Who does Isreal negotiate a ceasfire with? Hezzbollah, Hamas, Fatah or other?

"Senior Fatah sources said at the weekend that Hamas and other militant Palestinian factions had agreed to unilaterally stop firing rockets into Israel as the first stage of a process leading to the release of prisoners by both sides and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. The ceasefire was to have gone into effect at midnight on Saturday but three rockets were fired into Israel yesterday morning after several militant factions said they did not accept a ceasefire."
and

"The head of the Hamas faction in the Palestinian parliament, Salah al-Bardiwil, said yesterday that Hamas had no intention of linking negotiations for the release of Corporal Shalit with the release by Hezbollah of the two Israeli soldiers it is holding."

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

Yes, the similarities are somewhat eerie are they not?

It is interesting to note however the effect that the 1967 engagement had on the region. It led directly to the 1973 yom kippur war, but more than that, it in turn led to peace. The reason for which was the acceptance, by both Egypt & Jordan that the race wasn't worth the carrot. In the predominantly militant, overtly masculine dominated society that exists in the region, common sense regularly takes a backseat to rhetoric and the desire to demonstrate martial prowess.

Consequently, many Arabs/Persians find it particularly difficult to accept that they (& their nation) are incapable of defeating Israel militarily. However, the benefit of 1967 (& the consequential 1973) fiasco, which demonstrated only too well Arab military prowess, was to force Egypt & Jordan to come to terms with this unpalatable realisation. This is the only platform upon which a meaningful peace has been built in the region, and there is no good reason to believe that any other approach will work.

Fortunately, Israel can and will defeat both Hizbollah and HAMAS, and has also demonstrated their willingness to play 'hard-ball' in order to do so. Perhaps this current crisis may also lead to peace, god knows that unilateral disengagement did not.

Inshallah

2bob

Another propaganda piece recycled from that Zionist propaganda sheet, The Australian.

"The hostilities in Lebanon and Israel": Note the absence of Israeli agency here- half a million Lebanese displaced, 400 killed & climbing, Lebanon shredded etc etc and its all just "hostilities in Lebanon."

"Watershed moment...shape regional relationships...transform global politics": The Israeli agenda coming through: First Lebanon, then on to Syria & Iran. Imperial Israel on the march to establish regional hegemony.

Note the use of Nasser, the 50s-60s version of Osama bin Laden, to suggest non-existant threat to Israel ("In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Begin, NYT 21/9/82)

Note how in Zionist propaganda Nasser/Egypt morphs into Ahmedinajad/Iran, another non-existant threat to Israel. In this paranoid perspective Arab/Muslim leaders, one after another, become reincarnations of Hitler just itching to carry out Holocaust Mark 2. And all that the historical record shows us is that Israel gets bigger and bigger, and more and more aggressive.

Iran is about to "develop a nuclear weapons capability": no proof, just more Israeli/US WMD propaganda. "Iran's defiance of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations to submit to...the monitoring...requirements of the IAEA": as Conrad might have said if he were writing an Israeli version of the Heart of Darkness - The hypocrisy, the hypocrisy! Israel, with 200-400 nukes, recognises no such constraints.

Here's a question...

Would Israel invade or build settlements in neighbouring countries if Iran had nuclear weapons?

What a well written expose - a pity some like Strewth comes forward with hollow recycled rhetoric. Whatever way one looks at the situation, Israel has played a tough but fair game. The rules were declared and the players (Hezbollah and Hamas) knew what the outcomes would be.

This is a powerplay and should be seen as the old guard in Iran attempting to reestablish a hegemony in the region against a tide for reform and liberation. I have recently been to Iran and one comes back with a clear picture of an oppressed people suffering from the legacy of welcoming Khomenei to replace the Pahlavis back in 1979. Their Guardian Council and controlled media ("your have freedom of speech here until you speak" said one Iranian), retains the mullahs against the wishes of the wider population.

With Lebanon, Israel is simply fighting the hopefully dying gasps of the Shiite regime in Tehran. People like Strewth using labels of "Zionism" or "nazism" are the latter day Quixotes - out of touch tilting at their windmills.

Remco, Are you perhaps too embarrassed to admit you're a Zionist? I must say I'm immensely encouraged by the fact that most of the Zionist cheersquad that flock to post on OLO shy away from the word. Now why might that be?