Israeli/Palestinian Ceasefire. What does it really mean? - Page 3




View Poll Results :Okay, so What do you think it all means? How much hope is there?
Accomplishes nothing at all. Nothing changes. 0 0%
Isn't likely to work, but you always hope. 12 66.67%
I have no idea. 4 22.22%
Pretty sure this is the start of peace. 2 11.11%
This is it!! Israel and Palestine will make permanent peace!! No question about it!! 0 0%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
February 9th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
PLO does not want Hammas to lay down it's weapons, because they want to use it like the stick in the stick and carrot deal...what they want is to keep Hammas from shooting now, but to be able to unleash it if Israel dose not accept their demands. This has been this way since the Oslo agrremant, and it's no diffrent now. Until they stop this policy, the peace is a good distance away.
The definition of insanity: "Repeating exactly the same behavior over and over, but expecting different results." Are the Palestinians going to one day learn that, "Give us what we want or we will murder your people!" never has accomplished anything for them and never will??

You would think that they would have learned by now that Hamas isn't a good tool. It's stated purpose is to destroy Israel with no compromise. I suppose that if somebody could manage to change the mission of Hamas, that might be a blessing in disguise. The reality of the matter is that the PLO isn't going to be able to use them. Hamas is going to do everthing in its power to sabotage any peace proposal, just like they always have. The PLO is problematic enough without bothering to try to bend Hamas to do something that (in Hamas view of things) would compromise their primary mission.

I can certainly understand that the Palestinians are going to have a hard time trusting the Israelis. I think it is could lead them to unwittingly destroy a future that sees better days for Palestinians. By the way, Israel needs to curb their own extremists and they also need to behave themselves. I am more willing to believe that Israel will do it. Palestine needs to demonstrate that their leadership is willing to compromise and more importantly keep their promises.
February 9th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
Just an offtoppic about Israeli extremists: we are trying to curb them, but there are 200,000 and more settelers and the world needs to understand that Israel is risking Civil War about the Disengagement Plan...
February 9th, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
Sadly I don't see anything changing. The Israeli military is too brutal (they have to be) and the Palestinians terrorist groups are too engulfed in religion and the destruction of the jews. I think the new Palestinian leader will be assassinated if he gets too close to making peace with Israel. Its a never ending cycle of violence and all it would take to break the ceasefire is 1 angry person.
--
Boots
February 9th, 2005  
rocco
 
lol why are arabs in israel called citizens, and israelis in israel called settlers? its a propoganda term, just like the word "palestinian"... but for peace... might aswell accept that arabs need a second palestine... i guess 70% percent of the region isnt eneugh for them, neither is 99% + of the whole middle east...

ask yourself one thing, will hamas stop killing after israel gives back land? remember the PLO also controls its own terrorist groups, and it is well funded by arabs and europe. the terrorists are well funded, trained and have the support ala sympathy of the majority of the people. and they can make terrorism work well for them...

here is a brief example. back in 1997, barak offered arafat all the land israel gained in a defencsive war from egypt and jordan (around this time "palestinians" came to existence), arafat declined and walked out of the peace talks without even a counter offer... the world turned against the palestinians for this in opinion... so arafat just bombed resturants and little children, killed a few grannies, for the sole purpose of a response from israel, who contrary to north eastern european and french belief HAD to respond, its response was "considered" heavy, and thus media turned against israel, which in conclusion shows that terrorism can be used easily and pali's will be rewarded for it.
February 10th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
that one side of a view

true, it may seem like that

but in any cases isralies are pretty overagressive in this situation, i know the theory themost powerful makes the lord but this is ridigolous

according the history, it was arabs who attacked isralies in the first place, now its reversed

well, i cant blame palis for their reaction, their land was taken and their nationlity shattered, if i was a pali i would strap an ak on myself anytime

( no flaming or bashing intended) :P
February 10th, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA
that one side of a view

true, it may seem like that

but in any cases isralies are pretty overagressive in this situation, i know the theory themost powerful makes the lord but this is ridigolous

according the history, it was arabs who attacked isralies in the first place, now its reversed

well, i cant blame palis for their reaction, their land was taken and their nationlity shattered, if i was a pali i would strap an ak on myself anytime

( no flaming or bashing intended) :P
First of all no they aren't being too aggressive... The Palestinians are attacking THEM, not the other way around. If America and Israel switched places I doubt the country of Palestine would still exist, I respect their controlled brutalness. I doubt American soldiers would have as much patience if they seen their children and grandparents getting blown up by cowards.
February 10th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
uhh dude, it takes 2 to create a conflict, both isreal and the palis are attacking each other.
February 10th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
As some of you might already know, my views are pro-Isreali.
I voted for the pretty sure it's the right time, because I tend to be lightly optimist.
I believe the core point is that the Israelis now seems to have a different opinion of Abu Mazen than they had of Arafat.
Yasser had always been a warrior, and an ambiguous cookie.
He spoke English to the world and arab to his people, therefore making it hard for the world to trust him.
Abu Mazen at Sharm and Sheik talks spoke Hebrew to Sharon, he didn't wear a uniform.
He's always been critical of the second intifadeh.
Sherman's post is very interesting though, and the PA using Hamas as a stick is a strong point of view to take into account.
February 10th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
I think alot of posters here need to check some history books about the middle east...
February 10th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
I think alot of posters here need to check some history books about the middle east...
You're talking about me, man?