Livni: Hamas can end Gaza siege in minute's time

[oberliner]

Hamas can change the situation in Gaza in a minute, if they would only stop the terrorism. Hamas knows this and it is something that the Palestinian residents need to understand," said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni following her meeting with visiting Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen in Jerusalem on Monday afternoon.

Verhagen also met with Prime Minster Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

This is the first time Livni has addressed the siege Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip, which prompted fierce international condemnation.

"We are working to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Israel's policy has never been to punish the civilian population for the behavior of its leadership – Israel is the only country in the world that supplies electricity to terror groups which in turn fire rockets at it," said Livni.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3497009,00.html

[Vegasaurus]

1. Exactly true

What would the Arab league do for Israel if the tables were turned? An embargo etc. Oh yes, they have already done that.

What other country is expected to help their enemy? It's absurd.

If the Gazans are starving, their leadership should control the rocket fire. It's really very easy.

[Tom Joad]

2. quoting the most extremist members of the Olmert regime is not helpful at this time

It is denying the policies of collective punishment that exist today, imposed by that same regime.

Livni comes from a family of terrorists, and she continues that tradition today by supporting the collective punishment of the people of Gaza. Here she is openly saying that Israel has the power to end the catastrophe "in a minute's time" if they so choose, clearly showing that the Israeli regime is using the people of Gaza as mere pawns to sacrifice if Israel's political demands are not met.

I think it tragic to deny crimes against people. It is wrong when the crimes took place 60 years ago or are taking place today.

your views may differ.

[Vegasaurus]

3. No Tom

It is Hamas who is using the people of Gaza as pawns. They could stop the seige in a moment, and we all know it. They just refuse, and that's pretty sick, considering the consequences.

[Tom Joad]

4. Israel is doing this to extract political consessions

that is a war crime. I don't support war crimes.
we disagree on this issue.

[msmcghee]

5. Pretty damned sick I'd say.

Giving up the murder of innocent children in their classrooms with high explosives from the sky = a political concession.

Is that in the ISM handbook?

[Tom Joad]

6. unlike your hero Pipes, ISM opposes all attacks against civilians

Palestinian and Israeli.

Pipes never saw a war he didn't like.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Don't link me with Pipes

I'm just saying that Hamas is using its citizens as pawns. I stand by that point of view, and yes, we may disagree, but if Hamas cared more about the citizens, than the rockets, there would be no seige. It's very simple, as I said.

[msmcghee]

8. I see a lot of empty words in this forum.

A lot of them come from your posts.

Let's see some links to where Pipes advocates attacks against civilians.

BTW - Pipes is not my hero. Show me a link to where I ever said anything like that. Although I think he makes a good deal of sense when discussing the dangers of Islamism to the west.

[Tom Joad]

12. Pipes supported arming saddam hussain. that was just insane.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. So do I and yr sig line is where some are eminating from...

According to you Noam Chomsky is an antisemite. Either you haven't read anything of his or that's one ultra bizarre definition of antisemitism that's being used...

Let's see some links to where Chomsky has made antisemitic statements...

[msmcghee]

18. I'll let you know when your agreement on that becomes . .

. . a concern for me. In the meantime just think of it as a meme spreading device which is its intended purpose.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. You could possibly stop spreading lies about Chomsky...

It's clear that you have nothing to back up such stupid accusations and even more clear that you haven't even bothered reading Chomsky before trotting out bullshit about him...

[msmcghee]

20. It looks like my meme spreading device . .

. . is doing its job. Actually it's because I've read Chomsky and viewed some of his talks that I have that opinion. I think he's over-rated in the science area also.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. What it looks like is yr bullshit accusation in yr sig line has been busted...

It's beyond hypocrisy to go on and on and on in thread after thread with yr insistance that you haven't seen how Pipes is a bigot, and then you turn around and accuse Chomsky of bigotry and REFUSE to provide anything to back up yr accusations...

So, I'll give you another chance. What comments has he made to cause you to accuse him of antisemitism?

Yeah, of course he must be over-rated when it comes to science. If only he would babble a bit about 'brain science', then he could be taken more seriously! ;)

[msmcghee]

23. And it's amazing to me that a . .

. . linguist could write so poorly.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Yr in no position to judge anyone's writing skills...

Nor whether someone is bigoted or not...

[msmcghee]

25. What's your position here?

Classroom monitor?

:rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

27. You've gotta try a lot harder with yr insults....

A roomful of five year olds could do better and be more original...

And you still haven't attempted to explain or link to comments of Chomsky's that you say are antisemitic, so the hypocrisy in you constantly demanding that people provide you links to Pipe's bigotry is overwhelming. In the world of normal people who display an intelligence level slightly higher than that of a putrifying days-old bit of roadkill basking in the sun, it doesn't make someone a classroom monitor to point out the bleeding obvious to you...

[LeftishBrit]

29. A selfish request to EVERYONE

I've been hesitating about this request for a while, but:

I really wish people would stop bringing Chomsky into the issue, except when actual speeches and articles by him are presented. It makes me feel uncomfortable on a personal level. Chomsky is a key figure in one of my main areas of research (language development) and I respect his contributions enormously, and they have influenced aspects of my work. He also happens to be a personal friend of some friends of my family, though I don't know him personally. I have read many of his political writings; agree with some and disagree with others; and don't consider him to be an antisemite, though it is true that he has sometimes condoned people whom I consider antisemitic on 'freedom of speech grounds' (for the record, I disagreed with him on this). And it does make me uncomfortable when people use avatars to attack him as an antisemite - And note: it ALSO makes me uncomfortable when people use that Chavez avatar, as he is noted for so much more than being endorsed by Chavez, and that totally trivializes his work and makes him look like simply a 'Chavez-groupie'.

I realize that this request is selfish, as no one else on the forum (probably) has the same personal concerns in the matter that I do. And I'm not a mod, and it's presumably not against the rules. So this isn't an order, just a request. And to clarify: this doesn't mean I would wish to stifle debate about his work or opinions, or even stop anyone calling him antisemitic as part of a discussion of his views. It's just all these anti-Chomsky and those Chavez 'n Chomsky avatars that are getting to me a bit!

[msmcghee]

39. Sorry to offend. But . .

. . this is a peculiar medium for discussion. Attacks are mounted in various ways that skirt the rules.

For example, we are prohibited from using graphics because of the inflammatory nature of some images. Yet some people put large inflammatory images in their sig line - that then appear in every post. No one complains and the mods say nothing.

My response was to combat that form of skirting the spirit of the rules in my own sig line - although I did not put up a large graphic of my message - just a few words. The things I said about Chomsky were said somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

I do consider Chomsky somewhat of an antisemite - but my characterization of such things is very inexact as all forms of hatred are emotions that can not be defined in intellectual terms. I also think he's a terrible writer. Although I said he wasn't a good scientist I really have no ability to judge that so please disregard my opinion. (You absolutely do have the ability to judge that.) In any case my intention was not to offend you and I have removed my sig line.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Thanks!

Incidentally, the one thing I *do* agree on here, is that he's a rather bad and confusing writer - like almost every linguist I've ever come across. I think that Steven Pinker is the one exception to that rule - and I disagree with quite a few of Pinker's views about psychology as a whole.

However, this is not the 'Psychologists and Linguists Forum', so I will get back to on-topic posts.

[msmcghee]

41. We agree again.

I also find Pinker much easier to follow. And I also find much to disagree with in his views. :thumbsup:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. "the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning."

What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning.

Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer this week.

A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the incursions into Gaza, the "targeted" assassinations and the blockade.

Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal?

Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas, directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government refuses to do.

Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

In simple and blunt words: the government sacrifices the fate of the Sderot population on the altar of a hopeless principle. It is more important for the government to boycott Hamas - because it is now the spearhead of Palestinian resistance - than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot. All the media cooperate with this pretence.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1201278309/
Uri Avnery

[Vegasaurus]

31. Hamas's ceasefire offers means nothing

They can't even control their own "military wing", much less the IJ, or any of the other splinter terrorist groups.

The last "ceasefire" was a joke. So Hamas claimed they weren't firing rockets. Big shit. The other terrorists continued and Hamas did nothing to stop them.

If Hamas wanted a REAL ceasefire, they would show that they could control the militants, including those from their own party. They have yet to show that they care to do this, so Israel is right to ignore this pathetic "offer".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. Because the great and powerful Veggie says so? nt

[Vegasaurus]

46. Has nothing to do with what I say

but what history has proven,

Nice strawman there.

[KatzManDu]

51. Wow! Asking people to end terrorist attacks is a war crime?

[LeftishBrit]

9. Well...

she may or may not be sincere. But why not take her at her word; stop the terrorist attacks inasmuch as the Gaza government can (some might happen anyway due to groups beyond the government's control; but many are clearly encouraged or permitted by the government); and see what happens.

Gaza has nothing to lose through a ceasefire, and potentially a lot to gain. At worst, if the Israeli government does not keep its word, the public relations will be far more on the side of Gaza than if their government is just seen as obstructionist and worse. I've seen this argument frequently used with regard to the Israeli government inviting Hamas to negotiations - I've used it myself, I'm sure - so why not even *consider* applying it the other way about?

That is the pragmatic side. The moral side is that no one, including Hamas, should be attacking civilians anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope liberals can all agree on that?

And as I hope you know, I am about as far from being a Pipes fan as you can get!!!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. It's so interesting though

that at the end of the day, most liberals are quite comfy with the status quo of long-term violence against Palestinian civilians.

There may be protestations of "no, I don't support that!" but the more I post here, but more hopeless I become. Really, if liberals require Palestinians to relinquish everything up front, to recognize Israel's existence, to change their charters, to recongize Israel as a Jewish state, to give up the right to return, to be satisfied with a few cantons... then they DO support the status quo.

LB, do you honestly believe the current gov't of Israel has any intention of negotiating a just peace that would be acceptable to palestinians?

[LeftishBrit]

11. No...

at least I'm not. If I liked the status quo, I wouldn't be posting here.

An independent Palestinian state would not be the 'status quo' - and I do strongly support that. As I said elsewhere, I do support the right of return for actual refugees and their immediate families; I just don't think it can be made hereditary. I do support compensation for all. As for recognition of Israel - I don't honestly see how ANY countries can have a peace treaty which doesn't include the recognition of each country's right to exist.

'LB, do you honestly believe the current gov't of Israel has any intention of negotiating a just peace that would be acceptable to palestinians?'

I don't know. Especially as the current government may not be long in office, and a LOT depends on who replaces them. But why not try to find out? If not, you're back where you started - no worse off, and with better public relations. If so, then you're way ahead!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. It's the same old song and dance.

When the pressure gets even remotely tough, the gov't cracks and we're back to square one.

Do you think the next elections will bring a more progressive gov't or an even more repressive gov't?

I don't think there is any way Hamas or the people of Palestine will be starved into a one-way submission. How far is Israel willing to go?

[LeftishBrit]

33. I don't know what the elections will bring...

However, I honestly think that the more violent acts Hamas causes or permits, the greater the chance that Nutty will get elected in Israel. I wish this wasn't the case; but fear tends to make people vote in a more right-wing direction.

If I was there, I'd vote for Meretz-Yachad. I certainly hope that the next government is more progressive, rather than the reverse.

[oberliner]

14. Israeli and Palestinian national narratives must make room for the other

From an article by Palestinian-American, Rami Khouri:

In this case, Israeli and Palestinian national narratives must make room for the other, if either wishes to be acknowledged and legitimized. Mutual denial will only get us to where we are today -- perpetual warfare, and chronic mutual national rejection.

Israel ultimately must recognize the crimes it and others committed against the Palestinians, and the unstable conditions created by Palestinian national statelessness must be redressed by statehood and a just, negotiated resolution of the refugee issue. Israel, in the same vein, ultimately must be recognized as a state of the Jewish people, as it defines itself, but this can only be formally done as part and consequence of serious negotiations for a comprehensive, permanent peace that resolves fairly the Palestinian national shattering.

Both sides would do well to make these positions crystal clear, so that a Jewish Israel and a reconstituted, healed, wholesome Palestinian state and national community can live normal lives, side-by-side, with equal rights.

http://www.ramikhouri.com/

My comment:

There needs to be movement on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians if we are going to ever see an end to the status quo.

[Vegasaurus]

15. I agree with this article

But it takes understanding and compromise on both sides, not the the Jewish Israel will go away, or that the Arab Palestine will go away, or that their collected histories do not require mutual understanding.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Now, that was well-said...

I don't find I agree with you on much, but I do when it comes to yr thoughts on this...

[LeftishBrit]

32. Great article!

I fully agree with what Khouri is saying.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

35. He doesn't insist on anything; he wants the UNSC to condemn the rocket attacks

Which they seem likely to do anyway.

'Obomba' - whom does he want to bomb? I haven't seen him recommending that the Palestinians or Iraqis or anyone else should be bombed.

(And by the way I don't specifically support Obama or any candidate. I just think that any Dem is going to be better than any Republican.)

[Tom Joad]

42. Obama supports the Israeli illegal siege on Gaza.

A crime against humanity. (What other conclusion can one come to if he says "Israel was forced" to do this.)
Obama supports the continued occupation of Iraq, a war based on lies, and an illegal war of aggression.
Refuses to call for a full and complete withdrawal of all US forces and contract workers.
obama has said he would consider using military action against Iran and Pakistan.

This does not mean that he has no differences with his republican friends, he would probably be better than bush. I am just saying that for those of us who hope for real progress for peace and justice, he falls wayyyy short.

[LeftishBrit]

44. Whom do you want to see as president?

[Tom Joad]

49. Arundhati Roy.

[Tom Joad]

26. they did partially end it with a few well placed devices in the wall Israel built at the border

it didn't take long.

[bemildred]

28. Well, I expect Ms Livni could end it in a minute too.

But it seems Hamas found a way to end it a minute as well.

[LeftishBrit]

34. The Egyptians could also have ended it in a minute...

and it seems that Hamas made sure that they did (at least temporarily).

[bemildred]

36. Egypt does not consider it "their problem".

Since they did not occupy and colonize the place for the last 40 years, Egypt has an excellent argument. Gaza is not an asset for anyone at this point, so if Israel wants to get rid of it, it's going to have to fix it up and make it independent first, or else figure out what to do with all those people.

[Vegasaurus]

37. Egypt only occupied it for 20

but who's counting?

They didn't want to annex Gaza or offer citizenship to its citizens either, even when Israel gave up the Sinai.

[bemildred]

38. The issue was who claimed authority there most recently.

Thus, who made the present mess. Responsibility and authority go together, don't you agree?

Historically, the place has been a crossroads and political playground for millenia.

[Tom Joad]

45. this whole premise of the siege is that

the people under occupation can end their suffering by just ending all resistance. In the meantime, the whole population is put at risk.

Now, where has that been used before??

Where is Israel getting its models for quashing resistance that stems from a brutal occupation and siege?

[Vegasaurus]

47. I don't know Tom

Where has that been used before?

[Tom Joad]

48. Not by anyone that should be an acceptable model

you oppose such war crimes, correct?

[Vegasaurus]

50. I opposed terrorism too

also in direct violation of international law

[Tom Joad]

52. oh good, so you oppose the terroristic policies of the Israeli regime

that punish a whole civilian population, as well as any attacks against civilians in Israel. So we do agree.

[Vegasaurus]

53. I don't agree with a single word you say Tom

Your hatred is so deep that we couldn't see eye to eye if we tried.

[Tom Joad]

54. not even joining me in opposing attacks against Israeli civilians?

:shrug:

Not a single word?

[Vegasaurus]

55. Have you opposed those recently?

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

56. of course, in the post you said you did not agree with a single word

was it difficult for you to read? you know your browser can adjust the font size, if that would help.

Reread post # 52. I asked if you agreed with me in opposing any attacks against civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian. You said you did not agree with a single word i said.

[Vegasaurus]

57. Color me blind; I think I should get reading glasses soon

Yes, I do oppose all civilian attacks, from both sides.

No, I don't think Israelis are terrorists, since they are not targetting civilian population with rockets, suicide bombers, border crossing attacks, etc.