to their medling with Cyprus!!
-
saravakos - Contributor
- Posts: 770
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:27 am
- Location: N London
by Free Spirit » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:06 pm
saravakos wrote:Its people like you and miltiades who only see things through rose tinted glasses. You have this image just because they're Arabs that that automatically makes them terrorists.
If they're not Arabs themselves what are the Jews? What do you think Jesus was he certainly wasn't Canadian or Irish or white, where did Abraham come from Lego Land?
Thank God for the return of Miltiades; the voice of reason on this forum.
- Free Spirit
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Return to Politics and Elections
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
