Hamas proposes truce in Gaza

dimerocks

Riddle101 wrote: »

Now i may sound like a bitter Irishman but i'm not, i have no problems going to Chad or the Congo or lebannon but Isreal and Palestine is not our league, because a)No one seems to care about Isreal's occupation of Palestine they seem to ignore this and b)Neither side is in the right they are both wrong and becuase of this innocent people are geting killed. I would only accept trade with Isreal and Palestine if the fighting stopped for ever and Isreal gave up it's claim to Palestine

In regard A, I think people are largely ignorant to the formation of Israel and don't realise how it was founded and why it was founded. The whole point is that it was a complete mess by the British and the League of Nations. The countries were acting primarily for their own interests in the region.
Yes neither side is correct but if you were to lay a blame on one side it would have to be with the Israeli handling of the affairs from the formation up until....well they are still doing it. They had no interest in forming a state which respected Palestinian rights, if anything is going to be conceded its gonna have to come through talks from all sides. You can't expect the fighting to just stop if there is no international pressure?

eoin5

wes wrote: »

The reason this can't happen is that the US will prevent this from ever happening. Israel is immune to any UN sanctions that would call for an embargo.

So something else has to be done.

I agree. Action can happen regardless of repeated vetoing. I think those south-african dockworkers are an inspiration as they have made a difference by drawing attention to the situation and added cost to the shipment.

Disorganisation has been proven to work very well as long as people can share and spread a similar ethos by their actions. My hope is that all the people involved in trading arms with Israel wake up and accept what they are used for and that trade gets cut on the human level (as opposed to a state level).

djpbarry

Manic Moran wrote: »

Until 2001, the US has been relatively good about not going and attacking people who haven't been antagonising them.

That statement is so laughable it scarcely merits a response.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Most US foreign bases tend to be either defensive in nature, such as Korea, Japan or Germany (The US has comitted to protect its friends, can't do that from home), support or projection operations, such as Kosovo, or many in South America or Africa, or outright "You right well pissed us off" deals such as Haiti, Panama or Afghanistan.

:rolleyes: The US can justify just about anything, can't they? It’s precisely this kind of thinking that gives Israel free reign in the Middle East.

I'm just going to take one example from the list; Panama. Overlooking the fact that Noriega was a former CIA operative and US puppet, in December 1989, the General Assembly of the UN condemned the invasion (in which thousands of Panamanian civilians were killed and thousands more were left homeless) as a "flagrant violation of international law." I would say that Afghanistan and Iraq fall into the same category. As for Haiti, as far as I am aware, violence was largely avoided due to the diplomatic efforts of Colin Powell.

Tea drinker

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Today (24-4-08) Reuters.com reports that Hamas proposes a truce in Gaza. It is the smallest possible step in the right direction; a six month truce, bilateral, in Gaza only; but should be encouraged. Piece by piece is better than no peace at all.
The Government of Ireland should respond positively to this overture, conclude a truce with the elected Hamas administration, and resume aid and trade to the people of Gaza.

It's useless.

Israel will find a way to break it

Riddle101

Tea drinker wrote: »

It's useless.

Israel will find a way to break it

Not if Hisbollah has anything to say about it