While the Israeli leadership and citizens prefer living in peace and harmony with all their neighbors, they chose to reject UN Resolution 1860 calling for a halt in Israel’s Operation Cast Lead response to incoming mortars from Gaza. For those not familiar with the Hamas organization Hamas “is the Arabic acronym for the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” a Palestinian organization committed to eliminating Israel”
As long as Hamas launched rockets continue landing inside Israel, and tunnels connecting to Egypt remain open for smuggling weapons into Gaza, they have rejected the latest efforts by the UN Security Council to establish a cease fire agreement. The Security Council vote was 14-0 with the United States abstaining.
While the UK Guardian has reported that low level efforts to stop the fighting have commenced between the US and Hamas the Obama spokespersons have denied said rumor.
Following is the latest news from Haaretz on this update followed by the story link.
Last update – 01:10 10/01/2009
Israel rejects UN truce resolution, continues Gaza operation
By Barak Ravid, Shlomo Shamir and Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies
The diplomatic-security cabinet on Friday rejected a United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution and ordered the Israel Defense Forces to continue its current ground operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.
In a communique released immediately after the cabinet session on Friday, the government stated it would not accept the UN resolution, declaring that “the IDF will continue to act in order to attain the objectives of the operation – to bring about a change in the security situation in the south of the country – this in accordance with the plans that have been approved upon embarking on the operation.”
“Efforts to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip will continue,” the cabinet statement added.
As such, the cabinet also said Israel would continue to provide humanitarian relief to the local population in Gaza. The army will maintain its policy of declaring a temporary cease-fire so as to allow the supply of food and medicine to reach Gazans in need, the cabinet said.
The cabinet heard reports detailing the military advancement into Gaza as well as the latest on cease-fire talks with Egyptian officials. Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry’s diplomatic-security division, met with his Egyptian counterparts on Thursday.
The government said it would not accept any cease-fire and that the IDF would not withdraw from Gaza until the establishment of a mechanism that would ensure a halt to weapons-smuggling from Egypt into the Hamas-ruled territory.
The cabinet stated that the IDF operation would continue given that Hamas rocket fire has not ceased during the cease-fire deliberations at the Security Council. “Israel has a complete right of self-defense,” the communique read.
Earlier Friday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as “unworkable” and, noting Palestinians fired rockets at Israel on Friday, said the army would go on defending Israelis.
In Israel’s first official response to the resolution, Olmert’s office said Israel “has never agreed to let an external body decide its right to protect the security of its citizens.”
The military “will continue acting to protect Israeli citizens and will carry out the missions it was given,” the statement read.
“The firing of rockets this morning only goes to show that the UN decision is unworkable and will not be adhered to by the murderous Palestinian organizations,” he said in a statement.
Hours after the Security Council passed Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate cease-fire in Israel’s offensive in Gaza, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Friday that Israel would continue to act only in its interests and according to its own security needs.
“Israel has acted, is acting and will act only according to its considerations, the security needs of its citizens and its right to self-defense,” a statement said. It made no direct reference to how Israel would treat the call for a ceasefire.
Livni, along with Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, convened in session on Friday to discuss the Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cessation of violence and their next moves in the conflict.
The UN resolution, drafted by Western powers, “stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.”
It also called for arrangements in Gaza to prevent arms smuggling to Palestinian militants and reopen border crossings, and for “unimpeded provision” and distribution of aid in Gaza, where more than 750 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed.
The resolution was passed by a majority vote of 14-0. The United States abstained, saying it was interested in looking at alternative drafts, but voiced support for the objectives of the resolution.
AIPAC slams UN truce resolution
AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr on Friday denounced the UN resolution, saying that, in passing it “the UN Security Council has, once again, shamelessly proven its genuine inability to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an unbiased manner.”
“The Council has refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to self-defense against an enemy, Hamas, which openly declares its goal as the complete destruction of the State of Israel – a member state of the world body,” Kohr said.
America’s pro-Israel lobby also expressed its disappointment with the U.S. administration “for succumbing to pressure exerted by Arab states and agreeing to bring this vote to the UN Security Council – a message contrary to the steadfast and overwhelming support expressed this week by the United States Congress and dozens of elected officials from across the country”.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054201.html
Juice readers. With his plate overflowing and while president-elect Obama said he can tackle more than one challenge at a time what role if any should he play in any negotiation between Hamas and Israel?
Why negotiations? I don’t think there are any hostages. This is a police action against murderers. We would do the same thing here.
Anonyms,
Police don’t use F16 bombers. When Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Murrah Federal building, did the United States government order the bombing of militia training compounds?
It’s all too easy for the United States to endorse the actions of Israel in Gaza. To paraphrase Bill Moyers, we’re merely complicit in spilling the blood that turns the wheel of retribution.
Israel is America’s mini-me. It’s hard to be judgmental over Israel ‘s actions (except for the BILLIONS we give them ) when our own country is GUILTY of invading and occupying Iraq, just remember the HORRENDOUS damage WE have done to the Iraqi people. As to Larry’s question; Obama isn’t POTUS yet, this mess is W’s and his teams fault. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if W had faced the MULTIPLE DISASTERS that Obama faces, they would have hung Clinton.
anon #2.
Did Tim McVeigh have hundreds of associates lobbing mortars in Oklahoma? Sorry but your illustration is very weak as we read that 100’s of Hamas terrorists have been killed while only Terry Nicols was involved in the Oklahoma bombing with Mc Veigh
anon #3. While this attack surely began on W’s watch, my question was valid. As our incoming president I do not wish to see Obama fail. However, the question still needs a reply.
You do need to multitask dealing with both domestic and foreign issues as the head of state
Larry,
The numbers of Hamas involved in lobbing missiles into Israel has nothing to do with anon #1’s example. They described what Israel is doing as a “police action against murderers”. This is not a “police” action. This is an action by the Israeli military. In other words, this is war.
Anon #1 also claimed that “we would do the same thing here”. We have never done the same thing here.
Additionally, who is reporting that “hundreds” of Hamas terrorists have been killed? It’s not Western journalists, because they aren’t allowed in to Gaza to verify Israeli and Palestinian numbers and reporting. Those numbers MUST be viewed suspiciously, at best.
And the question you want a reply to will be forthcoming…AFTER January 20.
anon #6.
I see part of your point in that the reference to anon #1 My use of the word “negotiations” relates to seeking a cease fire and eventual end to the hostility. It did not entail any hostages.
I won’t quibble over words with you other than to report that when one party continues to shell your country from another region, without any provocation, I would not be happy if our leaders turned the other cheek and took no corrective measures. I would agree that this is not a police action.
I find it strange that everyone I speak too says that the first duty of our commander-in-chief is to protect the country. Do you disagree with job one?
In the Oath of Office of elected officals, which I have administered to two city council members, it reads in part that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic..etc”
I am cetain that the Constitution of the democratic nation of Israel has similar if not identical text.
Larry,
The oath of office also states “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…”. That entails many other things BESIDES protecting the country from “enemies”. I see no reason to emphasize one part of that oath over the other.
anon. I have the Oath in my briefcase and quoted the section that directly applies to the actions being taken by another democratic country. They also have the duty and responsibility to protect their citizens. While your quote is not exactly written and given to me by our city clerk it is close enough and has no bearing on my previous comment as to the obligation to defend those who elected you into office.
Larry,
You didn’t merely state that protecting the country was an obligation. You characterized it as “job one”. In other words, you appear to feel it has greater importance. I simply disagree that it’s a more important obligation or duty than the others a President faces.
In addition, the section I quoted is quite accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
#10 Facts and rationality mean nothing to Larry “let’s blame the Dems” Gilbert. Obama hasn’t even taken office and already Larry wants to know if he can multi-task, funny how he NEVER EVER asks those questions about W.
anon #11.
While many on this blog have attacked the current president you cannot find an example of me bashing Democrats.
As to my reference to “multi-tasking” I added that comment because president elect Obama said he could work on more than a single item at a time in a recent interview. In addition, part of leadership entails delgating so in effect he should assign any oversight of this Middle East conflict to the incoming Sec of State.
And Mr.or Mrs “anon” what makes you think I have been happy with George W Bush’s leadership?
“And Mr.or Mrs “anon” what makes you think I have been happy with George W Bush’s leadership?”
Well link us to the posts you’ve written which have expressed your displeasure with W’s leadership.
Perhaps your silence on that issue speaks volumes.
I don’t want to butt in on the he-said she-saids in the above exchange of comments, but I would like to answer your question.
To ask what role Obama should play in negotiations between Hamas and Israel pre-supposes that Hamas is willing to be in negotiations with anyone. The Palestinian commentators that I’ve seen on TV seem to distance themselves from Hamas, and claim that Israel has gone too far, but do not really justify the continuing pot-shot rocket launches.
Obama, or any other human on the planet, who was acceptable to both Hamas and to Israel should make themselves available to mediate. But without Hamas at the table in a realistic way it would be a waste of time.
We don’t have enough of a national security interest to inject ourselves into this controversy without being wanted as intermediary by both sides, imho.
#10, are you confusing Gilbert with Gordon? I’d make your statement about Gordon. Gilbert? Not so much.
I don’t see a valid distinction in the army = war equation. Now country w/army + country w/army = war is a valid statement but what we see in Israel is country w/army + terrorists = police action.
Hamas, despite their political success in Palestine isn’t acting as Palestine in attacking Israel. Hamas was acting as Palestine then it would be war. Since they have not isn’t it is a police action.
I am not one who subscribes to this war on terror idea, I believe terrorists are nothing more than criminals, gangsters, thugs, and petty criminals.
#13 anon.
This post is about a proposed UN truce Resolution and the incoming administration. As such my feelings about our current president are not relevant. In less than 10 days we will have a new commander-in-chief. That’s where all eyes need to focus.
Let me also remind you that every front windshield is much larger than our rear view mirror! Focus.
Ron St. John. Your opinion is always welcome and on point. Thank you. Larry