this is just stupid saying hamas is using civlians as shields, israel has many drones and wheres the footage. ffaf666

There you go:

Human Shields - Hamas in action

Hamas human shields

Hamas using children as human shield

Next time you reply, actually check out the contents of the post. The UN representative debunked the lie you are making. Thank youMehdi1984

How was that "debunked"? All she said was that the Palestinian population puts the blame on Israel, not on Hamas, and that it is difficult to know who started what.

It really isn't that surprising that the Palestinians think that way, because Hamas always puts the blame on Israel. For example, on June 25th Israel decided not to open the crossings, and Hamas claimed that it was a violation of the cease-fire. What they "forgot" to tell their people was that a few rockets were launched into Israel a day earlier.

I find it quite funny that you are referring to my argument as a "lie" even though I use FACTS to make my point. If you don't believe me, maybe you should check out the archives at any credible news site and look up what happened on June 24th, 2008. I find actual news articles much more credible than a Youtube video whose title contradicts its content.

You're making things up. Israel definitely said it was not interested in the conditions of the ceasefire.

Israel Broke the cease-fire.....

PROOF (C-SPAN): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOFXL62zw0

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet - high with election fever and eager to appear tough - rejected these terms.

Mehdi1984

Like I said, Israel had no reason to accept Hamas' offer of another cease-fire, because the first one was violated by Hamas time and time again. The cycle of *Israel opens the crossings - Hamas launches rockets at Israel - Israel retaliates and closes the crossings* went on for months.

If the writer you quoted thinks this is due to "election fever", I'm fine with it. But I think this is more due to past experience.

Edit: Alright, I'm out. It's 3:00 AM right now where I live. I'll be back tomorrow if this thread is still alive.

The main bylaw of the actual ceasefire was a bilateral agreement. It was twofold; Palestine will cease rocket launches IF Israel lifts the Blockade. Israel started to life the blockade, but did not fully do so. This broke the bylaws. Palestine was not obligated to follow the ceasefire since Israel broke the bylaws. Israel didn't lift the blockade, mortar attacks commenced. It is Israel's doing.Vandalvideo

According to my source, you are wrong. I'd give you a link to it, but I doubt that you can read Hebrew. So, I guess this can only be settled if you provide me with a link that supports your argument.

Exactly. Hamas said very clearly it wanted to continue the ceasefire with improved conditions. (a) End to the blockade AND (b) they wanted Israel to stop assaulted the West Bank Israel refused, and instead clearly wanted to incite Hamas so that Israel could in the future take over Gaza. It's quite clear. Israel wants ALL of what they call "Greater Israel", and it doesn't matter if it requires them to use genocide to do so.Mehdi1984

Israel would have considered a cease-fire with these conditions if Hamas hadn't violated the original cease-fire so many times.

Hamas had openly agreed to the ceasefire on the condition that the blockade ended. That was the main bylaw. The blockade did not end, so the rocket fire continued. It isn't hard to understand.Vandalvideo

The cease-fire agreement included two stages:

Stage 1- A complete cease-fire from all sides: the IDF, Hamas, and all other Palestinian militia groups.

Stage 2- IF the Palestinians DON'T attack Israelis in ANY way for a few days, THEN Israel should open the passages.

Since the Palestinians launched rockets at Israel a few days after the cease-fire had begun and thus violated the agreement, Israel had no reason to move on to stage 2.

haha. The point of the cease fire was for Israel to stop the blockade. If after almost a week they hadn't held up their end of the bargain, why should hamas hold up theirs?Mr_sprinkles

The cease-fire agreement basically says that if Hamas doesn't commit any hostile activity against Israelis for a few days, then Israel should end the blockade. Since this condition has not been met, Israel had no reason to do so.

Did you even bother reading the link I provided? June is BEFORE August, and there was another ceasefire with the intention of relieving the blockade. The blockade was not relieved, they kept firing rockets.Vandalvideo

Another cease-fire? What are you talking about? Even your article says that the cease-fire began in June.

The ceasefire was intended to relieve the blockade on Gaza strip. Why the crap should they stop shooting rockets if Israel didn't fulfill the bylaws of the freaking agreement? Fact; There was a ceasefire in place which was SUPPOSED to end the blockade. Fact; Israel did not end the blockade. Fact; Because Israel did not end it, rocket fire kept going. And incase you're not good with calendars, August comes after june.Vandalvideo

Actually, Hamas was the first to break the cease-fire. On June 24th (the sixth day of the cease-fire), a mortar and three Qassam rockets were fired towards southern Israel, and on the next day Israel decided not to open the passages.

[QUOTE="-gtspectre-"][QUOTE="Hewkii"] especially in the context that you responded.killtactics

I meant that not every ethnic\religious group feels that it needs an independent state. The Jews were persecuted for centuries in almost every country they lived in. Then the Holocaust came, and many Jews understood that if they want their people and their religion to survive through later generations, they have to form a Jewish state.

Like I said before, not every religious\ethnic group needs an independent state. You have to look at each case individually. I don't remember saying that EVERY SINGLE ETHNIC\RELIGIOUS GROUP IN THE WORLD should have its own country, and if I did say that, it is probably due to lack of sleep hours, so please erase it from your mind.

And how exactly isn't Israel a country? I didn't get that part.