Something's been bothering me: How come Jerusalem is never referred to as "the holy city of Jerusalem"?

Isn't a cease fire agreement in effect right now? I think the Palestinians agreed to one as a part of the Roadmap for Peace. Maybe they really, really mean it this time.

They said they were 'ready' for a ceasefire. Not that one's in place now.

I don't understand the point of this post, Stefan.

There IS a cease-fire now (several even). The PA is saying they're ready for another one.

The point of my post was that I think the Palestinians had already agreed to a cease fire, but they haven't been following that agreement. So, I was questioning the value of another agreement.

Seems that people are so conditioned to thinking in sound bites that they have forgotten the famous "Hudna" which until Hamas at the time declared it over saw several bombings and many, many more attempts stopped in their tracks.
Only the media believes in the rubbish it is fed.

I won't claim to speak for Stefan. For me, the significance of this news item is that, for a change, the PALESTINIANS are clamoring for a cease-fire, and the Israelis are playing hard-to-get about it. (As an expatriate Israeli, I find it a welcome change.)

The Palestinians have never been particularly interested in cease-fires, except when they could gain significant tactical advantage from one. Usually their strategy is the opposite one -- keep the fires burning as hot as possible, keep the Israelis off-balance, make them wonder where Jews will die next.

When multiple Palestinian terror organizations call for a cease-fire simultaneously, you KNOW that the IDF is getting the message across. To me, that's good news.

respectfully,
Daniel in Medford

Whatever the facts on the ground, the Palestinians will gain a public relations point. Sharon will be continued to be seen as obstinate, which unfortunately, he is. If he would be smart, which he isn't, he would call for peace talks every day despite whatever he does.

Yes, Sharon could play the same game as the terrorists. But the international media would call him on it, contrasting his words with his actions.
They never seem to do that with the terrorists.

Netanyahu tried something like what Jed proposed in order to show that Arafat was breaking existing agreements right and left. The press simply refused to mention his statements. They're not required to quote Israeli prime ministers. The press simply quoted Clinton's officials saying that Netanyahu is the problem.

I just can't stand the killing and destruction without a light at the end of the tunnel.

And Clinton is not Bush. Arafat has not been invited to the White House.

Does Sharon have a plan for peace? In 4 years, I have never heared him say anything about peace, except "We will not talk peace until there is an end to the terror." Since terror has not stopped in 4 years, thousands of Jews and Arabs have been killed and maimed. Of course, the fault remains with Arafat, but Sharon should speak about peace and the benefits which would come from it, which may entice some Palestinians to desire it.

Saying he will not "talk peace" gives ammunition for the anti-Israeli crowd. Talking peace does not mean giving in to your adversary's demands.

Dukes of Hazzard At seagulls he unbent a sea-captain, but he was only stopd by some of the youngest Dukes of Hazzard of the nature-worshiper, and he felt irvingesque and out of gozarse among the snugger and grouser gr