Comments on: Truce or Truth?

By: A_t

A_t — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:04:37 +0000

Why do you even bother commenting, if you think arabs & muslims are, by culture, dishonest & untrustworthy?

What’s your solution then? Clearly *any* truce or agreement in your eyes would be suspect… so why not just support the hardline Zionist “drive them into the sea” or the ridiculous coulter “invade & convert them to christianity” rubbish?

& err.. plenty of palestinians seem very willing to recognise the state of Israel etc…. yes, the hardliners & religious fanatics haven’t, but then have the Jewish ones given up on their dream of a larger Israel & stated this in public? Have they recognised the right of the Palestinians to their own nation? I don’t think so.

Each side has it’s extremists, but both sides also have large populations who are sick of the fighting & killing, and each side has some moderate leaders. Demonising Arabs doesn’t help anyone. Think about what you’re saying.

By: David Mercer

David Mercer — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:14:29 +0000

Sharon is at least starting to make motion on getting the settlements removed. I haven’t seen any comparable good faith, along the lines of “ok, we’ll drop the desire to destroy Israel” by the Palestineans. The only reason Islamic Jihad and Hamas agreed to a cease fire was because they could honorably (in the twisted system of honor in Araby) declare a hudna. Any other cease fire would have caused them to lose face.

This is not a culture that has a tradition of good faith negotiations, that is a fairly foreign concept in that part of the world.

By: A_t

A_t — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:39:41 +0000

“If you detect a hint of “I told you so,” well, it’s only because we did. Got a problem with that? Take it up with the people who keep proving us right.”

…so that’ll be the uncompromising fundamentalists on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, right? The ones who want the other parties utterly kicked out of the land. Both Sharon and Arafat are scheming old bastards, with religious crazies to keep an eye on.

As far as I recall (& i don’t want to get into a “it’s their fault” game), it was the Israelis who first broke the truce by assassinating, or attempting to assassinate, a Hamas leader…

By: Sage

Sage — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 20:49:52 +0000

No one here is “pleased” by the situation at all. We’re disgusted by the fact that there are people in the world so stupid as to call the current situation a genuine truce, while others are still getting shot and maimed. It’s pretty simple, really.

If you detect a hint of “I told you so,” well, it’s only because we did. Got a problem with that? Take it up with the people who keep proving us right.

By: T. Hartin

T. Hartin — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:52:40 +0000

A_t has something of a point that the commentary on the Israeli truce sounds like the carping from the quagmiristas about Iraq. However, there are some fundamental differences.

In Iraq, the quagmiristas are searching for shreds of credibility after having got every objection to the war wrong. In Israel, the skeptics are making the safe bet that they can add this failed truce to the long list of failed truces that they rightly predicted in the past. Skepticism about Palestinian motives and abilities has a long and honorable history of being correct. The quagmiristas have rather the opposite history.

Further, we know from experience that the Palestinian terror machine draws strength from truces and concessions. This gives every reason to oppose truces and concessions until the terror machine is terminated. Opposition to concessions and truces until the terror machine is ended is the road to peace. Opposition to the American occupation of Iraq is the road to more misery and terror.

By: A_t

A_t — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:48:03 +0000

Man… your tones are almost like “i’ll be pleased if/when the truce is broken”… you sick bastards.

This is looking more hopeful than anything has for a while, & all you can do is hope your small-minded views on barbaric arabs/muslims can be confirmed so you can crow some more. Yes, it may all fall apart, but there’s a chance it won’t. And don’t give me this “surprise surprise” rubbish; both sides keep acting in provocative ways.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:23:40 +0000

Mohammad had forged a hudna with the people of Mecca. We all know what happened to the city. Mohammad kept his word and Mecca is now a tiny independent democratic nation living in peace with the Muslim Arab world. Or something like that.

By: David Mercer

David Mercer — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:14:53 +0000

The Palestineans, or at the very least Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have specifically declared hudna, a truce particularly to rest and rearm in Arabic.

Which is why no one on the Israeli blogs is holding their breath waiting for it to be broken.

By: mike van winkle

mike van winkle — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:45:53 +0000

I think there little evidence yet that the truce has collapsed. This could very likely be an isolated gunman angry about the truce. While we should hold the terrorists to their word, we shouldn’t necessarily assume that they control everyone.

Tomorrow? Well, we’ll just have to see.

By: S. Weasel

S. Weasel — Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:35:13 +0000

My local headline radio began the hour with the news that “bullets were flying” in Israel today. As though bullets were a sort of guiltless natural phenomenon, like ducks. Had to listen right through to find out that the all the bullets were flying from Palestinians toward Israelis.

By: Sage

Sage — Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:45:16 +0000

It’s as simple as blowing up a bus and not taking credit for it. Did anyone NOT see this coming?

By: betamax

betamax — Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:54:42 +0000

For tomorrow’s festivities I would like to suggest a “Told-You-So” song and dance…
(Raise your hand if you’re suprised….anyone?…..anyone?……)

max

p.s. thank you for this weblog!