"On Wednesday, Fishbowl DC reported that Michael Clemente, a senior vice president at Fox, had met with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and that the two had "reached what some are calling a 'truce.'" FishbowlDC also reported that Clemente subsequently met with the network's Washington bureau and "encouraged staff to remain 'fair and balanced.'""

From Salon.com

I guess they really did come to an arrangement. I've certainly never seen a Fox reporter going after a political ally like that before. With the exception of Maddow and Olberman I've never seen any american cable news show act so critical of a political figure before.

>> ^Morganth:
It means people are becoming more polarized.


And that is what is most worrisome for many people.

How long before the mild believers are out numbered by the radical ones? Before "Evangelical" Christianity becomes like fundamentalist Islam, power hungry and oppressive? Before the uneasy truce between believers and non-believers is shattered? Before the cold-war of science and rationalism vs. superstition and dogma turns violent? And more frightening is that, I honestly believe when it comes to it, the rational side will not be the one to strike first.

I would say that the military incursion into Gaza has been largely a failure for Israel, not simply because of the negative world wide publicity from the large number of civilian deaths but also because it didn't achieve the kind of results that the IDF used to generate when dealing with Fatah in the past.

Back then Israel would bomb the shit out of Fatah and it's resistance would ebb away very quickly, Arafat would reach out and discuss a truce, a wedge would be created between the Palestinians and the Fatah government.

This was not the case in Gaza, resistance continued right up to the time of the cease fire, the Palestinians did not oust Hamas as Israel hoped in favor of the discredited Dahlan, Hamas never surrendered.

This has been a build up ever since the IDF failure in eliminating Hezbollah, the Arab world is rife with talk of defeating the once undefeatable Israel which with all it's high tech equipment, man power and bombs has not been able to silence Hamas or Hezbollah.

There has also been a large world wide reaction to Israel's acts, which in all its shock and awe only managed to kill 2 high ranking Hamas members, which is ineffective now since after years of IDF assassinations resistance groups have learned to operate in cell structures with no centralized power figure.

Furthermore we must remember the political time frame of these attacks in Israel, with the failure to form a coalition government Kadima leader Tzipi Livni informed President Peres in October, that general elections will have to take place on February 10th 2009.

Likud (Benjamin Netanyahu) and Kadmia (Tzipi Livni) are the major contenders to win over the Knesset, both are trying to replicate the momentum of change generated in the US elections. Both have the problem of seeming old and tired without the necessary 'change' aspect, Bibi had lead Israel before and Livni is number 2 in Olmert's office. Though Livni edges out being a woman and a new face.

One of the major striking points that Likud pushed forward was that Kadima being the Sharon party that imposed the Gazan withdrawal and is committed to the road map to peace would be too soft on Palestinians as a whole and endanger the Israeli national security. Likud also refuses to negotiate over Jerusalem.

With the recent military actions there is no longer a question of softness with regards to Kadima and the Palestinian people. This would work favorably towards assuring a victory in the Knesset for Livni.

But at what cost to the peace process?

However recent polls show that Likud is still in the lead with 29 seats. Not surprising since the Gaza pullout and the corruption charges leveled at Olmert. But we need to see how the international pressures that Livni is reaching out for will shape the public perceptions.

We shall see, there is disengagement taking place now, and truce has been declared with Israel withdrawing from Gaza soon.

I am not interested in their culture nor am I any kind of expert on it, nor do I want to meddle in it or try to change it by words or by action.

I am interested in campaigning against human rights abuses which have been ongoing in that part of the world since before I was born.

Their culture and their religion is not my business, how they govern themselves and choose to live is entirely up to them as a free and sovereign nation.

You appear to be of the opinion that because you do not agree with their scriptures or their culture that they are to blame for their own slaughter. I find that offensive and ignorant.

You are very ill informed of these people, do not take others words for it, go and see for yourself, travel, meet, talk, immerse, discuss. Until then read what you want to read and think whatever you want, but do not for one second think that you can represent a culture which is entirely alien to you and you have not experienced.

Palestinian darlings?
Fellow human beings who are screaming to the world for help.
In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense...
I can assure you categorically that Ismail Haniyeh's offer of a truce was taken very seriously, it was a huge breakthrough at the time."

Irishman - This illustrates how little you understand about the culture of your Palestinian darlings.

Any offer of peace is Taqiyya (a deception) used to establish a Hudna (temporary truce in order to rebuild armed might). It's in the koran, and is specifically condoned when dealing with non-muslims (Christians and Jews)

Read it sometimes, and realize that it is worshipped by islamists as a literal command and example of how to behave. This differs from Christians and Jews, who regard their holy texts as metaphorical or antiquated as (unprovoked) mass killings are concerned.

Your passion it admirable, but tragically misguided.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense...
I can assure you categorically that Ismail Haniyeh's offer of a truce was taken very seriously, it was a huge breakthrough at the time."

Irishman - This illustrates how little you understand about the culture of your Palestinian darlings.

Any offer of peace is Taqiyya (a deception) used to establish a Hudna (temporary truce in order to rebuild armed might). It's in the koran, and is specifically condoned when dealing with non-muslims (Christians and Jews)

Read it sometimes, and realize that it is worshipped by islamists as a literal command and example of how to behave. This differs from Christians and Jews, who regard their holy texts as metaphorical or antiquated as (unprovoked) mass killings are concerned.

Your passion it admirable, but tragically misguided.

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.

Hezbollah, Hamas and all the Palestinian people have no interest in attacking Israel, that is complete nonsense. The Israeli people know this, so do their press and their newspapers and their journalists and their blogs and websites.

Syria and Iran have watched Israel's serial human rights abuses for decades and are fully aware that Israel is a nuclear power (illegally and in breach of the non-proliferation treaty).

I can assure you categorically that Ismail Haniyeh's offer of a truce was taken very seriously, it was a huge breakthrough at the time.

It's being ignore was interpreted by many at the time (and some still today) that the peace process was not genuine and was in fact only a cover for US and Israel join operations for control of the region.

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.

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.

It is not our business as westerners to judge the political aspirations of another country, but it IS our business and our duty to step in when human rights abuses are being committed, and this is what is not happening.

So if we're going to take Hamas to task on their ambulances then let's go, and unless we want to be branded as hypocrites then we'll want the Israeli government in the Hague and behind bars for their decades of war crimes against the Palestinian people as well.


Finally something I think we can both agree on, at least mostly. I'd say that would be a good first step, but you simply can't limit the Israel-Palestine conflict to just those two nations, I think that overly simplistic to the point of being false.

Let's be honest about the conflict. Even if Hezbollah, Hamas and all the palestinian people united to make a well co-ordinated surprise assault on Israel, the IDF would have it stomped out entirely within the week. The fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants is a real security threat to both, but I think it is only a small part of a bigger picture. It's like looking at the Korean or Vietnam wars without talking about the tensions between the US and USSR.

The real tension around Israel then is in fact between them and Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran together pose a vastly more credible threat to Israel. Both Syria and Iran fund Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies to strike at Israel without mounting direct military action. Hamas and Hezbollah then become sacrificial lambs/martyrs to Syrian and Iranian goals. Dying as underdogs to make Israel play the role of the bad guy. Israel for it's part plays right into it, as their foreign policy can accept collateral civilian casualites more readily than it can weakness. It's all a big mess like most conflicts in the world, but simply saying that Israel should be condemned and Hamas forgiven is throwing wood on the fire.


And if we want to talk about Hamas' charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, then let's talk about it:

In 2006 Ismail Haniyeh became Hamas prime minister. He offered the Bush administration a truce in return for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. He was completely ignored.


Well let's talk about Hamas' charter then. Ismail Haniyeh's offer for a truce may not have been taken seriously because his foregin minister(and a Hamas co-founder) stated the following after their election "dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land". Surely Hamas own charter and statements by other co-founders like Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi(who also denies the holocaust) stating their goal is "to remove Israel from the map" make negotiations with them difficult to neigh on impossible.

I know you strongly disagree, but I am willing to understand Israeli relutance to trust a truce with an organization with that kind of leadership. A truce that is openly discussed as acceptable only because 'a phased liberation of all historic Palestine may be necessary' just doesn't strike me as in Israels best interests.

Yes, it is a spectacularly inefficient genocide, it is known as "slow motion genocide" and it is the same thing that happened in Darfur. It has been going on for decades. I first heard it described as this 8 or 9 years ago.

In 1998 an expert in international law called Francis Boyle told the Palestinian president to start legal proceedings against Israel in the international courts and in the Hague for breaching the Genocide Convention.

Israel has breached almost all of the 150 odd articles of the Geneva Rights Convention and committed crimes against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter - all confirmed and on record at the UN.

So if we're going to take Hamas to task on their ambulances then let's go, and unless we want to be branded as hypocrites then we'll want the Israeli government in the Hague and behind bars for their decades of war crimes against the Palestinian people as well.

And if we want to talk about Hamas' charter which calls for the destruction of Israel, then let's talk about it:

In 2006 Ismail Haniyeh became Hamas prime minister. He offered the Bush administration a truce in return for an end to the illegal Israeli occupation. He was completely ignored.

The last truce that was brokered by Egypt was broken by Israel - they sent in the IDF and wiped out 6 Hamas members. Both sides called for peace even after this, but the IDF continued hostilities.


I cannot in good conscience condemn Hamas for using medical vehicles for troops because I know too much about the sickening war crimes that have been committed by Israel against them for decades.

Cheers!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Christmas-truce-of-December-1914
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

There's a beautiful one here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Christmas-truce-of-December-1914

thepinky, are you still honestly saying that I did what you did to me, going through the comments posted to downvote your fucking shit? No. I encountered your comments on videos and SiftTalks all over the site. It was not in a "single day". If you are still trying to fucking say that I went through your comment queue, you are full of it, although I've often found that people who do something shady often suspect others of doing the same. Does it have something to do with guilt? I'm not sure.

I love how you talk in circles. Does it make you tired, I wonder?

It's interesting, the way you want to start a truce on fallacy.

[You plucked your eyebrows so thin; they must feel objectified.]

Ignoring your comments is WAY more difficult than I thought it would be. I've never tried it before but now I know that it sucks. I'm a dork. I'm unignoring you now. Not that you care, I'm just sayin'.

Prozac, I'm sorry you felt attacked. I am starting to feel bad about this whole situation. I always thought you were a heartless wench. But now that I know that you think you are the victim of this situation, I am truly sorry. I really think you misunderstood me. I never meant to start a fight. I never meant to manipulate our conversations to make you look bad. Honestly, I really did not have that intention. Indeed, I think that by deleting your comments I made you look better because now no one can read all of the nasty things you said to me. You have been very mean and insulting to me, and I feel you have even harrassed me when I was trying to move on and let it go. Remember that this whole thing started because you downvoted almost every single one of my recent comments in a single day. And remember that even after THAT situation blew over, you called me a cunt multiple times on my profile. But I know what it is like to feel ganged-up on. Believe me. I, too, do things that I wouldn't normally do when I feel cornered and outnumbered and picked-on. Deedub's post probably wasn't pleasant for you. But also believe me when I say that LittleRed and I never ganged up on you. And I didn't even know about the downvotes before Deedub posted his thread. We each have our individual problems with you, and you have to admit that you haven't exactly been nice to any of us.

I intervened in a situation where I felt that you were unfairly harrassing another sifter. I think that you did exactly what I might have done. That is, you lost your temper. We both escalated the situation, and here we are.

Truce? You don't have to like me, I don't have to like you, but let's just agree to leave each other alone, okay?

The go to argument for chicken littles. You don't know much about the start of our country, do you? We almost didn't win our independence. We almost lost the Revolutionary War. The colonists and loyalists were divided. Our government almost dismantled itself before it begain. Jefferson wanted to add language into the Constitution declaring slaves to be self-actualized and free humans (paraphrasing), but the southern states with slave interests threatened succession if any language went into a document demanding slavery be abolished. Knowing solidarity was the only option to keep the colonies unified in this fight against England, they changed the language to hint that all men are created equal. Jefferson was a walking contradiction. He wanted slaves to be free, but he, too, was a servant owner. Nothing is ever perfect. Even people.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sooooo, you're saying you want to return to a time when only white male property owners could vote and slavery was legal?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
The Constitution isn't in the hypothesis stage. This has always been about restoring our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence to the Jeffersonian principles. It's the chicken littles who confuse our process of restoring Jeffersonian principles with trying to restore Hamiltonian principles, which is very much the opposite.

As Ron Paul would say, "Tyranny is an old idea; freedom is very new." We're trying to go back to the original ideas of this country and give freedom another chance before it was hijacked by the cock-a-doodle-doos.

I always knew we were at a political impasse, if by impasse you mean we've not reached an original intention of arriving at some sort of consensus. I don't debate you and and NR to change you or to prove I'm right. I really do it because it's the underdog perspective on the site, and the political meme is currently in a bad place with this two party system and Obama vs. McCain. Whoever wins, America loses.

And, yes, cat farts.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
My problem with Libertarianism is that it is still in the hypothesis phase. Why should I have any faith in this untried, untested, political philosophy? If there were some empirical evidence that suggested its effectiveness, I might be more receptive, but at this point it is a philosophy built entirely on faith and (sorry to say it) hype. If being skeptical of hypothetical politics makes me a chicken little, then I've got 4 words for you: Cock. A. Doodle. Do.

I think we are at a political impasse here, but it's important to remember that while differences may come between us, we still share a very deep and spiritual love for cat fart jokes. Truce.