Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

New war on Gaza?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

actionjackson

Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:03 am Post subject:

So does this mean the ceasefire is over already?

Quote:

One adult has been killed and 10 teenagers wounded as Israeli soldiers, stationed at the border line between Khan Younis and Israel, opened fire on them, medical sources say.

Witnesses told Al Jazeera that the teenagers entered the disputed area of the "buffer zone", which is 300m along all the Gaza-Israel border, south east of the Gaza Strip.

She said they may have had confused information about that buffer zone as there has been lots of information about the easing of travel restrictions as part of the ceasefire agreement brokered on Wednesday night.

This is the second person to be killed since the truce came into effect.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/201211238226924973.html

Privateer

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:12 am Post subject:

GENO123 wrote:

Quote:

And what is your opinion?

You seem to be making the argument that if one poster is wrong about Syria's government being bad, then they are also wrong to say Israel's government is bad. That if Hamas is bad, then Israeli actions must be good.

There's plenty of badness to go around. And, regardless of what you think of Hamas, Israel has historically often been the one guilty of breaking ceasefires.

My opinion is that actually I think some posters could care less about good or bad. They pretend that is what they care about but in truth they have something nefarious in mind.

That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?

actionjackson wrote:

So does this mean the ceasefire is over already?

Quote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/201211238226924973.html

Let's see if our media report this, or if they will wait until Palestinians start firing rockets before reporting a break in the ceasefire...

[Edit]I see the bbc is on it already.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461914

CNN has also reported this: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/23/world/meast/gaza-israel-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. Interesting that the headline says 'ceasefire holds despite latest flare-up' though.

GENO123

Joined: 28 Jan 2010

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?

I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.

Unibrow

Joined: 20 Aug 2012

Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:38 pm Post subject:

GENO123 wrote:

Quote:

That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?

I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.

That plan was rejected by Barak, not the Palestinians.

GENO123

Joined: 28 Jan 2010

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:45 am Post subject:

Unibrow wrote:

GENO123 wrote:

Quote:

That was already clear. What's your opinion on Gaza?

I think Bill Clinton's peace plan (2001) ought to be put into effect. That would cover Gaza. At the very least it would be fairly easy to see which side is the aggressor from that point on.

That plan was rejected by Barak, not the Palestinians.

Ask Bill Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGWWOtGXTTU

Arafat rejects Clinton peace plan

Quote:

Mr Barak has accepted President Clinton's outline for a settlement on condition that the Palestinian leader also agrees.

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 January 2001 09.09 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/03/israel2

THE PRINCE by Elsa Walsh
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/24/030324fa_fact_walsh

http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/03-ST-Bandar-0324-NewYorker.pdf

Quote:

When Bandar asked what Bush meant by "desperate," Bush explained: President Clinton had been eager to leave office with a settlement in the Middle East, and Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, needed a deal to survive the next election. Bush said that he didn't think Arafat really wanted to solve the problem. Bandar believed that Arafat's failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake - a crime, really. Yet to say so publicly would damage the Palestinian cause, which had been championed by the Saudis, who would then lose any leverage they still had. Bush told Bandar that, unlike Clinton, he did not intend to intervene aggressively.

Bandar left the meeting even more distressed. At the end of the Clinton Presidency, Bandar had received confidential assurances from Colin Powell, the Secretary of State-designate, that he was to relay to Arafat: the Middle East deal made by Clinton that the new Administration endorsed would be enforced. Powell warned that the "peace process" would be different under Bush. Bush would not spend hours on the telephone, and Camp David was not going to become a motel. The message was clear, and until the end Bandar had continued to hope: it appeared that Arafat would get almost everything he wanted, and that Bush's Administration, which Bandar saw as more tough-minded than Clinton's, would stand behind the agreement.

"I still have not recovered, to be honest with you, inside, from the magnitude of the missed opportunity that January," Bandar told me at his home in McLean, Virginia. "Sixteen hundred Palestinians dead so far. And seven hundred Israelis dead. In my judgment, not one life of those Israelis and Palestinians dead is justified."

Quote:

Clinton, who continued to apply his considerable energy to finding a Middle East solution, came to believe, in December of 2000, that he had finally found a formula for peace; he asked once more for Bandar's help. Bandar's first reaction was not to get involved; the Syrian summit had failed, and talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, in July, had collapsed. But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar the President's talking papers Bandar recognized that in its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories; all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.

Quote:

A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandar's description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. Later still, the Crown Prince told Bandar he was shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity, and that he had lied to him about the American offer. Bandar told associates that it was an open secret within the Arab world that Arafat was not truthful. But Arafat had them trapped: they couldn't separate the cause from the man, because if you attacked the man you attacked the cause. "Clinton, the bastard, really tried his best," Bandar told me last week when we met at his house in McLean. "And Barak's position was so avant-garde that it was equal to Prime Minister Rabin" - Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in November, 1995. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer."

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject:

Privateer wrote:

(1) The facts don't fit your claim that Muslim/Arab states are responsible for the UN claim either. Israel and the U.S. are more or less the only ones who deny it.

(2)There is one thing Israel could do, which is to abide by ceasefires itself.

(numbers are mine)

1. See the remarks in bold

Quote:

In recent years, the Middle East was the subject of 76% of country-specific General Assembly resolutions, 100% of the Human Rights Council resolutions, 100% of the Commission on the Status of Women resolutions, 50% of reports from the World Food Programme, 6% of United Nations Security Council resolutions and 6 of the 10 Emergency sessions. Of note is Resolution 3379 (1975) stating that "Zionism is racism"; it was rescinded in 1991.

These decisions, passed with the support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries, invariably criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. A number of observers have qualified this degree of criticism as excessive. For example, according to the UN Association of the UK, General Assembly resolutions in the period 1990�2003 show clear bias against Israel, with a great deal of explicit condemnation of violence against Palestinians but only occasional and vague discussion of violence against Israelis, including the use of suicide bombers.[3] In addition, the UNHRC was widely criticized in 2007 for failing to condemn other human rights abusers besides Israel.

(1)In other words it was the INFLUENCE of the Arab/Muslim states that passed these resolutions. Not only that but it has been noted that this criticism is biased and selective. Hardly decent evidence.

As for being occupied no it is not only disputed by Israel and the U.S. It's also disputed by HAMAS ITSELF.

http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?campaign_id=63111&id=2832097

Quote:

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma�an News Agency.

2. So Israel should abide by the ceasefire while Hamas and other groups openly violate it? You are aware that the present conflict was initiated by Palestinian militant groups and not Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine,_and_the_United_Nations