babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Yassin offered 30 year truce in 1997

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Yassin offered 30 year truce in 1997
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 03:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Official: Yassin Offered Israel a Truce

quote:

Efraim Halevy, a former Mossad operative who was called in to resolve an Israel-Jordan crisis after a botched assassination attempt against a Hamas leader in Jordan in 1997, made the disclosure in an interview on Israel TV.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 24 March 2004 07:58 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As far as I can tell from the article, only a truce or cease-fire was offered (if such an offer was even made), not a permanent peace. Plus this:
quote:
However, Yassin made it clear that even then, Hamas would continue to pursue its goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic state.

Can't imagine why the Israeli gov't wasn't interested.

From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 08:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can only guess that your historical knowledge about the Arab Israeli conflicts is somewhat limited. Given that both the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan were signed after truces were signed. This has actually been the practice in most conflicts throughout history.

Or perhaps you think that the Palestinians should just give in to all Israeli demands instantaneously. Whichever way, your perspective suggest little serious knowledge of the practices of power and politics in the real world.

Or perhaps your just glombing on to whatever paticullar factoid seems like it might be convenient to argue with in order to justify Israeli actions -- however facile that point might be. The weakness of the Israeli case is only weakened further by the non-sensical arguements that are used to defend it.

30 Years is a long time... in 1997 it would have been the exact amount of time that Israel has occupied the West Bank.... an interesting fact in itself.

[ 24 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DownTheRoad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4523

posted 24 March 2004 08:51 AM      Profile for DownTheRoad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's just say I'm more skeptical than you about Yassin's sincerity if such an "offer" were even made. Such "offers" intended as propaganda to say "we want peace unlike those other bastards" have been a dime a dozen throughout the conflict.
From: land of cotton | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 March 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Netanyahu is now Israel's finance minister. His office said Tuesday that such an offer by Yassin, if it was made, would have been "worthless," because "Yassin was involved in terrorism while in prison and encouraged terrorism in prison and outside."

Huh? If Bibi is telling the truth here (a big if), then Yassin was in a position to order terror attacks, even from the Israeli prison. Therefore, Yassin would be able to follow up on his truce offer, by commanding Hamas to stand down. That doesn't sound worthless to me. That sounds like an option worth persuing in order to save lives on both sides of the conflict. Unless, of course, Bibi was not interested in saving either Arab nor Jewish lives.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2004 10:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let's just say I'm more skeptical than you about Yassin's sincerity if such an "offer" were even made. Such "offers" intended as propaganda to say "we want peace unlike those other bastards" have been a dime a dozen throughout the conflict.

Lol. If your real point was that the offer was not sincere, then why did you argue the first point with your original arguement. Your first arguement required the possibility that the offer was sincere, and was premised instead on the unacceptability of the terms, not Yassin's reliability.

Why argue the terms it the offer had no foundation except as propoganda, as you now contrive?

It helps, if you are trying to appear reasonable (and therefore argue persuasively) that you maintain logical consitentcy, otherwise you appear to be the opposite: unreasonable. Beyond reason.

Stop floating trial baloons and try thinking.

[ 24 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 March 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And of course the fact is that we know perfectly well Yassin repeatedly offered and then adhered to cease-fires, which each time only ended after Israel ordered some high-profile assassination or bloodbath. There is no reason to assume his word would not have been good.
But in any case--if Israel *really* thought his word would not be good, surely the thing for them to do would be make an agreement and accept his word, publicly if possible. Then if he broke it, they would reap a huge PR victory while losing nothing of consequence because he just didn't have the military strength to have an impact on the tactical situation in the occupied territories.

The only reason to avoid signing a deal with an overwhelmingly weaker opponent is not if you fear they are lying, but if you fear they are telling the truth.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 25 March 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

The only reason to avoid signing a deal with an overwhelmingly weaker opponent is not if you fear they are lying, but if you fear they are telling the truth.

There's another reason. If you think you are winning a conflict, why sign a deal? Just keep killing your enemy ...Sounds repulsive, but plausible...


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 March 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The reasons are related. If you fear your enemy might hold to a truce, it's because you feel you are better off just keeping on killing him.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca