The RNC reportedly just removed the pages on their website where for the last 18 months they had bragged about the historic "peace deal" (read as unconditional surrender to the Taliban and abandonment of the Afghan government) Trump negotiated with the Taliban that included the total withdrawal of American troops by May 1st and the ONLY stipulation was the Taliban not directly and intentionally attack US soldiers during the retreat. Of course, there was no peace deal, only a temporary ceasefire against Americans while we withdrew....but not a ceasefire between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, and without our support the Afghanis folded like a Trump run business.

I guess the Republicans wanted kudos for "negotiating with" (surrendering to) 12th century religious zealots who had no intention of sharing power or keeping their agreements, while not involving the government of Afghanistan in talks about their nation, making it a certainty the zealots would quickly regain full control of Afghanistan and our 20 years of nation building (and all the American lives lost and billions spent) would be a waste, but now they don't want responsibility for the foreseeable results. Why does that sound familiar? (Covid)

Lots of stupid cunts posting in here. Maybe it's time I weighed in.

Looks like even the White house is starting to feel the pressure, and they do react to it when it get's too heavy. So they've announced a ceasefire and they've moved to try and get ahead of the criticism. They're probably sick of it anyways, we've got our own problems and if an outpost of our military is going to be such a pain in the ass we don't need them anymore.

The overwhelming point is that the White house could tomorrow tell Israel to stop this and leave the Palestinians alone, and we'd have a two state solution. That isn't a joke, this only occurs with our consent and that's the consent of our government and us by default. We get mad enough and you see they do whatever they can to ease up on things before it gets too embarrassing for them.

This is the main point from out of all of this. You are responsible for the predictable results of your own actions. It's a basic moral truism. You want to stop terrorism in the world, you have to STOP Using Terrorism to rule it. The Largest Terror operations in the world are run right out of Washington. Stop Terrorism being committed in your name. Stand Up.

Noone is telling Israel to shrug their shoulders....the issue is not with the defence, it is the measure of the defence.

Israel should send in a police force, and find those responsible. Shut down the tunnels by ground, stop bombing indiscriminately.

This requires police action, not military...the 'missiles' you keep referring to are pathetically weak, absolutely pathetic.

Were I leader of Israel, I would drop the wall, set about repairing the damages inside the city, allow the organisation of a government, support it in getting benefits in for the people of Gaza and Palestine, halt the invasion of settlers into Palestinian territory, halt the bombings and send in armed police where reports of weapons stashes are. Set up large scale police patrols in troubled areas, let people go about their lives without the fear of having a bomb dropped on their head, try to give them a leg up in life....and the revenge attacks using piss weak rockets will stop.

The Israeli measure of force is far far higher than it should be.

There is no army inside gaza, its kids playing with homemade rocketry. Get cops in there, not 500lb bombs.

If both sides agreed to a ceasefire, allowing UN peacekeepers into the area to...you know...keep the peace, whilst the cities are rebuilt, peoples lives can get back to normal...my god imagine that world.

Yeah no, I'm sorry but you have a lot of this very wrong. The Gaza strip is the worlds largest open air prison. Israel has blocked peace with US support and has broken ceasefires consistently with US support for over 4 decades now.

You need to read a bit more to understand how complex this situation is. Hamas are by no means saints and they are cripplingly stupid. But there is a reason why there are dozens of votes at the UN that are every other fucking country in the world against Israel and the US. Because they're on the wrong side of history. Israel is running an apartheid state and will continue to do so as long as there's people like you who support them.

You missed a few parts there...3 teens killed, Israel CLAIMS by Hamas, but Hamas never takes credit (and they love to take credit). Israel immediately bombs Palestine mercilessly AND 1 Palestinian teen kidnapped and burned alive by Israeli soldiers (there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian), AND another Palestinian teen is ACCUSED BY ISRAEL of throwing gas bombs only AFTER they are caught on tape beating and stomping the hell out of him while he's handcuffed and completely subdued. Hamas then retaliates with 1/1000 the force returned by Israel. Egypt, an enemy of Palestine, and Israel make a show of calling for a 'ceasefire' on 100% their terms without even talking to Hamas, then claims it's Hamas that won't cease. Israel continues launching more guided missiles at beaches, hospitals, and old folks homes, killing hundreds of civilians and then invades in full force, killing hundreds more, while Hamas shoots hundreds of essentially fireworks causing extremely minor damage and 1 eventual death....yet you think Hamas is the big bad guy and Israel is the poor innocent whipping boy.....Um.....just DUH.
Hamas started it IF AND ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE ONLY ISRAELI PROPAGANDA, but if you look dispassionately at the known facts, that's simply BS, Israel invaded first, shot first and continues to shoot more and more disastrously at civilians while whining 'we have to defend ourselves' (from the useless fireworks the Palestinian devils are shooting at us), which should really mean turning on the missile defense system.
What they are doing it offensive, not defensive....and I'm offended!

I don't like necessarily Israel's tact on this issue nor how much force they are employing. But, on the other hand I really don't know what else they should be doing that would bring about a ceasefire with people that don't seem overly concerned with focusing on things like "good intentions". As @bcglorf said this is a complicated scenario and it has no easy solutions. I'm even more afraid, ultimately, that it will always be true that if either of these sides (or countries if it ever comes to that) decide to break their ceasefire, even for something "minor" (something in the Cold War that wouldn't have provoked us or Russia into action) it may lead to conflict. Conflict like we now see playing out.

To be truthful, I have no advice for either of them, but I do think the world community including the U.S., someday, should agree together to tell ALL of the Middle East one thing, "Grow up!". Until we can agree unilaterally the Middle East will continue to be a powder keg. Though if Iraq truly becomes powerful, self-reliant, and democratically free then perhaps they can work opposite Israel to reign in groups and even countries that have "contracts of death" created for the purpose of destroying Israel. But, these are all long-term scenarios...

For now it really is up to the people in that region to decide: do they want war? Or would they rather they had peace? Israel is guilty of acting immature for a country that should now better in some circumstances. But, those around Israel are guilty of blind idiocy, pure ignorance, and following a self-destructive mandate (destroy Israel) that is the key to what leaves them behind the rest of the world. What a mess--one both sides need to clean up and eventually decide who is wrong...maybe a bit of both...

But, like that would ever happen...

>> ^NetRunner:
This was more of a "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" clip.


Was this part of a greater video guide to playing Risk then?

Agree the notion of assymetrical casualties sounded a bit unfounded but I think the greater issue he was trying to make was that in a state of mind of perpetual struggle against, still perhaps in the mindset of many Israelis, people they believe they have not wronged in any way, any form of retaliation, and therefore any degree of loss of life on behalf of the Palestinians that may result is entirely justifiable. Whether that belief comes from some kind of religious validation or a selective historical outlook that ignores the occupation since 1967, or some other justification is uncertain. The main point though is, if it's a perpetual war and there is supposedly no perspective for a ceasefire, then casuality numbers lose any relevance in an endless struggle.

As much as I would like to hope that the Israeli people and their politicans will see through the counterproductive effect of their continued occupation and further building of settlements, I'm much more inclined to believe that people stuck in a particular situation simply become more deadset in their views and develop a more rigid us versus them mentality that prohibits any form of comprimise.

Well, we both know, and Israel knows, that nearly all of the people in Gaza can't leave. All of the nations in the middle east, friend to Israel or friend to any faction of the Palestinians, will not accept any large number of refugees beyond those already present in their country (and are in fact unlikely to grant citizenship to the refugees already there).

Honestly, I think that there is no and never was a clear consensus amongst Israeli leadership as to the exit strategy for this campaign. I think everyone involved agreed that some form of military response was necessary/called for, and that they all had and have different ideas of how they want it to end.

Hamas is in the position of balancing further casualties and suffering amongst their members and constituency against the possible goodwill they can gain in the region by mimicking Lebanon's performance in the previous war.

To be entirely blunt, the Palestinians in Gaza (including Hamas) have been losing a lot, and stand to lose a lot more if the IDF pushes forward.
I think the likely "out" in the near term (and possibly the endgame that a majority of Israeli leadership is pursuing) is that a sufficiently large majority of Hamas operatives in Gaza will decide that it is in their best interests to reach a compromise that accedes to some but not all of Israel's demands.

Joedirt, Hamas leadership in Syria has consistently refused a ceasefire without Israel first completely withdrawing, which I think is rather unrealistic.
This Arabic daily criticizes Hamas leadership for obstructing cease-fire negotiations (see the bottom) http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=15352
Here's the Telegraph, saying that there is division as to a cease-fire between the Syrian leadership of Hamas and the leadership on the ground in Gaza http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4240932/Analysis-The-choices-confronting-Hamas.html

In the long term? Personally, I had been thinking that unilateral distancing by Israel was a positive step towards peace. However, if Israel leaves open any significant access to Palestinian territories, additional weapons or weapon-precursors will enter the region and be used against Israel.
As we have seen, Palestinian militants will tunnel or otherwise attempt to circumvent even relatively thorough security procedures put in place by Israel.
This leaves Israel in the unenviable position of deciding whether to leave the Palestinians with relatively open borders, and suffer proportionately more attacks, or completely isolate Gaza (and probably the West Bank as well) in a truly thorough fashion.

This is a classic asymmetric warfare situation, which historically have been very bloody and nigh-impossible to end peacefully. I don't know of any historic examples that didn't end in the militarily superior power either pulling out completely ala Russia in Afghanistan or the U.S. in Vietnam (not a realistic or moral option here) or committing genocide as in many Medieval and Colonial conflicts (also not a realistic or moral option).

To end this before it gets any longer, simply giving the Palestinians a homeland will not bring peace to the region as long as a significant portion of the Palestinian population is willing to pursue the destruction of the state of Israel via violent means.

I do not dispute that there have been a number of bad actors affiliated with Israel. However, I believe from personal experience that the vast majority of Israelis would be happy for the Palestinians to have their own state, but also believe that many Palestinians would continue to pursue the violent destruction of Israel even if they had full sovereignty.

>> ^vaporlock:
mharvey42 are you part of Hasbara?
links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
http://www.mediamonitors.net/edward37.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-fo
reign-ministry-media


Nope, he's just another apologist for a fascist regime. You can spot them by the ludicrous troll comments they make that bear absolutely no resemblance to any sort of reality ; )

Apologies in advance for the disection.

"Ok, then Palestinian militants aren't anti-semitic, they just want to get rid of the political and military entity of Israel."
This is an irrelevant analogy. You can be anti-semitic just by your words or thoughts. However, you cannot be genocidal or engage in ethnic cleansing without doing something physical. One is an emotion or opinion, and the other is an action. My comment was about ACCURACY of these terms, not about a JUDGEMENT regarding them.

"And the problem isn't really Israel taking out Hamas fighters or leaders, it's the hundreds of civilians and children being bombed and bulldozed in their houses and schools."
I totally agree with this. I inferred as much in my post.

"occupying illegal lands"
Honestly, so much of the recent mutual behaviour between the two factions is illegal by international law, I'm not sure that "legality" means anything to the situation any more. If this is going to ever be fixed, historical prosecutory claims have to be dumped out the window.

"Imagine if you were in control of a million people's lives who are walled in by your tanks and F-16 and war ships and they have no clean water and little electricity and food. Certainly it's not like your are trying to kill them all by blocking all aid and food and water..."
I agree with this point. Israel has been blocking aid and this is deplorable. If it were to go on for a few weeks, I'd agree that it's passive genocide, but I'm not sure that's the case yet. Anyone know if supplies were successfully delivered to Gaza in the recent short ceasefires?

"...and then dropping bombs on the refugee shelters"
I haven't seen this anywhere in the media, admittedly not that I've looked too hard. Can someone please point out where this has been occurring?

>> ^volumptuous:
^ tunnels were multi-purpose.
Unfortunately the propaganda arm of the likud in the US, even has liberal news orgs leaving out the fact that these tunnels were used to smuggle stuff like food & medical supplies into the country, and people out of it.


Did anybody ever release details on the tunnel? The claim that the tunnels were for the purpose of kidnapping soldiers appears ridiculous on its face.

For the record, these Israelis are monsters. They are killing UN and Red Cross drivers.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened yesterday when the main United Nations aid agency suspended its work in the Strip after one of its drivers was killed by an Israeli tank shell.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also said it would restrict its operations after one of its lorry drivers was hurt when a convoy carrying drugs for Gaza hospitals and transferring intensive care patients to Egypt came under fire from Israeli troops south of Gaza City. Both organisations said their convoys had been co-ordinated with the Israeli military.

"If [the Israeli military] give us clearances to move, then it is fully unacceptable that their soldiers on the ground are going to fire on our workers. Believe me, the verbal assurances [from the Israelis] have run out in terms of credibility."

The UN decision to halt aid came on the 13th day of Israel's offensive. A second three-hour ceasefire allowed rescue workers and doctors into some of the most heavily-targeted zones and to retrieve about 50 bodies, bringing the Palestinian death toll to 758. The UN, which claims civilians have borne the brunt of the bloodshed, said 257 of the dead were children under 18.

The UN driver was the third to be killed during Israel's offensive. The UNRWA said a second convoy seeking to recover the body of another UN casualty during yesterday's ceasefire was also fired at but no one was hurt.

Wait, I'm confused... How is this guy independent if he is a Palestinian legislator? Wouldn't independent mean he was, say, Swiss? Palestinian makes me think he's pretty clearly not independent.

As for "breaking the ceasefire" the evidence they are citing seems a bit equivocal. In particular the stuff about the tunnels.

If Hamas is digging tunnels with nefarious purposes, but Israel actively shoots first, uh, I'm not quite sure that is uncalled for. If I see you on my lawn loading a weapon and you have a history of shooting at me... well, I'm going to be concerned.

I'm pretty much with QM on this one.

"Palestine would not build itself up, it would use all those resources to tear Israel down."

Apart from the nuclear fallout, I think the rest of the world should sit back and just let them duke it out.
This fighting will go on for all time, as long as both sides still exist.

It's not about making peace as there will never be peace. The best possible outcome anyone could expect from this is a temporary ceasefire and we all know how long that will last.

Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense.

It's not nonense, it's the truth. The Palestinian people as a majority I believe have no interest in attacking Israel. Nasrallah, the Secretary-Gneral of Hezbollah has been quoted in the Washington Post stating that "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel" and "I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel.'". That should be enough in and of itself, but Hezbollah also considers the Iranian Ayatollah it's highest authority(though they have been more independent of late), and I shouldn't have to point out the position of Iran's fanatical religious leaders. As for Hamas, I quoted several of their founders and you even admitted that their charter holds a call for Israel's destruction as central. There can be no doubt Hamas wants to attack Israel. The only thing holding Hamas and Hezbollah back is similar to what has kept the peace between Syria/Iran and Israel, the fact that Israel would win any such conflict.


Syria and Iran have watched Israel's serial human rights abuses for decades


But they have been openly and actively attacking Israel even longer, your view really doesn't explain that does it?



If you understand how the political process of a truce and a peace settlement works in reality under international law, you will begin to understand that it means the cessation of violence and the beginning of sorting out opposing political aspirations on both sides.


Yes, and you may remember how Hamas sorted out opposing political aspirations previously. Giving them more time to kill off moderates and opposition doesn't seem to be in anyone's best interests.


It was a bigger leap of faith (by a factor of hundreds) for Hamas to offer this truce to Israel than it would have been for Israel to honour it under international law.


And here I thought it was the under dog that had the most to gain from a ceasefire.