Israel accepts truce 'principles'

[depakid]

Source: BBC

srael has agreed "on the principles" of a ceasefire proposal, raising hopes of an end to its conflict with Palestinian militants in Gaza. "The challenge now is to get the details to match the principles," Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas said there were "positive signs but no agreement yet". The development came as Israel halted military operations in Gaza for three hours to aid humanitarian efforts.

The lull, which began about 1100 GMT and ended shortly after 1400 GMT, was the first of what an Israeli spokesman said would be a daily ceasefire to allow Gazans to "get medical attention, get supplies... whatever they need".

News agencies reported that Gaza residents had rushed out into the streets during the lull to stock up on food and visit relatives in hospital.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815929.stm

[StudsT]

1. without any leadership from the U.S. this is turning into a 3 ring circus

of the macabre and no one will accept anything untill they know where the new admin stands.

and their silence is deafening

and so it goes...

StudsT

[damntexdem]

2. Does that mean that any Palestinians that they kill tomorrow will still be alive 'in principle'?

I guess the daily ceasefires will allow Gaza residents to access all the things they need that do not exist in Gaza. Does that mean that relief ships won't be rammed on "lull" days?

[sabra]

3. Hamas Rejects Gaza Cease-Fire

Source: CBS News

France Says Israel Accepts Egyptian-French Plan, But Hamas Tells CBS News Deal Does Not Ensure Open Borders Or End Blockade

(CBS/AP) French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Wednesday that Israel had accepted an Egyptian-French cease-fire plan for the Gaza Strip, but Hamas officials in Syria told CBS News that they could not agree to the plan because it does not guarantee open border crossings or an end to a crippling blockade.

Nicolas Sarkozy said the Palestinian Authority, which has not had any control in the Strip for more than a year, also agreed to the plan that was offered up by the French and Egyptian foreign ministers at the United Nations Tuesday night.

...

However, Israel said it would support the proposal only if it halts "hostile fire" from Hamas in Gaza and includes measures to prevent the militant group from re-arming, said government spokesman Mark Regev.

In Syria, a spokesman for Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal told CBS News' George Baghdadi soon after Sarkozy's comments were made public that the militant group did not accept the terms of the Egyptian-French plan.

Spokesman Abu Omar said Hamas could only agree to a plan which guaranteed to end the economic blockade and to reopen the border crossings as soon as hostilities on both sides were halted; what he called a "complete package."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/world/main4703553.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline

[bunnies]

4. If I lived in Gaza, I'd want what Hamas is asking for.

"a plan which guaranteed to end the economic blockade and to reopen the border crossings as soon as hostilities on both sides were halted".

Whats so unreasonable about that?

[DogPoundPup]

5. "Whats so unreasonable about that?"

Cause Israell says it is unreasonable.

[Kurska]

6. Because that would mean it would have to stay open no matter what

Including rocket attacks, which essential means hamas wants to end this a position of absolute power to do whatever the hell it wants and to have the boarder open in spite of their actions.

No sane nation would agree to that, but thanks for the lovely double speak there.

Why the hell would israel agree to a ceasefire that doesn't end the thing they sent soldiers in there to end? It's not like hamas is chasing israel back across the border, israel is in the position of power right now

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

9. complete nonsense. nt

[pampango]

10. Sounds reasonable for each side to get what they want.

Open border crossings in exchange for no rocket attacks seems like each side gets what they want. For the duration of the past ceasefire border crossings were often open and rocket fire was frequently curtailed. Both sides have shown that they can do what the other side wants. Agree to that which was the basis of the last ceasefire.

If one side breaks a new ceasefire (Israel unilaterally closes the border crossings or Hamas initiates rocket attacks), the other side will undoubtedly retaliate.

[Kurska]

11. The current plan is for a open border under the adminstration of the PA

I'm not sure if thats what hamas is objecting to or the fact that firing rockets would lead to a closed border, Either one seems like a foolish reason to drag on the conflict.

[bunnies]

13. Thats ridiculous.

I dont even follow your logic. He said "as soon as hostilities on both sides were halted". What about that confuses you?

And frankly, the only position Israel is in right now is one of torturing civilians needlessly. If you think that makes them 'powerful' than we obviously have different meanings for the word.

[Kurska]

16. Powerful as in the dominat military position

Well for one, I'd like to hear excatly what hamas considers hostilities (Suicide bomers, Rockets, are those hostilities?)and next the ceasefire does call for open borders, but under the adminstration of the PA as far as I understand. If the only thing hamas wants to bring into the country is medical supplies and food that wouldn't be a problem, it would be if they secretly planned to commit violations of the treat they are about to sign though.

[The Stranger]

27. Actually, bringing food and medical supplies has been a problem, Israel has denied it for months.

[GoesTo11]

19. Does the open border include allowing free entry into Israel?

If so, then would it be too demanding for Israel to also want some assurance against suicide bombing before agreeing to that?

Would it include importing of weapons and military trainers from Iran? While that would surely be just, it wouldn't surprise me if Israel insists that there are some restrictions in this regard.

[The Stranger]

26. The Israeli government blockaded food, water and medicine before there was any rocket fire.

Not that that justifies bombing and murdering women and children in schools.

You may as well give up here trying to justify Israel's actions.

[Baby Snooks]

8. One Israel...

That's what we've lived with for 60 years. Despite agreement after agreement after agreement.

If Israel is not careful, we may end up with one Palestine. The Arab League has really gotten tired of the one Israel. So has the rest of the world.

[WriteDown]

12. Support the WriteDown plan....

Gaza is given to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan. Then there will be peace.

[Kurska]

14. I don't think egypt or jordan would touch gaza or the westbank with a ten foot pole

They might take them in a desprate attempt to clam the region down, but thats unlikely

[WriteDown]

15. Nonsense....

I am sure they would welcome their Arab brothers with open arms. :)

[Kurska]

21. Is that a joke?

You had egyptian border guards firing on palestinians just this week.

[WriteDown]

23. sarcasm was implied. nt

[leftynyc]

18. If you think any of the Arab countries

will lift a pinky for the Palestinians, you're dreaming. They'll yell, hollar, print scathing editorials in their state papers, Al Jazera will broadcast blood and gore but none of them will lift a finger to help.

[Still Sensible]

17. I'm pretty sure they are rejecting it because

1. It has PA and not Hamas administering, and
2. It requires Hamas not to rearm

but, it also allows for dialogue immediately once the hostilities are halted. Hamas should have taken the deal to protect their people, but it looks more like they rejected the deal to protect their power.

[Marrah_G]

20. Or perhaps it has to do with being locked in without resources.

[Kurska]

22. The ceasefire would have allowed the transfer of supplies, just not arms

[Still Sensible]

24. That is obviously a big problem that needs to be corrected,

but why keep losing innocent people when you have the ability to stop it and have an agreement to sit down and talk? This French-Egyptian proposal seems like a good first step.

I really think this is about Hamas not wanting to even give the impression that PA has any authority and protect their power. Right now, the ball is in Hamas' court.

[Marrah_G]

25. Because like most long term fueds, there is no trust

No trust on either side.

No faith that the other is not lying.

So many times both sides have broken agreements.

So many times they have hurt one another.

It's going to be a difficult thing to get either side to stop long enough to give anything a chance.