It appears with posts from 2005, realityman, you continue to deal with the past as well as choose to use the same militarist options that to date have accomplished nothing, but death and destruction because of the mutual retaliation now for many years,  for innocents in Israel as well as those the Palestinian territories.

While you prefer to use Klein's quotations from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, without providing other members of this forum with valid information about the members nor associations of that think tank which leaves the assumption they speak for all, I find it strange you find it so totally objectionable for another forum member to provide conflicting information related to the very fragile cease fire from other groups.

So to attempt to provide some realistic balance to this thread once again I will add a statement from an American group that rather than
promoting military options instead attempts to promote peaceful options for Israel and the U.S.: The Israel Policy Forum.  While I have no doubt you will continue with similar posts to the one that began this thread or those from 2005 posted today, perhaps others would as I, prefer some balance related to the topic of the current cease fire.  

June 26, 2008/Volume 6.25

Egypt's Mediation

By Sadie Goldman with IPF Staff

When Kassam rockets pounded into the Israeli town of Sderot on Tuesday, damaging a home, injuring two, and threatening to sabotage the Israel-Hamas cease-fire, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had just returned from discussions with President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. Today, after another Kassam fell within Israel’s border, Ofer Dekel, Olmert’s deputy in charge of Israel’s attempted prisoner exchanges, is flying to Cairo, in a signal that Israel is not giving up on the cease-fire, or the possibility of releasing Corporal Gilad Shalit.

Had Israel declared the cease-fire over, it would not have been the first Israel-Hamas truce to end in a blaze of fire. But while many expect that this cease-fire will have the same fate as previous ones, a new variable has been introduced with the potential not only to influence the current negotiating process but also regional involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Egypt.

In the last several months, Egypt has played an active and public mediating role in the deal that, besides ending the fire on southern Israel, aspires to free Shalit and to open the border crossings that have kept Gazans hemmed in and lacking basic goods.

Egypt’s role may be the major reason the cease-fire has made it this far. According to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Qabas (cited by Israel’s Keshet news service), Olmert and Mubarak agreed at their meeting in Cairo that Israel would not respond to Tuesday's Islamic Jihad attack and that Hamas would commit to making all the groups abide by the cease-fire."

For members who might be interested in a different perspective related to the cease fire the full article can be found on the link.

http://www.ipforum.org/display.cfm?id=10&Sub=12&dis=1

In addition from DEBKAfile, hardly some left wing Israeli site, there is also this update from today even though this Zionist Israeli site makes in closing the same assumption you continue to promote.

DEBKAfile - We start where the media stop

Hamas posts 1,000 sentries to block Gaza missile fire on Israel

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

June 30, 2008, 9:55 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Palestinian Hamas’ armed wing, determined to keep fellow terrorist groups from violating the ceasefire with Israel, has in the last two days deployed a string of 1,000 sentries and monitors at the missile sites of the northern Gaza towns of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya.

Oddly enough, Hamas has assumed the role of protector of Sderot against Palestinian missiles and mortars. Even harder to believe, Hamas’ hard-line “chief of staff” Ahmed Jabari has taken personal responsibility for maintaining the ceasefire.

Hamas security officers have been assigned with sticking close to every Jihad Islami and Popular Resistance Committees operative thought likely to start shooting missiles or mortars, and making sure it does not happen. Military sources report that Hamas operatives beat the daylights out of the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades operatives who launched a Qassam missile against Israel as a provocation five days after the truce Egypt brokered between Israel and Hamas went into effect on June 19.

As DEBKAfile has reported, Hamas hopes to make good use of the respite in hostilities to recuperate, rearm and regroup for the next round. To win popular standing as rulers of the Gaza Strip, the Islamist group must demonstrate how it forced Israel to lift the blockade and reopen the border crossings, which Israel shut for two days when the missiles and mortars started flying last week."

http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=5395

In closing, I've read Terry Mathis suggestion posted while I was typing and posting this response to realityman.  While Terry and I have
rarely agreed on issues related to Israel, IMHO he makes a valid point.


 

Cass, I don't think you have interpreted realityman's point correctly.  The point being made, and it is so far rock-solid, is that Hamas (or any other militant group) benefits from a cease fire FAR more than Israel does. 

Realityman is not arguing against peace, a two-state solution, nor the merits of one sides argument over the other.  Instead, he is calling into question the tactical wisdom of agreeing to a ceasefire that will surely see Hamas rearming, regrouping, and resupplying.  This is not new information, there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that Hamas will indeed use the lull in hostilities to strengthen itself so that they can engage Israeli soldiers and civilians more effectively. 

In the article you posted:


This is exactly what is expected.  Hamas DESPERATELY needs the ceasefire in order to rearm itself and catch its breath after prolonged engagement with the Israelis.  There is no mystery here - Hamas is reaping huge rewards tactically because Israel (for PR reasons) has to give them time to rearm so that they can attack again with increased effectiveness.  One has to wonder why Hamas is only now getting cranky when other militants attack Israel.  This is certainly very rare since when it comes to harming Israelis, all of these militant groups see eye-to-eye.  Hamas is only showing their displeasure now because these other groups threaten to break the ceasefire before Hamas has time to resupply and reorganize.  Once the ceasefire is over, Hamas will be perfectly OK with the attacks from other militant groups.

This is the point realityman made with this thread.  His sources are not any more biased for Israel than yours are against Israel.  Sure, there are two perspectives, but not necessarily two realities.  Both sides would probably agree that Hamas is the sole beneficiary from the ceasefire. 

Even if his sources are biased (and I don't see this as the case), there is no doubt that the underlying argument is perfectly sound.  It wouldn't matter if Al-Jazeera made the point, or the propaganda arm of Mossad - the truth is that Hamas is getting a massive break tactically and that Israel has little choice but to accept it. 

Cripto... Good job.... You've expressed my point, AND the realities on the ground very well.  You obviously "get it"... . but apparently Cass like the peaceniks of olde want to blindly rally against violence (as if that somehow gives her a higher moral ground) while ignoring the realities on the ground.  She (Cass) apparently wants to pretend others like the two of us are "warmongers", while she ofters no real-world solutions, just complaints and name calling.... The fact is that most, if not all of us want peace... SOME of us are realistic about what changes ultimately need to take place "in the real world" to ultimately achieve lasting peace, and others prefer to put their blinders on, seeing only what they want to see, and ignoring the "realities" they don't want to recognize.

Cass, at this point, is clearly trying to bend/twist the topic away from reality, onto her ideals and theories.... Instead of addressing the original topic head-on, she unsuccessfully tried to attack the source, and now is attempting to change the topic to her world "ideals".. She wants to pretend to ignore history and the realities on the ground, and to pretend in her mind that "this time will be different", though she has no meaningful evidence to share leading her or anyone else to believe so.... She didn't "get" my Gaza example because SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GET IT... And she doesn't want to hear about Hamas' agenda with agreeing to a ceasefire because SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GET IT..


So in your eyes Cass... because the ceasefire is "Egyptial brokered" this time, THIS will change Hamas' agenda of Israel's elimination??  This will lead to Hamas (and the other terrorist groups) recognizing Israel's right to exist??   And the EVIDENCE/LOGIC which brings you to this conclusion Cass??

As I stated in my last post to you Cass:

Do you, Cass, HAVE that good reason for us or anyone to believe otherwise??  A "good reason" for us to believe THIS TIME will be different from previous cease fires or the lessons learned when Israel unilaterally and volunarily withdrew from Gaza??  Simply wanting it to be different, or wanting a change of tactics, does not change the realities on the ground.

I anxiously await the day there are actually "good reasons... and legitimate reasons to believe this cease fire (or any other) is leading to a more lasting/permenant peace.  But I've yet to see such evidence.


 

What are you implying?  I have been civil for this entire discussion, and I plan on remaining so.  I think you did misunderstand realityman's point in this thread judging by how you have chosen to debate it.  I haven't called you a "Jew hater" and haven't done anything but show respect which has not been well reciprocated.  You have of course accused me of being someone who "eggs on a bully", you've implied that I am biased, and even attempt to lessen the validity of my arguments by sarcastically claiming that I should inform the Israeli government instead of waste my time on an Internet message board.  I believe you even indirectly called me (and others) out as a sycophant in one of your earlier posts.


It isn't about your source being valid, it is that you are attempting to use it to counter the claim made by the original poster.  Your source does not refute anything discussed so far.  I read it and then read it again.  It said nothing contrary to what we were discussing.  In fact, it reinforces the original claim that these ceasefires help Hamas more than Israel.  It is a rare occurance that Hamas condemns other militants for attacking Israel.  It doesn't take much effort to realize that they are condemning these actions because they desperately need the ceasefire to hold so that they can rearm.


You lost me here.  Your sources did not indicate that this had a real chance at bringing peace.  Let us be frank, there is no chance that we have seen the end of violence from Hamas.  None.  This ceasefire has ONE single purpose - to give Hamas time and freedom of movement to rearm, resupply, and regroup before engaging the Israelis again.

Plus, it is an outright lie to suggest that Israel has ANYTHING to gain by accepting the ceasefire. Israel, by agreeing to the ceasefire simply keeps from LOSING more international support and does nothing more than delay the next vote of censure at the UN.  You will not convince me that anyone has seen this ceasefire and changed their mind about Israel by saying, "maybe those Israelis aren't so bad after all." 

Name a single tactical gain that Israel will reap as a reward of this ill-fated ceasefire. 

Name a strategic gain that Israel can expect as a result of this ceasefire.

My list is blank too. 

But Hamas on the other hand - they are making out like bandits.  They have time to rearm, plan further attacks, move freely without fear of Israeli strikes on their leaders or militants, they can move their equipment, weapons, ammo, and people making it harder for Israel to find them, they can prepare defenses in case of an Israeli incursion, they can claim a tactical victory and rally their people, they can claim a strategic victory and rally their people, they can use it as excellent recruiting propaganda because "terrorism works", and they can do this all while still having at the apex of their agenda the erradication of Israel. 



I've highlighted the most important two words you have written.  We are only seeing "mutual retaliation" because no side has been given the green light to win.  The objective of war is to destroy your enemy's ability to wage it.  Israel has not been given that chance, and as such, we have seen decades of "mutual retaliation".  The international community has given Hamas every chance they have asked for in order to "live to fight another day".  When will it end?  The answer is simple, when they can no longer fight, or when Israel is destroyed.  They say it themselves.

Peace is not going to come in that part of the world until something forces a rethinking of the status quo.  Ceasefires are a particularly useful mechanism for Hamas to continue its fight without ever having to pursue meaningful and lasting peace.


I didn't condemn you.  Not once.  You are getting worked up over a perceived injustice that never occured.  Indeed, you have been much more hostile towards me than I towards you. 

I bet you'll also find that I favor peace just as much as you do.  The difference between us is that I believe it will require a military solution where you seem to believe that we can ceasefire our way to peace.  I'd be the first one to vote for instant peace without another death, but I'm also realistic and understand that we cannot expect that to ever occur. 


Let's make a friendly wager; if the ceasefire lasts and peace is the ultimate result, I will publicly acknowledge that I have been wrong for the last 15 years and that you are smarter and wiser than I could ever hope to be.  If the ceasefire breaks down, and the attacks occur again, you simply have to acknowledge that the ceasefire didn't work. 

Deal?

As I see it, if this 'cease fire' does not lead to more permanency, Israel is more than capable of adjusting to Any Hamas build up.

Israel would prefer a peace that lasts, but is also prepared to proactively guarantee it under any scenario.


... In my humble opinion , of course. 

Unfortunately, Terry, there are those, most often with no personal risk involved, who never see any option or ability to attempt to reach a solution other than a military one. It
is certainly the case advocated on this thread from the original post through the one in response to yours. The sad truth remains though the actual last time Israel was attacked by a sovereign nation was the Yom Kippur War of 1973 sans Saddam's response with a few Scuds during Desert Storm.  Still the asymetric warfare has continued with attack and retaliation since that time with little cessation and continued loss of life, though the greater loss has been among those identified as Palestinian as the warfare is, because of the weaponry that has been supplied to Israel, primarily by the U.S., far more capable of killing more while risking fewer casualties.

Because of an honest difference in opinion related to the possibility of any realistic results based on the current ceasefire there is little to be accomplished by an endless argument regarding the correctness of either position.  However, your point is well made where Israel is concerned.  There is no question there is the ability to respond with
massive retaliation. 

IMHO, there is with the thread only a focus on a singular aspect of the "big picture" ignoring the political circumstances currently existing in the Israeli government.  Olmert and Kadima are fighting for their political power base related to the scandals.  The result is the agreement to try to makes concessions through the ceasefire, as the obvious greater danger, whether actual or just internal politics along with the political relationship with the U.S. is the possibility of an attack on Iran which remains possible or even probable.

Even with the hideous attack  in Jerusalem and other issues at the Egyptian border reported widely today, there appears to be no evidence that Hamas has broken the ceasefire nor so far has there been any retaliation by Israel in Gaza or any further action by Hamas to break the ceasefire.

I would admit, as I have from the beginning of responses on this thread, the ceasefire is unquestionably a tenuous one.  I have no idea whether it has any real probability of
moving toward an ultimate overall peaceful solution, but at some point, if there is to ever be any accomplished, it must begin some where or the death and destruction will
continue as will the asymetric warfare.  Will the small steps you mentioned possibly turn into larger ones?  I have no idea, but continue to hope. Whereas, it appears those
who have posted and commented to the contrary continue to be unwilling to even consider the possibility there can be any solution than the one that has now existed for 35 years of Israel's recently celebrated 60th Anniversary since becoming a state, which you might note, I sent congratulations on a the time.

In closing I would add, my participation on this forum is not based in an attempt to debate and destroy other's opinions, but to express mine. It would appear that is an
unsatisfactory stance and when it conflicts with the poster of this thread and others who agree with the opinions stated. Apparently, it is an intolerable circumstance when one expresses an opinion contrary for the possibility of more than a singular opinion to open IMHO a more realistic and open discussion.   

Cryptomaniac and also realityman, beginning with the original post, neither of you have posted anything other than your personal opinions on this thread and argued, debated or insisted, (take your pick) that your posts amount to fact. When Hamas breaks the current ceasefire with an attack, legitimately reported by a reliable news sites, then that will become a fact.  To date that has not occurred. Until, it does, your opinions simply don't hold water.

Pedantic perhaps? Maybe it's time for some reliable definitions of fact and opinion.

fact |fakt|
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case : she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public | a body of fact.
• ( the fact that) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case : the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut.
• (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
• chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation : there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter.
PHRASES
before (or after) the fact before (or after) the committing of a crime : an accessory before the fact.
a fact of life something that must be accepted as true and unchanging, even if it is unpleasant : it is a fact of life that young girls write horrible things about people in their diaries.
facts and figures precise details.
the facts of life information about sexual functions and practices, esp. as given to children.
the fact of the matter the truth.
in ( point of) fact used to emphasize the truth of an assertion, esp. one contrary to what might be expected or what has been asserted : Aunt Madeline isn't in fact an aunt but a more distant relative.
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere ‘do.’ The original sense was [an act or feat,] later [bad deed, a crime,] surviving in the phrase before (or after) the fact. The earliest of the current senses ( [truth, reality] ) dates from the late 16th cent.

opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge : I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance | that, in my opinion, is dead right.
• the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing : the changing climate of opinion.
• ( opinion of) an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something : I had a higher opinion of myself than I deserved.
• a formal statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter : seeking a second opinion from a specialist.
• Law a formal statement of reasons for a judgment given.
• Law a lawyer's advice on the merits of a case.
PHRASES
be of the opinion that believe or maintain that : economists are of the opinion that the economy could contract.
a matter of opinion something not capable of being proven either way.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin opinio(n-), from the stem of opinari ‘think, believe.’
THE RIGHT WORD
When you give your opinion on something, you offer a conclusion or a judgment that, although it may be open to question, seems true or probable to you at the time (: she was known for her strong opinions on women in the workplace).
A view is an opinion that is affected by your personal feelings or biases (: his views on life were essentially optimistic), while a sentiment is a more or less settled opinion that may still be colored by emotion (: her sentiments on aging were shared by many other women approaching fifty).
A belief differs from an opinion or a view in that it is not necessarily the creation of the person who holds it; the emphasis here is on the mental acceptance of an idea, a proposition, or a doctrine and on the assurance of its truth (: religious beliefs; his belief in the power of the body to heal itself).
A conviction is a firmly held and unshakable belief whose truth is not doubted (: she could not be swayed in her convictions), while a persuasion (in this sense) is a strong belief that is unshakable because you want to believe that it's true rather than because there is evidence proving it so (: she was of the persuasion that he was innocent).

Since you both insist your opinions, actually based on supposition are the only possible correct possibility, while being pedantic,  might as well take the time to define debate as well.

debate |diˈbāt|
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
• an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices.
verb [ trans. ]
argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated.
• [with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her.
PHRASES
be open to debate be unproven; require further discussion.
under debate being discussed or disputed.
DERIVATIVES
debater |dəˈbeɪdər| |diˈbeɪdər| noun
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin dis- (expressing reversal) + battere ‘to fight.’

What we have between thee and me is a conflict of nothing more than opinion.  One apparently you both find intolerable.

"Don't take it personally if we don't share your opinion.  Instead, show us where we have it wrong.  Show us why we have missed the point or why our conclusions are flawed." Quote by Cryptomaniac.

To date your conclusions are nothing, but supposition, based on your shared opinions.  It takes more than the agreement of a few individuals on an internet forum to make a fact. In the end, your opinion could well become
fact. At no point in this discussion have I suggested otherwise.  Ceasefires in the past have been broken. This one
may also be broken with the results you predict, only once that action takes place your statements only remain
your opinions, unquestionably, influenced by your more than obvious biases.

If and when such an attack takes place and confirmed as I have noted, I will be the first to note your opinions have
indeed become fact.

 

Cryptomaniac, having examined and critiqued my posts, a factor as a member of this forum when expressing opinion, I believe I have the same rights you or any other member has so long as they remain within the established rules,  I await the proof your statements related to the issue. To date your statements relate only to the past
rather than the present.

I've stated if Hamas breaks the ceasefire, I will be the first to note so.  Apparently one more unsatisfactory response.  It is not possible to prove opi