BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

‘The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary’

11 comments on ‘The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary’

‘The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary’
: Someone in my comments, below, asked what I think about Israel and Palestine. Not as if the world could care but since he asked: This is more than their war; it is victimizing most of the world. If the U.N. had any balls and knew what it was supposed to be good for, it would occupy Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza and force a ceasefire on them all until they settled their damned fight.

Otherwise, there will be no ceasefire and no peace.

Abdul Aziz el-Rantissi told IslamOnline.net, “The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary.

11 responses to “‘The word ceasefire is not in our dictionary’”

  1. Eli, jerusalem Avatar
    Eli, jerusalem

    oh UN, sure.
    Hamas has a long-term strategic game plan for an
    Islamic creation of Palestine some time around
    2022, 2023, based on regime change, demographic
    changes, Islamic revolution in Jordan and Egypt,
    Israelis being divided and life after Yasser Arafat.
    Hamas does not need a specific Israeli operation
    as an excuse to act. Its charter, first published in
    1988, clearly states that it is committed to an
    extended struggle against Israel and its replacement
    with an Islamic Palestinian state “from the
    Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.”
    see the rest here
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/14/MN280674.DTL

  2. Moira Avatar
    Moira

    I agree with Eli, Jeff. When Hamas says it will fight until the occupation ends, they mean the Israeli “occupation” of Tel Aviv, Haifa, and every other inch of land in the state of Israel. They won’t be satisfied if Israelis simply leave the West Bank and Gaza and recede behind the borders granted to Israel by the UN. That’s why they won’t budge on the issue of the right of millions of Palestinians to return to their homelands in Israel proper; within a generation or two the population of Israel would be dominated by Arabs and the state of Israel would no longer exist as a Jewish state, but would effectively become part of greater Palestine.
    George Bush is correct in saying the problem is Hamas. Flooding the area with UN peacekeepers would have no effect because Hamas does not want to settle the fight; Hamas wants Jews out of the Middle East.

  3. rossi Avatar
    rossi

    ive had quite a bit to say about this lately on my site
    and i must say i have lost all will
    or ability to be PC
    anymore
    you know no matter how you come at this
    and from what side
    no matter who you are
    there is one huge blazing fact that rises clear
    the israelis
    do not target innocents
    they do not blow up commuter buses
    school buses
    when they kill
    they target terrorists
    militants
    when innocents die
    it is not on purpose
    it is by accident
    hamas
    and all the palestinian fundamentalist
    terrorists
    purposely target innocent lives
    they pack their bombs with nails
    anything to make the most destruction
    with all the effort this country
    america.. has made to stop terror
    why does it not stop hamas
    why does it not
    notice the links between hamas
    and alqueda?
    if america targeted the palestinian terrorists
    and arrested them
    took them out
    then finally
    there would be room for peace
    time and time and time and time again
    israel begs for peace
    how many times has it offered itself for peace?
    time and time and time again
    it is answered by suicide bombers
    the UN should take note
    that terrorists are ruining this peace talk
    instead of always just looking to blame israel
    the anti-semitism
    stirred up this
    is staggering
    im so sick of this crap
    i could implode

  4. BF Avatar
    BF

    “If the U.N. had any balls and knew what it was supposed to be good for, it would occupy Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza and force a ceasefire on them all until they settled their damned fight.”
    Clunk their heads together like two brawling bullies in the schoolyard? Apart from the disturbing suggestion of moral equivalence, what UN force would you have in mind? Effective UN force = US military. If the IDF cannot stop terrorist infiltration, how effective would the “UN” be? How much thought did you give that sentence? It’s just lame.

  5. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    I’m saying that someone has to neutralize Hamas. If anything were right with the world, it should be the U.N. Clearly, I know that is not going to happen; I’m saying it should happen; I’m saying it is the U.N.’s damnation that it is without the will or the power or the balls to bring peace to the part of the world that most needs it. The PA is not stopping Hamas. The Iraelis only buy trouble every time they try. The U.S. can’t do it alone. So where is the rest of the world to finally stop this torture? Nowhere.

  6. infamouse Avatar
    infamouse

    My solution? Hurry up with that fucking wall.

  7. BF Avatar
    BF

    JJ:
    “If the U.N. had any balls and knew what it was supposed to be good for, it would occupy Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza and force a ceasefire on them all ”
    JJ:
    “I’m saying that someone has to neutralize Hamas” — AGREED
    I’d hope the second statement was a retraction of the first. If not – occupation of Israel by the UN? Was that serious or just frustration with the whole awful situation over there?

  8. scott h. Avatar
    scott h.

    No offense, Jeff, but your description of a UN with “balls” and that knows “what it was supposed to be good for” is so fanciful you might as well ask the X-Men to try and step in.
    (Not to mention imagining a UN that would be fair to Israel. Not only the history, but I’m trying to imagine blue-helmeted Pakistanis patrolling Tel Aviv.)

  9. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Hamas might be the trouble, but Israel can’t beat Hamas militarily, long term. They might win every battle, but they can’t win the war. (They haven’t even gotten rid of Arafat, or his organization , for crying out loud…). And even if they do, another group will take it’s place.
    Mr. Jarvis said this breeds Bin Ladens – that’s not really accurate (since how many billionaries are there in the region, not to mention Bin Laden didn’t even mention the Palestinian issue until well after 9/11), but he has something of a point. The US is actually addressing some of Bin Laden’s (and his followers) complaints – most notably, stationing troops on Saudi Arabian soil, and hopefully will start pressing for more democracy in the region.
    Israel’s not exactly blameless, either. Is firing several missiles at a car on a crowded street really the best way to kill someone (who was perhaps a dubious target to begin with, apparently part of the political wing of Hamas, not military)?
    No. It was certain to kill civilians. Not likely, not possibly, 100% certain. The next time you drive a car down a city street, imagine a car next to you hit by a missile. Then a bit later, while people come to try to help the survivors, it’s hit by a couple more missiles.
    This was especially bad as it was in retalliation for an attack by the 3 main groups on an Israeli army post – a military target.*
    There was a recent editorial in the WP that pointed out that this is something like the 3rd time this exact scenario has happened in the last couple years.
    The two sides come to some sort of agreement (usually just to talk)
    Palestinians attack some military target.
    Israeli responds dramatically and inflicts a lot of civilian casualties.
    A palestinian suicide bomber then deliberately targets Israeli civilians.
    Then it escalates for a while on both sides. Then it calms down again, when they get sick of the blood-letting.
    The only possible solution is to separate the two sides. Either a wall (as mentioned by another commenter, and that’s also my solution), or some sort of armed peace keepers, as Mr. Jarvis suggested.
    The trouble is, there really aren’t any neutral parties. The UN is biased against Israel – as the UN monitors actions have shown in Lebanon (where they watched 3 Israeli soldiers get kidnapped, then covered it up). The US can’t do it, because our soldiers would be a target, like 20 years ago in Lebanon.
    The only ones I can see doing it is the turks. On the one hand, Turkey & Israel have strong military ties. On the other, Turkey is a muslim country, and so should be fairly accepted by the Palestinians. But given that Islamism is on the rise in Turkey, I’m not sure they could do it politically. 15 years ago, yes. Now, probably not.

  10. Harry Avatar
    Harry

    I agree with you Jeff. However given that the UN is not likely to take your advise surely it remains up to the ‘world’s policeman’ to take action?

  11. Diana Avatar
    Diana

    Jeff,
    FWIW, I think you are onto something.