is peace finally here?

why do you think israelis wanted to entice the palestanians. how did palestanian reacting is going to do other than what israelis wanted.
if you really belive that they wanted this,then you have to accept that they did not act smart.

i think most of the world was actually looking. the life in gaza is what it is. read how other non-violent movment has worked. It is not easy to do.

israel has put a lot of effort in creating an image for herself. It is not easy to change that image. palestanians have tried the armed resistance for years now and it has not worked.

palestanians are not able to have such a strong armed strugle that will change the situation. the rockets have no real effect.

just look at how it worked in south africa or india. once the violence become one way it can not last that much. if you belive israelis use the palestanian actions as an excuse then why give them one.

palestanians do not have much of arms. not shooting is not the same as disarming.

the arab dictators are not intrested in anything like that.

You never know when is the time for peace. palestanians have to consider what is best for them. sometimes a dollar now is better than a promise of 5 for later.

 

Because the world is half blind and can see the Palestinian violence only, and if it happened and they saw the Israeli violence, they will find a way to blame it on Palestinians, whom been the real victims of the Israeli aggressions since 1948.

when Palestinians react, Israelis will cry, and the world will rush to condemn Palestinians, if Palestinians did not react, the world did not see any problem, is this the way you want to keep things going?

What guarantee do Palestinians have, that if they did not react, will there be condemnations, will it be just words? will there be some kind of mechanism to send international investigators? to see what really happened? or to look how things really going there in West Bank and Gaza? and if they found there are violations, will there be actions? or will they blame Palestinians?

if Palestinians were given hope, then violence will drop to its minimum if not stop, they are patient, saying "what you got after 60 years? so you should obey now", is not an option, even if it took another 600 years, I think nothing will change as long as this is the attitude of the world towards the conflict, except if Palestinians become able to achieve military victory.

Arabs leaders are different than Arab people, with more organizing, I think they will be more effective.

Gandhi, did not condemn the armed resistance option for Palestinians, and Mandela too did not condemn it, or go against it, for sure they preferred if there is another effective options to follow, Palestinians too, but they knew there won't for this case, and so did Palestinians, after trying.

 

I belive that at this time a gandhi like approach probably will yield the most for palestanians.Armed resistance has not achived the end result. there is no gurantee that a passive resistance will either. To me it makes sense to pursue the passive at this time, but that is just my opinion. reistance is resistance not obeying. I would think that hamas agrees with me and that is why they were trying to achive the cease fire. It is ashame that other groups were so easily gave up that approach in favour of retaliating for their member. this act was not done with the palestanian intrested in mind but the IJ in mind. You can have a diffrent view but it would be hard to convince me. I blame them for making a strategic mistake. Why did they agree to it if they werent going to abide by it?

 

I am not trying to convince you with anything, you are trying to reach a point when Palestinians stop all violence, then we will see what will come, which been done before, and I m more like trying to find a mechanism that will transfer the situation from no change to some development, and some real development not traps on the road,

there been times when violence dropped, and stopped, but there was a total failure to transfer the situation from such case to the next point, to remove illegal settlements, even at time when there were no violence settlements building did not stop eating Palestinian lands,

to find a solution for Jerusalem, even when negotiations about Jerusalem was taking place, there were Israeli pressure on world capitals to recognize Jerusalem as their capital, can these two things, without mentioning others, go along with calling them peace lovers? who are truly committed to peace, who really want peace?

they are yes, they want peace, the kind where they can dictate to Palestinians what to do, and Palestinians are expected to obey, and if they did not, then they should be killed, this is how its been going, and this is what push more towards violence, because violence will only breed violence, and because there is no seriousness from Israel or others who volunteered to be peace shepherds while being half blind.

this part was not clear for me, blame who?

 

IJ is the one that made the mistake.
If palestanians were not intrested in cease fire then why did they pursue it.
60 years of armed strugle. How many of passive resistance?
what makes you think one is supperior than other.
I think because of the iran's situation, there is a chance for a settelment.

 

see what I mean, you blame Palestinians for it,

Israel killed 2 IJM Palestinians, and you blame IJM for it, they were interested in two-sided cease fire, not one side, I m really surprised how you call for peace and you are dishonest, you should not talk about peace, call things with their correct names, and stop misleading or fooling people, talk about surrender, then Palestinians will think about it just do not say peace when you mean surrender.

for me this conv. ended, feel free to go on.

 

i do not blame palestanians. i am pointing out that palestanians are not pursuing the best way to achive their goal. I am recomending a new strategy so they can achive the result that they want. It does not matter how hard you try. you either win or you fail. Israelis killed the two in WB. if IJ responded in WB then it would have been one thing, but they chose to respond in GAZA. This was a mistake.
they had made an agreement on this but they decided to take the easy way. and they took a chance on the cease fire that palestanians wanted.
i blame the IJ for making a descision that i feel is against the palestanians intrest.
Israel does what is good for israel. palestanians should do what is good for them. not just become a reactionary force.

 

And that is the point. Guys like imad don't care what the actual agreement is, he just wants to blame Israel. The cease fire did not include the West Bank, so Israels actions there had nothing to do with this agreement. On the other hand, Islamic Jihad did return fire from Gaza which was part of the deal.

In spite of imad's protestations, the only group that broke the cease fire is the Palestinians. Sadly, he just ignores the deal the Palestinians made, ignores the facts, and blames Israel for provocation. The parties negotiated and agreed not to include the West Bank.

So what we have is the typical cease fire. Palestinians break it and people like imad blame Israel. It is easy to see why, with support like imad's, the Palestinians people seem to take one step forward and two steps backwards.

 

as i said i think that IJ did make a big mistake. they knew that WB is not part of agreement. they should have either not agree to the deal or abide by their agreements. although one of their people also got killed, Hamas did not participate that is a good thing. maybe the only good thing.
I still hope that this cease fire holds. it is beneficial to both sides. It allows the negotiations to go forward easier. I never said it is going to be easy
-----------------EDIT
As far as this being a typical cease fire, I have to say you can use this for analyzes. If you want to generalize then I would hold both responsible. In this case i would say 25% to 75%.Although Israel did not break the cease fire by the target killing but they could have made a better choice. If I goat a person half my size, and beat him up time after time, I think i am also responsible for the situation.specially if I claim to be the good guy

 

sorry for yesterday comment, I had misunderstood your first post, I do agree that IJ hold a part of responsibility, I am with a reaction since 2 members of them were killed in a time they declared that they will cease fire, in ceasing fire they were clear that this included whole Palestine not only Gaza, yet they are still partly responsible for firing from Gaza when they should attack Israeli military targets either inside Israel or in West Bank,

Israel holds the biggest part of responsibility in threatening these peaceful atmospheres and trying to start a new violence in West Bank that will probably spread to Gaza and other parts of Palestine.

Hamas still holding on the cease fire despite the Israeli closures of the crossings which are a clear violation of the truce, but since IJ was the first to violate the truce, not the cease fire, then they see no need to react and give the truce between them and Israel a chance to hold.

 

I think it is a good idea for hamas to hold the cease fire and allow the israelis to create an atmosphere that will be conducive to peace. I think palestanians can achieve a lot more by changing from an armed resistance to passive resistance. It will not be easy.
now as far as IJ goes.
I understood that the truce cease fire or whatever you call it did not include the WB.
now correct me if i am wrong but i bet IJ did not consult other factions before they set the rockets. Ask yourself why?
It is obvious to me that by not doing that, they did not consider the palestanian interest. They just went on avenging their friends. There is nothing patriotic in that. It should upset a palestanian a whole lot more. Peace or no peace the palestanian leadership must try to improve the life of palestanians. If one of these group or an individual take actions that are against the collective benefit of the palestanians then they are not doing good.

 

The whole discussion is pointless. Islam is out to conquer the world by the sword. How can you expect a peaceful attitude from a company with a mission statement like that?