Squeezing the good guys: U.S. needs to pressure Hamas terror
ogre1213
Posts: 400
Great read, simple, to the point
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... _guys.html
Tuesday, January 12th 2010, 4:00 AM
Welcome to installment No. 7,583 of "What's wrong with this picture?"
In the background: As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Egypt to discuss resumption of peace talks with what passes for Palestinian leadership, the Obama administration steps up pressure on Israel to make concessions.
The outlandish theory: Israel's obstinacy, not Palestinian rejectionism, is the roadblock on the way to a two-state solution.
In a shot-across-the-bow heard round the world, special envoy George Mitchell last week told Charlie Rose that Washington "can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," if necessary, to advance peace talks.
In other words, the U.S. is Israel's staunch ally, keenly understanding that the tiny nation is under constant terrorist assault. Only we really aren't that at all.
In the foreground of the picture: Hamas terrorists, who had taken a breather following successful Israeli counterterrorism operations, have resumed war against the very idea of a Jewish state.
Rocket and mortar attacks launched by Hamas - which prompted Israel's offensive in Gaza a year ago - are back with a vengeance. According to Netanyahu, more than 20 rockets and mortar shells were launched from Gaza in the last week, triggering an air strike in response.
Some of the Hamas rockets made it across the border into southern Israel. Others didn't. All were intended to hit schools or homes or synagogues. All were intended to instill fear, with the promise of more to come.
While Hamas rains down explosives, the group boasts of its ability to smuggle weapons into Gaza. On Friday, the terrorists published photos of shiny new toys: missiles with double warheads, designed to penetrate fortified structures, and armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades.
Spokesman Abu Ubeida threatened that Hamas has "thousands of fighters and good weapons capable of harming Israel."
The "world community" - which boils down to a small group in Washington - must snap out of its fantasy of imposing "evenhanded" pressure to the Mideast. Wake up and smell reality: There are two sides in this conflict. One wants to live in peace with its neighbors; the other wants its neighbor to go to hell.
Unless and until we put more pressure on the terrorists than on the democratically elected leaders of Israel, the road to peace will run smack into a brick wall.
So, again: What's wrong with this picture? If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/201 ... _guys.html
Tuesday, January 12th 2010, 4:00 AM
Welcome to installment No. 7,583 of "What's wrong with this picture?"
In the background: As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Egypt to discuss resumption of peace talks with what passes for Palestinian leadership, the Obama administration steps up pressure on Israel to make concessions.
The outlandish theory: Israel's obstinacy, not Palestinian rejectionism, is the roadblock on the way to a two-state solution.
In a shot-across-the-bow heard round the world, special envoy George Mitchell last week told Charlie Rose that Washington "can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel," if necessary, to advance peace talks.
In other words, the U.S. is Israel's staunch ally, keenly understanding that the tiny nation is under constant terrorist assault. Only we really aren't that at all.
In the foreground of the picture: Hamas terrorists, who had taken a breather following successful Israeli counterterrorism operations, have resumed war against the very idea of a Jewish state.
Rocket and mortar attacks launched by Hamas - which prompted Israel's offensive in Gaza a year ago - are back with a vengeance. According to Netanyahu, more than 20 rockets and mortar shells were launched from Gaza in the last week, triggering an air strike in response.
Some of the Hamas rockets made it across the border into southern Israel. Others didn't. All were intended to hit schools or homes or synagogues. All were intended to instill fear, with the promise of more to come.
While Hamas rains down explosives, the group boasts of its ability to smuggle weapons into Gaza. On Friday, the terrorists published photos of shiny new toys: missiles with double warheads, designed to penetrate fortified structures, and armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades.
Spokesman Abu Ubeida threatened that Hamas has "thousands of fighters and good weapons capable of harming Israel."
The "world community" - which boils down to a small group in Washington - must snap out of its fantasy of imposing "evenhanded" pressure to the Mideast. Wake up and smell reality: There are two sides in this conflict. One wants to live in peace with its neighbors; the other wants its neighbor to go to hell.
Unless and until we put more pressure on the terrorists than on the democratically elected leaders of Israel, the road to peace will run smack into a brick wall.
So, again: What's wrong with this picture? If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough.
Some die just to live
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
uhhh how do you know what their targets were? i guess it's ok when Israel bombs schools, power plants, water treatment plants, hospitals, bulldozes down homes or bombs them....?
while hamas rains down explosives...and yet the government of Israel swears it is 1 of the safest countries in the world to visit on their websites...so which is it? is the entire nation in fear or is it one of the safest countries for me to visit???
and let's not even get into Israel's illegal theft of land by force.... :roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
if they say they will not recognize Israel, ever, then how is there supposed to be a two-state solution, ever
i hope, for the sake of the palestinian people, they stop firing rockets so Israel doesn't have to respond
it is a safe place because Israel has put all its efforts into protecting herself from outside forces
i have been there twice, i felt very safe
and no i am not brainwashed by zionists, i am jewish and i am happy me and my people finally have somewhere to call home after 2000 years
so you have a home to call your own by stealing the land of others and bulldozing down their homes so you can build your own?
please post your families address so we can come kick you out and take your house, don't worry, it's cool, god told me last night it was part of his plan and that land belongs to me.
obviously firing rockets where they could hit innocents is wrong but on the other hand are they firing rockets onto Israeli land or illegally occupied land which the UN has told you to leave several times?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Are you 2000 years old? :shock:
Palestinian rejectionism of what? Palestinian rejection of a carved up, Swiss-cheese, South African Apartheid bantustan system?
This is simply an attempt to turn reality on it's head.
The facts are perfectly clear for anyone with eyes to see. Look at this and see if you can work out who the rejectionists are:
Norman Finkelstein on U.N Resolution 242:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
So, according to the author of the above article, the world community consists of a small group of people in Washington. Righteo.
See if you can spot the rejectionists:
http://www.cipmo.org/1501-indice-rasseg ... urity.html
10-01-2009
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860 (U.N. News Service)
Pubblished 08/01/2009
……..
The Security Council met this evening to take action on a draft resolution (document S/2009/23) sponsored by the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
“Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,
“Emphasising the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians,
“Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasising that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected,
“Expressing grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza,
“Emphasising the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings,
“Recognising the vital role played by UNRWA in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza,
“Recalling that a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means,
“Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
“1. Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
“2. Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment;
“3. Welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid;
“4. Calls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through urgently needed additional contributions to UNRWA and through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee;
“5. Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism;
“6. Calls upon Member States to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re?opening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and in this regard, welcomes the Egyptian initiative, and other regional and international efforts that are under way;
“7. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation including in support of mediation efforts of Egypt and the League of Arab States as expressed in the 26 November 2008 resolution, and consistent with Security Council resolution 1850 (2008) and other relevant resolutions;
“8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognised borders, as envisaged in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008), and recalls also the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative;
“9. Welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009;
“10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Statements before Vote
Bernard Kouchner, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, speaking in his national capacity, said the Council was meeting in the common cause of achieving a ceasefire. In Gaza, there was an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. He said he was moved and distressed by the plight of the victims and families on both sides. The immediate end to hostilities was something the European Union and President Nicolas Sarkozy had been committed to.
He said the draft called for the end to the firing of rockets, the end to the Israeli operations, the opening of the border crossings and an end to arms smuggling. Those parameters were something the President of France had brought up with the leaders of the region and President Hosni Mubarak had drawn up a proposal. That plan was the only way to peace. He expressed regret that it had not been possible to give a little more time to reconcile different views or to endorse the results of negotiations now under way. The message of hope needed to be heeded without delay and negotiation under way needed to achieve prompt results.
Action
The Council then adopted resolution 1860 (2009) by a vote of 14 in favour, and with 1 abstention (United States).
don't you think the side that kills the most innocent people is in the wrong? israel
don't you think the side that has the other in a police state is in the wrong? israel
don't you think the side attacking the other side is in the wrong? israel.
don't you think the side that is aggressive and brutal and violent is in the wrong? israel.