Israel/Gaza

polaris_x

dimitrispearljam wrote:

i was thinking...

if WE here cant even agree to simple things that both sides do wrong..that death is death at both sides
and we say,you fire first..no no..you did it first...

how the hell they there..that they are the ones with the problem ..they listen and see the rockets and the bombs...will ever find a solution,agree for peace??

the problem is two fold: 1. critical thinking and 2. facts

like with a lot of issues - people get their information from biased sources and ultimately do not take the time to think critically through them ... we've become lazy that way ... and what that ultimately means is that we now live in a world where agendas can easily be accomplished because the world of public opinion can so easily be manipulated ...

even flow - question mark

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

If Israel dropped it's weapons, it would cease to exist. Therefore, Israel does respect Palestinian lives more than the opposite.

please explain why Israel would cease to exist (sorry, I'm a newb on the subject and I'm learning as I go)

I'm hoping someone can answer this question.

Same reason you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

If I thought that and taught that you didn't and shouldn't ever have and presently exist and was going to do about anything to take that right away from you. Would you leave your front door unlocked and food in the oven for when me and my boys came looking for you?

kenny olav

I hope this cease-fire stands. In spite of my ranting against religion in this thread, I think people are generally sensible, religious or not. I've just come to the opinion that religion often gives a moral cause to our more violent instincts. "They are the immoral ones, we the holy ones!" I've seen this attitude here on this thread, so I guess I'm right. I think when people realize that while we are all a bit crazy, except for the few sociopaths and psychopaths out there, all of us are generally moral and sensible too... and if we stop thinking "my side is good and the other side doesn't value life" then maybe, just fucking maybe, we can all see each other as equals.

dimitrispearljam

kenny olav wrote:

I hope this cease-fire stands. In spite of my ranting against religion in this thread, I think people are generally sensible, religious or not. I've just come to the opinion that religion often gives a moral cause to our more violent instincts. "They are the immoral ones, we the holy ones!" I've seen this attitude here on this thread, so I guess I'm right. I think when people realize that while we are all a bit crazy, except for the few sociopaths and psychopaths out there, all of us are generally moral and sensible too... and if we stop thinking "my side is good and the other side doesn't value life" then maybe, just fucking maybe, we can all see each other as equals.

i agree...maybe...but still we have a maybe..

Hugh Freaking Dillon

even flow - question mark wrote:

Same reason you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

If I thought that and taught that you didn't and shouldn't ever have and presently exist and was going to do about anything to take that right away from you. Would you leave your front door unlocked and food in the oven for when me and my boys came looking for you?

serious question from a newb: do the Palestinians not recognize the STATE of Israel, or the PEOPLE of Israel? Cause really, I can't blame them for not recognizing the state's right to exist, given how it was created.

but if the state of Israel were somewhere else, would they still want them wiped off the map?

redrock

The state of Israel. Palestine was ready to recognise a state of Israel with pre-67 borders. Note that Israel does not recognise a State of Palestine either. Very basic statements but very complex situation.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

redrock wrote:

The state of Israel. Palestine was ready to recognise a state of Israel with pre-67 borders. Note that Israel does not recognise a State of Palestine either. Very basic statements but very complex situation.

thanks redrock.

so I guess my overly simplistic question is this: if Palestine was the originating state, and Israelies moved in on their territory, then continue to try to take it over, but Palestine was willing to compromise, what the fuck is Israel's problem?

mickeyrat

where is The UK in all this? Palestine being under their "protection"(or how ever you wish to term it) when this occured back in 48. Dont THEY shoulder some of the blame here?

This does not in any way mean that The US doesnt have its portion here.

even flow - question mark

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

redrock wrote:

The state of Israel. Palestine was ready to recognise a state of Israel with pre-67 borders. Note that Israel does not recognise a State of Palestine either. Very basic statements but very complex situation.

thanks redrock.

so I guess my overly simplistic question is this: if Palestine was the originating state, and Israelies moved in on their territory, then continue to try to take it over, but Palestine was willing to compromise, what the fuck is Israel's problem?

It is not an easy issue. Contrary to all the links and crap on these pages it goes back a tad farther then 67, 45, 33, 0, etc. People have been conquered for ever and nothing is going to change the past, the present or the future. When two or more people claim "land rights" (the quotes are for all the people on this board who oppose lines on maps) what do you think is going to happen. My church was there but my mosque was their first, no my temple was their before you conquered me and I conqured them. And the world keeps spinning and people continue to not get along and of course choose a side. Israeli's claim that they been hard done by all their time on earth and have a book or two or three to prove it. So they say. Then they wanted their land (that they supposedly owned sometime back when the sea was red and oh wait probably longer than that) back and after Germany was through with them, the world powers thought that dusting off part of the desert and claiming their land for them would be a super idea. Well some people didn't think it was a good idea. Of course this led to one side attacking the other, but the attacked side was a little better with playing war then the five or six who decided to gang up on them. The land that the attacked took off the attackers was claimed to be theirs now. And they played keep away. Held it up high enough that the other children couldn't jump high enough to get it. They thought it was a grand idea to have this new land and haven't stopped gaining more and more as the years have rolled on. Come and get it if you want it. :fp:

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

thanks redrock.

so I guess my overly simplistic question is this: if Palestine was the originating state, and Israelies moved in on their territory, then continue to try to take it over, but Palestine was willing to compromise, what the fuck is Israel's problem?

my overly simplistic response to your question would be that ... israel as a democracy has a wide range of representatives across the political spectrum ... it is however the hard right sector that has dominated policy ... under the guise of security - israel has allowed their politicians to take a hard line stance as it relates to palestine ... and in many ways it's sort of like the US in that most of the population do not recognize the impacts of their foreign policy decisions ... this hard right sector has absolutely no interest in having peace with palestine ... because their agenda is to control all the land and what israel is doing is expropriating more and more every day ... this cannot happen with peace ... so, to the ruling party of israel now - peace is NOT good ... without conflict - there is no impetus to govern under the guise of security ... without the threat of conflict ... the right would not rule israel ... and without the right ruling ... we wouldn't have bulldozers taking more and more land away from palestinians and without more and more land being taken away ... we wouldn't have a people fighting back ...

Byrnzie

JC29856 wrote:

help
i keep reading that "hamas wont recognize israels right to exist" and it seems kinda vague...i cant find what this refers to...anyone? what does this mean? were is this stated
thxs

Hamas has stated on numerous occasions that it will recognize Israel's right to exist when Israel returns to the June 1967 borders.
Though the point is moot, as Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist, as exemplified by their opposition to the Palestinian's seeking member status at the U.N this month.

Byrnzie

supersonicyears wrote:

How do you not acknowledge that the Palestinians have made many attacks on Israeli citizens for years?

I've acknowledged many times that the Palestinians have attacked Israel. Though how does this justify or excuse the illegal occupation?

supersonicyears wrote:

When will you be packing up and moving from the place that you're occupying?

What do you mean?

Byrnzie

EdsonNascimento wrote:

They start bombing Israel causing Israel to retaliate and kill a couple of their top operatives, and all they get out of it is Israel saying they will continue to do what they were already doing. So, Hamas created the fighting that killed numerous civilians and accomplished - nothing!!!! That's what terrorists do.

Except that's not what happened at all, as I've already shown.

Byrnzie

PhillyCrownOfThorns wrote:

So a Jewish state was formed in 1948 where the largest population of Jews existed. And over 30% of the population of Palestine was Jewish.

Make that 16%.

Either way, how does that justify the Zionists claiming 56% of the land in 1948?

Byrnzie

JC29856 wrote:

israel "ceasing to exist" means nothing at all, its total made up nonsense...unless of course somehow "terrorists" learn to vaporize entire continents

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

serious question from a newb: do the Palestinians not recognize the STATE of Israel, or the PEOPLE of Israel? Cause really, I can't blame them for not recognizing the state's right to exist, given how it was created.

Why does The Times recognize Israel's 'right to exist'?

By Saree Makdisi
03/11/07
Los Angeles Times

'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.

No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is — at best — utterly nonsensical.

First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?

Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.

Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.

And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.

This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.

In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides.

If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.

SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East.

usamamasan1

THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS - MAIN POINTS

=======================================



The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on August

18, 1988. The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS,

is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the

territories under Israeli control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive

manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the

basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad

(Islamic Holy War). The following are excerpts of the HAMAS

Covenant:



Goals of the HAMAS:

---

'The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian

movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is

Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of

Palestine.' (Article 6)



On the Destruction of Israel:

---

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)



The Exclusive Moslem Nature of the Area:

---

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession]

consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one

can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'

(Article 11)



'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the

Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem

wherever he may be.' (Article 13)



The Call to Jihad:

---

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the

individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation,

it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)



'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses

everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the

call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will

reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is

achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.'

(Article 33)



Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:

---

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)



Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

---

'Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle

[against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The

Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar

agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason,

and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.' (Article 32)



Anti-Semitic Incitement:

---

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)



'The enemies have been scheming for a long time ... and have

accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money,

they took control of the world media... With their money they stirred

revolutions in various parts of the globe... They stood behind the

French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the

revolutions we hear about... With their money they formed secret

organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions -

which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies

and carry out Zionist interests... They stood behind World War I ...

and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the

world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge

financial gains... There is no war going on anywhere without them

having their finger in it.' (Article 22)



'Zionism scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet

expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have

finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they

will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out

in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.' (Article 32)



'The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the

circle of struggle against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over

the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped

for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.'

(Article 32)

kenny olav

There's always more to the story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter

The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the position of the Palestinian Islamic organization Hamas on many key issues at the time. The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel. The charter also states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they do not block Hamas's efforts. The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam.

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons." Hamas have moved away from their charter since they decided to go for political office. In 2009 interviews with the BBC, Tony Blair claimed that Hamas does not accept the existence of Israel and continues to pursue their objectives through terror and violence; Sir Jeremy Greenstock however argued that they have not adopted their charter since they won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006 as part of their political program. Instead they have moved to a more secular stance. In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.


Relevance of the Charter in the 21st century

British diplomat and former British ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated in early 2009 that the Hamas charter was "drawn up by a Hamas-linked imam some [twenty] years ago and has never been adopted since Hamas was elected as the Palestinian government in 2006 as part of their political program".

Mohammed Nimer of American University comments on the Charter, “It’s a tract meant to mobilize support and it should be amended... It projects anger, not vision.” Pastor states that those who quote the charter rather than more recent Hamas statements may be using the Charter as an excuse to ignore Hamas.

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (the senior political leader of Hamas) has questioned the use of the charter by Israel and its supporters to brand Hamas as a fundamentalist, terrorist, racist, anti-Semitic organization and claims that they have taken parts of the charter out of context for propaganda purposes. He claims that they dwell on the charter and ignore that Hamas has changed its views with time. He further states that "the Israelis have, for example, translated the charter to several languages, English and French included, intentionally perverting the substance of its tenets to suit their purposes. Those aims were to market its fraudulent translation to as many Western politicians, academics and media channels as possible; and therefore make it easier to claim security concerns as the basis for their legal infractions. The fear-mongering is designed to horrify the West so much that it turns a blind eye to Israels crimes against humanity which contravene international law".

In a further move away from their charter Hamas have stated according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera "the question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people." However many remain sceptical of Hamas's new stance, and view it as a ploy to hide its true agenda, "but it is equally true that the “new” discourse of diluted religious content—to say nothing of the movement’s increasing pragmatism and flexibility in the political domain—reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas."

Byrnzie

I suppose the Communist Manifesto means we should revert back to the Cold War.

In the meantime, maybe I should list a bunch of quotes from various members of the Zionist leadership down the years to see just what they have had to say about the situation?

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.


"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.


"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.


"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."
-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971


"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"
-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.


"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)


"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.


"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.


"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.


"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988


"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.


"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.


"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.


"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.


"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online.


"I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it.
Former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, speaking to Amos Oz, editor of Davar, on Dec. 17, 1982.


"If I was an Arab leader I would never make [peace] with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country."
First Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion

"The Jewish State cannot exist without a special ideological content. We cannot exist for long like any other state whose main interests is to insure the welfare of its citizens."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, New York Times, 14 July 1992

Byrnzie

Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 45,00.html

gimmesometruth27

just saw this on facebook and twitter posted within the last 1/2 hour. anyone in the middle east have any info on this?? i googled and could not find a link, but these are the headlines popping up right now...


"Breaking News : Israeli army opened fire towards the Palestinian Farmers East Khanyounis city where 1 Killed and more than 7 injured one of the injures in a critical condition. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Violation of the Truce
via Hani Siliman salamah"