Israel has opened the gates of Hell
 

Israel has launched Operation Pillar of Cloud. This could get very interesting since Hamas is an off shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

From "The Telegraph"
Hamas has said that Israeli air strike in Gaza which killed Ahmed Jabari, the head of its military wing, "has opened the gates of hell". Jabari, who is the most senior Hamas official to be killed since an Israeli invasion of Gaza four years ago, was killed in an air strike on a vehicle, in a dramatic resumption of Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian militant leaders.
Jabari has long topped Israel's most-wanted list, the Associated Press reported, and was blamed for in a string of attacks, including the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit in 2006.
His son was also reportedly killed in the targeted air strike, according to Osama Hamdan, a Hamas representative in Lebanon, talking to Al Jazeera in Doha.

Are the nighttime strikes codenamed 'Pillar of Fire'?

Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood are only similar when both are also part of a popular myth called Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood have even had military conflicts since Morsi was elected president of Egypt. The "Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood" myth sounds like classic Israeli propaganda.

Now, there is a relationship, although not entirely clear, between Hamas and Salafis. That may be related to disagreements between Salafis and Muslim Botherhood. Israeli propaganda would ignore that.

Bullshit!!! Hamas started as an off shoot of the Egyptian Brotherhood.

"Hamas: The Organizations, Goals and Tactics of a Militant Palestinian Organization":
Hamas was founded in 1987 (during the First Intifada) as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Open Source:
Hamas approved a 540 million dollar government budget for 2010 with up to 90% coming from "undisclosed" foreign aid which includes funding from Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood according to western intelligence agencies.
Funding from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has been cut so the MB can diverts funds "to support Arab Spring revolts".

this shit is absolutely surreal.

Israel and Hamas basically declared war on eachother via twitter, and then Israel shut down Gaza's communications.

Al Qaeda is a "popular myth??????? What the fuck have you been smoking?? I lost 5 troops to Al Qaeda forces in 2005. They sure hte hell weren't Girl Scouts making IEDs and conducting complex attacks. BTW, I spent 66 days in Hell as part of the Battle of Hit. I didn't see you there. I didn't see you helping to scoop up the remains of my bunk mate or doing a field cremation of what wasn't put in the body bag. (I can still smell it)

Now, I played nice and backed off of the stuff about Viet Nam and the Gulf of Tonkin. I did my best to extend a laurel leaf. Don't you dare try to tell me about things I have seen first hand

well played, Mayans.

Well played.

Maybe my apocalypse friend deserves an apology...this does indeed sound bad.

They were insurgents. To invent myths - a bogeyman - those insurgents were respun by a propaganda machine into "Al Qaeda". The lie became so obvious that they eventually relabeled insurgents as "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

Al Qaeda was a little organization based around bin Laden. It had nothing to do with angry Shia who resented your presence and our leader's gross mismanagement.

Basic military doctrine. Phase four planning. We had six months to get the electricity, water, telephone, etc all working. Every trained military man knows that. Instead, we did nothing. Absolutely nothing. Did nothing when Bremer snuck out seven months later so as to not be killed by the insurgency he created.

That resulting insurgency was predicted even in Washington in 2003 by those who know this stuff. You were fighting insurgents. You were fighting patriotic Iraqis who were pissed. And should have been pissed. Because Bremer, Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Jr, etc completely screwed it up.

Why no insurgency in Mosul when Petraeus was there? He literally stole money to perform Phase Four planning. Odiero's Colonels finally convinced him. No phase four planning means an insurgency will rise up after six months. Well understood military doctrine that you should know.

If fighting Al Qaeda, then every mugger in America is part of the Gambino crime family. And every hamburger store is a MacDonalds. You were fighting an enemy created by Americans with zero military knowledge. You should be pissed at losing five men because of incompetence by George Jr and his extremists. They created an insurgency by violating basic military doctrine. They and the resulting insurgents (and not a mythical Al Qaeda) created those deaths.

Basic military doctrine also says only one supreme leader in country. How many did you have? A General answering to Rumsfeld. And a civilian answering the to the White House. Of course the insurgency had to be relabeled as Al Qaeda. Otherwise treasonist mismanagement would have been obvious to every soldier. But then you tell me. Was Sanchez the supreme commander in Iraq? The answer was obvious. No.

A fundamental military command violation. It also defines contempt for the American soldier. A contempt that should make everyone angry. Al Qaeda was an invention to mask the real enemy: incompetent leaders in Washington.

You should know why you lost five soldiers. And why I am so angry about it. From Thomas Ricks: Sanchez was promoted to three star because every general asked to take that command, instead, resigned his commission. They could not find one three or four star general who would do that job. That should have been obvious even at your level when soldier were dying to an insurgency - relabeled Al Qaeda for propaganda purposes.
Obviously that could not and also did not happen. Therein lies reason for a massive countrywide insurgency, foolish and avoidable deaths in Fallujah, and the unnecessary death of your soldiers. All directly traceable to gross incompetence at the highest levels in Washington.

Basic military doctrine even defined in "Art of War". Do not disband the Army and Police. Use them as a critically important asset. Instead Bremer's first order was "Senior Party Members are hereby removed from their positions and banned from future employment in the public sector."

He fired every competent Iraqi administrator. He created an insurgency. The CIA Station chief told Bremer, quite bluntly, what would happen. Quess where those instructions may have come. Why did you lose five soldiers? Col Joe Anderson, one of Petraeus’s battalion commanders, later said, "All of a sudden you say these guys are not part of society ... These were guys and girls in the doctor arena, in the professor arena, that you can't do without in a running society.” Most every competent officer understands these basic military concepts.

But Bremer was not done. Next was a dissolution of the Iraqi Army and National Police. Another 300,000 to 400,000 unemployed. Were these Al Qaeda? Of course not. These were people who now had good reason to kill Americans. - the evil occupiers.

American civilian leadership demonstrated contempt for the American soldier. Over one half million Iraqis without work and without prospects. Because of American idiots, most Iraqis all but wanted to kill American soldiers within six months. As even the CIA station chief so obviously knew. Right out of basic concepts taught in “Art of War”.

Those same idiots then told you patriotic Iraqis were Al Qaeda. And obvious fabrication. So that you would not see American incompetence. Would instead blame five dead Americans on a mythical Al Qaeda.
Learn from history. Your five soldiers were victims of a lying administration that then described an insurgency as if it was bin Laden. Wacko extremists will even invent bogeyman to protect their extremist ideology. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a perfect example of lies to mask a damning truth.

Any good serviceman knows why he lost soldiers. You should have known Al Qaeda was a lie to avert blame from those who killed them. You should hold the name George Jr in contempt for the rest of your life. If infomed, you are quite angry about Bremer, orders from Washington, the subverted command structure, the intentional creation of an Iraqi insurgency traceable to ignorance in Washington, and lies routinely invented by the George Jr administration. They could not even admit why so many three and four star generals were retiring when asked to command Mission Accomplished. Any good officer material knows why your five soldiers died.

The good name of those five soldiers are now trophies directly traceable to incompentent and treasonist leadership in Washington. Their death is directly traceable to total incompentance by George Jr. Good soldiers predicted that disaster and those resulting deaths long before it happpened. Anyone with fundamental military knowledge knows exactly who turned Iraqi patriots into insurgents. And knew it was coming when Bremer, et al intentionally created a country wide insurgency in Iraq.

Why is this post so long? I am that pissed that American servicemen were uselessly massacred by a treasonist George Jr administration. No decent American should do to American soldiers what George Jr, et al did to your five men. George Jr, Cheney, et al were that evil.

This is period is the 7th anniversary of our time at Hit. Next week will be the anniversary of Tull's & Doc's deaths. We were not fighting Shias in the Al Anbar province. I well know that our enemies were AQIZ. Our sister unit was at Haditha Dam

Names and ages of killed people in the ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza

Why is this happening now?

NPR was saying that Hamas has been launching these rockets for years, and Israel did little, but now, for some reason, it's pummeling Gaza. What changed? Does this have anything to do with Netanyahu hating Obama's guts and Obama winning the election? Some sort of "You may have won the election, but that doesn't mean you're in charge" kind of thing? I really don't understand Israel. And how will they define victory? It's like when they went into Lebanon a couple years ago and did not remove Hezbollah from power, so even though they won every battle, Hezbollah was considered the winner since they weren't completely defeated. What will happen when Israel stops the offensive, and Hamas is still in power and still lobs occasional rockets at Israel? Is that a net loss for Israel?

I'm wondering the same thing, glatt.

Seems very strange timing.

I liked The Daily Show's idea of just giving Florida to the Jews. It makes perfect sense.

I believe there is an election coming up soon in Israel.

Edit: 22nd January

I think the number of rockets being fired by Hamas increased dramatically in the past two weeks but I'm not 100% sure. The election is coming up soon but I've heard Netanyahu has a comfortable lead so I don't know if he is doing a "rally behind the flag" thing.

Agreed. I don't think Israel can win this.

Am I the only one for crushing Hamas and driving tem into the sea?? Note, I am referencing Hamas and not the Palestinian civilians

Sarge, my first reaction to your question was "I hope so"

If Israel were white as the driven snow in their relationships with their neighbors, your idea might have value.
But since the days of Jimmy Carter's presidency, it's not been anything less than an ultraconservative, militaristic tyrannt.

The US has routinely pledged (ultimate) support for Israel, so
their real danger is much less than their politics can warrant.

The damages inflicted on Israel are minuscule, both in numbers of military, or civilians killed or wounded
and in physical damage to structures, etc. compared with what Israel has done to it's neighbors.

Maybe military types get their jollies out of this, but I don't.
This latest escalation was driven by Israli's actions shown here...

I know this is not a popular position in the US, so... :runaway:

Spin, spin, spin, victory is in the mind of the beholder. :nuts:

I just don't get it. How can anyone favor Hamas, an Iranian tied terrorist group whose core tenets are based upon genocide?

Because the fucking world is not black and white.

It depends upon your POV...

From Wikipedia:

The problem is that there is no way of separating Hamas from the Palestinian civilians. Hamas isn't just a military organization, it is a well-rounded political organization that has a strong military wing. That makes it difficult to separate the military aspect of Hamas with the the political aspects, schools, hospititals, police force, etc., which are positive.

My problem is with extremists on both sides (Israel and Palestine). As long as those assholes are in control, it will only lead to more and more deaths and a smaller chance of peace. The fact that Abbas has no control over the situation speaks for itself.

Can you imagine what would happen if a neighboring nation fired rockets onto our soil?

How are you going to do that without harming the civilians? Or how will you make them understand the ones who died are Necessary Losses?

It's kind of like a foreign country trying to kill all the Republicans in the US.

I know it isn't. Hamas calls for genocide. I thought most of us were opposed to ethnic cleansing. If your next door neighbor tells you he is going to kill your family and then shoots at your house, would you just sit back? Even if other neighbors said it was none of their business, would you say "Oh, well"?

Perhaps another perspective would be: If you heard the KKK say they were going to kill all of the African - Americans, would you let them? Would you sit back if a group of white males were throwing stones at a black male, would you tell the B/M that he shouldn't defend himself?

I don't understand why you would endorse a group whose mission is to destroy others based upon religion or race.

Has anyone here endorsed Hamas?

Many accuse Israel of doing the exact same thing...

The point is that extremists exist in both Hamas and Israel that actually do want to wipe out the other side. However, these people are not the majority (it seems) and the views of these larger organizations (Hamas and Israel) can not be lumped in with those extremist views.

This is a situation where side A "reacts" violently to an action by side B. This "reaction" causes extremists in side B to gain power and then they will "react" to the initial "reaction", attacking side A. This reinforces the power of the extremists on side A, creating a self-perpetuating downward spiral. As long as this back and forth keeps going, neither side is willing or able to compromise. That is why this situation is extremely difficult to solve.

Keep your strawman, it's not even close.
This is far from one sided, the shit Israel has done to the Pals that brought Hamas to power was appalling, as is the shit they've done since. Not only the official government actions, but the attitude and actions of individual Israeli citizens against the Pals. So the Pals, getting beat up, turn to Hamas for protection and revenge. Is that a surprise?

You see the newsreels of Arabs/Persians/Palestinians throwing rocks and shouting death to the Jews. Yeah, they're real and they mean it, but how many are there? What about the majority of Pals that want Israel to stop taking their land, cutting down orchards and olive groves their families have tended for hundreds of years. Wanting to take their kids to school or the doctors without having to go through several checkpoints where they may or may not pass on the whim of some Israeli private.

This is far from one sided, so don't quote this or that ideology and assign it to people you know nothing about. As much as you'd like to boil the whole problem down to a few sentences, you'd just be fooling yourself... or playing to your preconceived prejudices.

Mother Jones take on it.

then what do you call what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza? what do you call what Israel does with African refugees and immigrants? what do you call literally threatening Gaza with a holocaust?

As much as I abhor terrorism, sometimes there are few options for the oppressed beyond violence. Gaza is prettymuch starving. Gaza has little medicine at the best of times, and less when israel refuses to let them. The blockade and containment tactics Israel is using to oust a legally elected neighboring government is destroying the people of Gaza, already poor, overcrowded, and ill before having their children, siblings, parents, loved ones blown apart by Israeli airstrikes.

If this were a court of law, and israel and gaza individuals, israel would go to jail for assault or attempted murder. Gaza tossed pebbles; Israel drew a blackjack and a pistol and went at Gaza with everything they got. COMPLETELY disproportionate use of force.

Israel has no moral high ground here.

An extremist that does not represent Israel as an entirety....

It is not that one-sided either. There are more effective means than terrorism.

Why isn't the Arab League helping the Israelis? I endorse their containment - they shouldn't let in people who want to annihilate them

Sarge, I think you need to take a fresh look at your views.
Maybe things are not exactly the way you are posting.

Again from Wikipedia:

Ummm... that last paragraph needs to be updated with "...until November, 2012"

I'm not saying Hamas is as white as snow, either.
It's just not as sharply defined as you seem to present.

interesting read

http://www.ucg.org/booklet/middle-ea...n-middle-east/

he may not represent all israelis, but he represents the government to some extent, seeing as how he's the deputy defense minister...

From your own link:

Israel does a lot of fucked up shit to Palestine, but it doesn't qualify as genocide.

You probably say the same about Native Americans?
What's the difference?

I responded to your posts because you seem to be taking a one-sided perspective on this issue. Especially when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, anyone can give a never-ending list of arguments that support their particular side. However, none of those arguments really mean anything until the rationality and motives of both sides are looked into.

To even begin to look at this conflict from a half-way unbiased perspective is to realize that both sides legitimately believe they are acting defensively, and justify their killings based on past actions by the other side. The similarities split from there since both sides have completely different strategies when attacking the other. Israel unquestionably has the military advantage, so both sides are going to play their role. Hamas can not go toe to toe with Israel or they would be quickly eliminated, so they are going to blend in with their surroundings and more or less perform guerrilla warfare. Israel has no ability to separate Hamas militants from civilians (that is the point of Hamas' strategy) and can not just let their selves be attacked so they will try their best to prevent "collateral damage" and respond with their superior weaponry but will end up killing many more civilians than militants.

Now that is the overall strategy. That doesn't mean that rogue warriors on either side will stray from it, which many on both sides do. Anyways, due to this split in strategy it is easy for anyone supporting a particular side to say the other side is unethical while the actions by the side they support are justified. In reality, neither side has ethical grounds for their actions but, as humans should know by now, war is rarely ever carried out on ethical grounds. It is carried out by people who are going to inflict as much pain to the other team while receiving the least amount as possible. That is reality.

As a side note, I have disagreements with both sides from a realist perspective. I see the issue as much deeper and violent reactions are just band-aid solutions to real problem of ideologues and power disparities.



On to genocide. This is another aspect where it is easy to take something out of context and claim the opposing side is trying to commit genocide on the side you support. First of all, even if a single person within a group admits they want to wipe the other side off the map, it doesn't necessarily mean anything since that group may not be representative of that single statement. Every organization has people with their own motives and perspectives trying to exert power over the organization. Israel has it batshit crazy Zionists who want all of Palestine for Israel and are willing to kill all the Palestinians to get it while Palestine has its radical terrorists would won't stop until every Jew has been removed from Israeli lands. However, I would not consider either of these views representative of the larger organizations.

Second, all of these quotes are translations and the original word may have a completely different meaning or context (that is my argument against "The Bible says it" for anti-gay marriage people). Also, it is unclear from your quote whether the Defense Minister meant Palestine, Hamas, or the military wing of Hamas. The implications are vastly different depending on what he meant. One is legitimate genocide and other is typical warfare. I'm guessing it is the later. This is why I attacked your quote.



As a final thought, whether I consider what happened to the American Indians a genocide or not is completely semantic. In general, the United States had a policy of expansion where it gave natives the choice of unwanted lands or death (if they fought back). Since (in general), the policy wasn't to deliberately eliminate the natives way of living, the actions can be considered genocide in some senses and not in others.

I personally don't have stance because I see it as purely semantics. However, I do acknowledge that the American way of living fully benefited from the displacement and death of the native people. Take that how you want because I take it in more than one way.

I admit I am biased toward Israel based upon my religious and cultural beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the formation of a caliphate with Jersusalem as a capitol. They call for the destruction of Israel and plan to place everyone under Sharia law.

I know what the Muslim Brotherhood would do to me and my family. How many of you would survive under Sharia law?

My opinion is that nobody should offer an opinion on the matter without reading every side and studying the entire history for at least three years.

Sage advise. Why don't we just close this thread and agree to disagree?

Conclusion here are chock full of myths and intentional lies generated by propaganda. Worse, many fail to ask what Kennedy so routinely asked his advisers to therefore avert a worldwide nuclear war. What is he thinking? What does he see? What are his objectives? What are his people telling him?

First is Likud's obvious tactics. Likud (the extremist Israeli political party) has done everything possible to make the Palestinians divided. By routinely subverting Fatah, Israeli extremists empowered extremist Palestinians eventually resulting in outright warfare between Fatah and Hamas.

To maintain conflict, Israel (and others) even invented Hamas as a proxy for Iraq. Oh. Iraq is gone. So Hamas is now a proxy for Iran. If true, then Hamas is also a proxy for the UN. These myths and lies are easy to create when extremist rhetoric invents mythical claims. Soundbyte lies are easy. Exposing those hard lies with facts requires pages of paragraphs. Paragraphs are too hard for a majority. Most people only hear soundbytes (ie Saddam’s WMDs). Sounbytes make this conflict easier to promote and maintain.

These tactics are important for Likud's strategic objective. Likud strongly remembers what they regards as a disaster. A peace treaty with Egypt that gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Likud never forgot. And bluntly said never again.

Key to achieving Likud's poltical objectives is to make peace impossible. That means stirring and encouraging dissent and dissatisfaction among Palestinians. That also means moderate Arabs or Israelis cannot easily exist.

Virtually every potential peace process has be subverted by Likud. Likud even needed, called for, and got the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin, from a more moderate party, could make peace. So Likud needed him dead. And got it.

A peace settlement with Palestinians is virtually impossible as long as nobody can properly represent Palestinians. Constant harrassment by all sides only further enhances Likud's position, power, and objectives. Including a constant Fatah / Hamas conflict.

One of the world’s greatest negotiators was Sen George Mitchell. He even ended a virtually insolvable conflict in Northern Ireland. But he walked away from this Israeli Palestinian conflict. Because it is completely unsolvable. As most world leaders complain (some accidentally in public), Netanyahu is impossible to work with. Because any solution to this conflict means Israel will not conquer the West Bank. And that (after lessons from the Sinai) is a Likud topmost objective. If it takes constant warfare, well, extremist love war to achieve objectives. War empowers extremists at the expense of moderates.

Israelis will not become moderate until enough die. Maybe three Israelis die for hundreds of Palestinians. That only further empowers Likud. When numbers are 100 dead on both sides, only then will Israelis reject their wacko extremists and become moderate. But we all know that will not happen.

Everyone is worried about this current conflict only in that being concerned maintains relationships with all 'good' people on both sides. Everyone knows that any peace settlement will be undermined by Likud (and probably by wacko extremist Palestinians) by constantly failing to honor promises. And then firing up the propaganda machines to claim it was the other side who reneged. Currently, all concerned parties are maintaining relationships with moderates who may, in future generations, inspire peace when Likud is removed from power.

Never forget the entire purpose of this conflict. To conquer the West Bank. To drive Palestinians from the land. Even embargos and making life miserable for moderates is critical to keeping this conflict going. Extremists pretending to be concerned even for civilian life is spin necessary to mask their real purpose: not let a peace settlement occur.

Likud has a long history of undermining every potential settlement with shrewd, many, and tiny actions that successfully undermined every possible settlement. Including Sharon and his closest hundreds friend tromping on Temple Mount with their shoes on - as if that was a gesture of peace to Palestinians.

There is no peace as long as Likud and their strategic objective exists. Any peace process is a disaster to Likud.

A Saudi foreign minister properly defined how to start a settlement. Of Hamas, he said, “Ignore them.” Without attention, then Hamas loses power. But that is contrary to Likud's objectives.

As far as I am concerned, not enough people are dying equally on both sides. Until then, moderates will not rise up and demand peace.

BTW, Israel will probably invade Gaza soon. Its not clear what they intend to accomplish militarily. But we know what the ultimate prize is - conquering the West Bank.

Sigh......

No, no, no, tw! the Ultimate Prize is the Christian Rapture.

The Born-Agains are slavering over this stuff.

Ugh.

How can we have a second coming of Christ if he has not yet come the first time? Oh. Miracle.

Boy, are they in for a surprise.

Always worth a repeat posting:

And members of the Jewish faith don't have to concern themselves with it either way, since they don't accept the New Testament. No ravings by that certifiable crazy, John, who wrote the Book of Revelations, among other things for THEM! And I suppose this would hold true for members of the Muslim faith for the same reasons.

So, the rapture would open up lots of free land that no one was using anymore and the Muslims and Jews could just divide up between them all the land that Christians had left behind. Voila! No more Arab-Israeli dispute (yeah, right).

When the going gets tough, send in a woman...


Christian Science Monitor
Howard LaFranchi
11/21/12

Gaza cease-fire: Clinton role shows US still dominant in tough neighborhood

It seems to me that Ms Clinton has been an effective Sec of State.

It seems to me that Hillary should run in 2016.

Seems like everybody's got an opinion on this one... yeah, I know, they all have assholes too. :haha:

Top Ten Myths about Israeli Attack on Gaza.
Stop pretending the US is an uninvolved, helpless party in the Israeli assault on Gaza

An Open Letter to the President

Always was a question about the US/Egyptian diplomatic relationship now that Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood) is the resident power. What Clinton, Obama, and Morsi (et al) have done is nothing more than impressive. They got both Israel (that was on the verge of an invasion) and Hamas to concede on points that nobody would have expected either party to conceded on.

Well, now we must see how 'honest' both parties will be. Israel has a long history of reneging on details that undermine or compromise an agreement. Hamas has a serious problem reigning in its extremists - especially Salafis. Salafis have even attacked Egyptian troops in the Sinai.

Maintaining this settlement will be challenging. But achieving that agreement was a major accomplishment for US/Egyptian diplomacy. Suggests that US - Egyptian relations remain as strong as ever.

From the Washington Post of 22 Nov 2012 entitled "Hamas leaders emerge stronger than ever, Palestinians say": Ironically, a loser is Fatah - a noncombatant.

Usually, we hear only from the top dogs in government, or talking heads,
when it comes to the war/peace negotiations between factions.
Or we see only the pics and videos of the military (drone) strikes.

But the video linked below is unusual in that the main speaker is a man
who actually drafted a peace accord between Israel and Hamas.
The headline is inflammatory, but the discussion is quite reasonable.

I found it quite fascinating and informative of the status of
Hamas and Iraeli negotiations just before the fighting broke out again...

[The discussion starts at the 20 min mark, and is only about 10 min long]

Democracy Now
Amy Goodman
11/16/12

Israeli Negotiator: Hamas Commander Was Assassinated Hours After Receiving Truce Deal from Israel
Israel broke an informal ceasefire on Wednesday by assassinating
Hamas military commander Ahmed Jabari in an air strike.
The Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin, who helped mediate talks between
Israel and Hamas in the deal to release Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit,
has revealed Jabari was assassinated just hours after he received
the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel,
which included mechanisms for maintaining the ceasefire.
<snip>

Not so fast dep't: one day later, it turns out there was a high price to pay for a momentary ceasefire... the probable end of Egypt's new Democracy.

NY Times: Citing Deadlock, Egypt’s Leader Seizes New Power and Plans Mubarak Retrial

CAIRO — With a constitutional assembly on the brink of collapse and protesters battling the police in the streets over the slow pace of change, President Mohamed Morsi issued a decree on Thursday granting himself broad powers above any court as the guardian of Egypt’s revolution, and used his new authority to order the retrial of Hosni Mubarak.

Mr. Morsi, an Islamist and Egypt’s first elected president, portrayed his decree as an attempt to fulfill popular demands for justice and protect the transition to a constitutional democracy. But the unexpected breadth of the powers he seized raised immediate fears that he might become a new strongman. Seldom in history has a postrevolutionary leader amassed so much personal power only to relinquish it swiftly.

“An absolute presidential tyranny,” Amr Hamzawy, a liberal member of the dissolved Parliament and prominent political scientist, wrote in an online commentary. “Egypt is facing a horrifying coup against legitimacy and the rule of law and a complete assassination of the democratic transition.”

Mr. Morsi issued the decree at a high point in his five-month-old presidency, when he was basking in praise from the White House and around the world for his central role in negotiating a cease-fire that the previous night had stopped the fighting in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas.

But, but, but...

Mubarak was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Could Morsi just be planning something akin to Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon ?

ETA: or maybe another Judge Roy Bean ?

Having made America so appreciative, Morsi looks like he his taking advantage of that newly won political capital. Morsi had declared the Judiciary inferior to the President. And he has a point. Egypt still has not delivered a constitution that was due last September at the latest. Nothing official defined powers of each branch - Judiciary, Parliament, or President.

Meanwhile, Mubarak era judges disbanned Parliament. And could not successfully prosecuate many Mubarak top officials in the death of so many demonstrators.

Egyptians who listen to Morsi's speeches tell me he speaks heavily in religious rhetoric. Completely different from the pragmatic leader who so successfully negoitated a Palestinian / Israeli settlement.

We just don't know where he stands. In a country full on competing political parties including the extremist Salafis, he apparenty must remain somewhat undefined. Many also say these judges have a history of standing up against both Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Charlie Rose repeatedly asked him if he was an American ally. He repeatedly replied he was an American friend.