I've searched high and low for a copy of the actual ceasfire, but I realize the chances of finding that thing are slim to none. But it just doesn't strike me as logical to think that Hamas would agree to police every last group of people in their borders. It would seem much more logical that the agreement was a ceasing of hostitilities between Hamas and the Israeli government. But again, that I cannot be 100% sure of. What I can be 100% sure of is it seems that even CNN is saying Israel violated the ceasefire; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4 If, and thisi s a big if, Hamas had said they would stop all third party rocket fires for an exchange of the lifting of the blockade, I would see them as violating the ceasefire. Even then, a blockade in itself is an action of open war.Vandalvideo

This is my last post for today.

First of all, regarding the video: what the people at CNN are talking about in this video happened in November, five months after the start of the truce and after the Palestinians violated it numerous times. It is, indeed, a violation of the truce, but at that point in time both the Israelis and Palestinians understood that they won't get what they want through the cease-fire. The rockets never stopped falling down on Israeli territory, the Gaza crossings weren't always open, and both sides understood that the truce was essentially a failure. Everybody was pretty much waiting for it to end.

Regardless, saying that this act was the first infraction of the truce is a flatout lie.

Regarding the rest of your post:

Do you really think Israel would have signed this deal if it didn't include all of the Palestinian militia groups in Gaza? What do you think Israel would gain by such a deal?

I couldn't find a quote from Hamas saying that they'll stop every militia member from launching a rocket, but I found this and this.

Quote from the first article: "The terms stipulate that Palestinian militants stop attacks on Israel"

And we all know that Hamas isn't the only militant group in Gaza.

The second articles explicitly calls the Islamic Jihad's attack on June 24th a violation of the truce.

Actually, I reitterate; the international community has establish international decorum when dealing with dispute resolution. The high contracting parties involved in the arrangement; IE the stopping of rockets and the stopping of the blockade, were the ones who were involved in the process itself. Hamas, as the democratically elected political leader of the people of Palestine, supported the cease-fire and urged radicals, which by the way are not part of the government in power, to stop all hostilities. The Israelis, by international law, which by the way they seem so fond of breaking as of late, were obligated to hold up their end of the bylaws. They failed to do so, so in a few months time Hamas, the representative of the Palestinian people, resumed rocket fire. Israel was operating in a state of open war fare by international regulations. Hamas and the political party which represents the self-deterimned peoples of Palestine, which in a PEW research polll were heavily supported, kept up their end of the bargain. You cannot hold the 1.5 million civilians and the government of palestine responsible for the actions of a few outsides, as they weren't aprt of the cease fire agreement. It is not a violation of the ceasefire, as the high contracting parties involved kept up their end of the deal. Israel is punishing the Palestinian peoples for the acts of a few minority outliers. That, by international law, is wrong.Vandalvideo

You can reiterate all you want, but that wouldn't make your argument true.

Once again, Hamas is responsible for any rocket launched from the Gaza Strip. It doesn't matter who launched it, it is Hamas' responsibility to prevent it from happening, which they failed to do on June 24th and several times later. I don't care who launched it,the Israeli government doesn't care who launched it, and the residents of Sderot definitely don't care who launched it.

Israel's motive in signing the agreement was the stoppage of rocket launches from Gaza. If other Palestinian militia groups were to be allowed to launch rockets during the truce, Israel wouldn't have signed it. It wouldn't make sense for them.

And just for the record: the truce included ALL PALESTINIAN MILITANTS IN GAZA. To my knowledge, Islamic Jihad members fall under the category of "Palestinian militants".

Also, Hamas didn't "resume" the rocket fire, because they never stopped it. :|

Did you actually follow the news during the truce period? Or are you basing your argument purely on what Jimmy Carter and Amnesty say?

the aid blockade is collective punishment and illegal.

And launching rockets and mortars into Israeli territory isn't?

There was other ethinicites in palestine before israel was created but your ignoring the facts countless reguees were created and not allowed back there.

They became refugees because they didn't accept the UN partition plan and chose to fight the Jews instead. Why should Israel let those who fought against it live in its territory?

you know you can be an arab and a jew too, cant accept the the people that israel are killing could be the decendants of the orignial inhabitants that lived there during jesus's times.

I didn't really get that part. Are you implying that the Jews killed Jewish Arabs too? It doesn't really make sense, because every Jew has a right to live in the state of Israel regardless of ethnicity.

Not everyone was kicked out of that land when the romans left.

You're right. Many Jews still lived there at that time.

these ashkanazi israeli look so out of place if you compare to other people who live in the same region.

Many of the Arabs who lived in Palestine when Israel was established actually migrated to the area just a few years prior to that. Do you consider them 'natives'?

it's like every christian deciding that they want to immigrate to israel and start their own state, not giving a toss who lives there because that was jesus' homeland, hence birthplace of christianity.

All the Jews wanted was a tiny piece of land in an area that was surrounded by Islamic nations. Couldn't the Arabs share Palestine with the Jews, or alternately move to one of the neighboring nations? After all, there is enough room for everybody.

ffaf666

Actually, let me explain international law to you. In the Geneva Convention (Which you Israelis have broken dozens of times in the last year with the use of White Phosphorous, the abducting of protected peoples, bartering people, and blockading), the nations of the world established something called High Contracting Parties. These are the parties involved in international dispute resolution and are the main parties involved in cease-fire agreements. When you have non-high contracting parties making volatile actions does not necessitate a breach of the contract. Especially when both high contract parties are in accordance with the cease-fire itself. The facts of the matter are that the major parties involved, the government of Gaza which signed the agreement in thef irst place, did not violate teh cease fire. Israel did not have any justification to perform an ongoing act of hostilities with a blockade, which was starving 1.6 million people. According to Jimmy Carter, the UN, and the BBC there was no breach of the cease-fire at that time, and the blockade itself was a humanitarian crisis. Like I said before, you should research more credible news sources before making false statements. The groups involved in the counter attack were groups involved with the Fatah, and they were not part of the high contract party of the Palestinian government itself.Vandalvideo

Like I said before - Hamas, as the ruling entity in Gaza, is responsible for ANY infraction coming from its own territory. It doesn't matter who launched the rockets, it is Hamas' responsibility to prevent them from doing so. By allowing it to happen, the Hamas government essentially violated the cease-fire deal.

Also, the deal includes all the Palestinian militia groups in Gaza, not just Hamas, so even if you can prove that Hamas has done everything it could to preserve the cease-fire, it is still a violation.

As for the blockade: as a matter of fact, it wasn't an ongoing act. Israel has reopened the crossings several times, but had to close them every time the Palestinians violated the cease-fire.

Examples:

June 26th - Israel keeps crossings closed after rocket fire

June 29th - Israel reopens the crossings

July 1st - Israel seals the crossings after rocket attack

July 4th - once again, Palestinians launch rockets, Israel closes the crossings

And it goes on and on...

The facts of the matter are that far more credible news sources than Fox News, who has a well known slant on the issue, are saying that Hamas respected the cease-fire, and it wasn't till after months of hardships at the hands of the Israelis that they actually retailliated. I mean, even the BBC is saying that Hamas condemned the attacks in June and urged both sides to work towards peace. Not to mention the attacks were apparently carried out by seperatists that had no connection to Hamas whatsoever, and it was in response to a raid in the West Bank.Vandalvideo

About the first attack: it doesn't matter who did it, the cease-fire includes all of the Palestinian militia groups in Gaza, not just Hamas. Hamas, as the ruling entity in Gaza, is responsible for any infraction that comes from its own area. The Islamic Jihad's excuse for the attack wasn't valid either, because the West Bank was not included in the cease-fire, so the IDF had every right to carry out its operations in this region.

I wouldn't say Amnesty is more credible than Fox News, especially after seeing that report which completely ignores all the rockets that were fired at Israel during the cease-fire.

Like I said before, you should search the archives of any credible news source (like BBC, whose article is surprisingly similar to the one on Fox News) for information on the events of the cease-fire.

Meanwhile, I'm going to bed since it's getting late here in Israel. I'll be back tomorrow.

there are plenty of sources of hamas being funded by israel and it makes sense, how do you think israel would look if it revealed it, just like the fact it hasnt admitted it nuclear weapons. then you go complaning that iran is starting its nuclear plan, double standards for israel all the way. and terrorism is just terrorism, no matter what the religion of the person is.ffaf666

If you have any PROOF that Israel has funded Hamas, show it.

As for the underlined sentence: I didn't justify the bombing because it was done by Jews, but because it was aimed at the British mandate ITSELF.

Fox news? Yeah they sure are credible.

Nice way to avoid my point. Are you implying that those articles are actually false? If so, you may check any other news source about the events of June 23-24-25. You'll find very similar articles.

The facts of the matter are simple. Since the inception of the ceasefire; "The ceasefire has brought enormous improvements in the quality of life in Sderot and other Israeli villages near Gaza

Their quality of life definitely improved. After all, they only got two or threerockets or mortars per day instead of fifteen during the cease-fire. Indeed, that's what I call "quality life".

, where before the ceasefire residents lived in fear of the next Palestinian rocket strike. However, nearby in the Gaza Strip the Israeli blockade remains in place and the population has so far seen few dividends from the ceasefire" http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/gaza-ceasefire-at+risk-20081105 The facts of the matter clearly point to Hamas clearly stopping firing their rockets. However, according to the UN, Israel continued to break the Geneva Conventions and kept the blockade in place. Hamas was 100% justified in their actions.Vandalvideo

Please do yourself (and me) a favor and look up the events of the cease-fire on any news site that you consider credible. Believe me, it's better than any report that contradicts reality.

now your saying that the people in the king david hotel were'nt innocent?ffaf666

Some of them could be, but you're missing the point. The attack was directed at the British mandate itself. It was a direct hit at the heart of the British mandate.

according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. This sentence makes ZERO sense. Why? Because Hamas was founded in 1987. :|

If you dont the whole history of the conflict, and events/terrorist crimes commited by zionist terror groups such as the bombing of the king david hotel then i suppose you shouldnt comment. The King David Hotel bombing is a prime example of the difference between Jewish terrorism and Islamic terrorism. The hotel, in case you didn't know, served as the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities. When was the last time a Palestinian terrorist group targeted an Israeli government building? If you want to gain independence, attack the people who deny it from you, not innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the conflict. I can't emphasize enough how much I detest Hamas, but I would have had much more respect for their cause if they didn't deliberately attack civilians.

i assume most people know the whole story of the conflict and not just the american censored version that they preach so people can assume that there is one good side and the other bad. the most dangerous devil the devil you dont know, the one you would least expect.

ffaf666

Credibility of my sources? I used former president Jimmy Carter, who by the way, was a special envoy to the region and continually worked for the peace effort. I think former president Jimmy Freaking Carter has more credibility than YOU.Vandalvideo

He definitely has more credibility than me, but is he more credible than reality?

And just to prove my equation:

Israel opens the Gaza crossings on June 23rd

Israel keeps the Gaza crossings closed on June 25th in response to Palestinian rocket fire