What is Digg?79 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+76BREAKING: I just used the word BREAKING
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Because it was secret between "September 2004 and July 2006". It's not secret now that it's January 2007.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Because it -was- secret between September 2004 and July 2006.
edit: hackwrench beat me to it... then again, repetition is learning. - stargatesteve, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16No they won't. There has been what, one time they attacked someone before the someone attacked them? For crying out loud, the arabs tried to invade them a day after Israel was formed. They sometimes need to do that to survive.
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10And the country in question was Lebanon, not Syria. Seems kinda ridiculous to have an opinion without actually knowing the least bit about what you're talking about. That's just me tho haha.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18Buried as spam for using BREAKING in the damn subject line.
- stargatesteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Hezbollah was launching the rockets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10BREAKING is appropriate in this instance, because the deal is going to be BROKEN as soon as it's signed.
- nayten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://digg.com/world_news/Israel_denies_secret_deal_with_Syria
EVEN MORE BREAKING. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I hate to be like this, but I have to mark Inaccurate.
The reports are that there WERE secret talks, which ended when Hezbollah attacked Israel. Syria is denying that the talks happened in the first place, and in any case, if they did exist, nothing ever came of them. - stargatesteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9> Every other state would have done the same if the Jews colonized and then tried (and in the case of israel, succesfully managed) to proclame a state on a part of their land and then expelled most of the arabs out of the new state to maintain a democratic majority because the arabs could have voted against the state of israel.
It was part of British Palistine. Britain gave them the land. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Is it really "secret" when it's the top story on digg?
- ahsen74, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Unfortunately, it is likely that nothing will come of this.
- yonoz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17Nothing in this region is done without American involvement.
The agreement includes an American early warning station on Mt. Hermon. - wileycount, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Will this understanding survive this press coverage? And is Rice's presence in the region at all a factor, or will it be?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Let me guess; the secret is: I'll look down the barrel of your gun while you look down the barrel of my gun.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You must be the life of the parties.
- leubstop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Your analogy of us and Iraq doesn't apply here...
Iraq had a formal government before US toppled the regime . palestine never had a formal government of its own. Palestinians if you will, were always governed by other world powers, British, ottomans, Turks,, you name it.. the last formal government in the region was that of a Jewish monarch, there were actually a few David, Saul... to name a few.
Its also interesting to note that the PLO was not formed in 46 when Israel declared itself independent from British rule,
its also interesting to note that modern palestinians had no objections to Egypt occupying Gaza from 46-67
and had no objections to Jordan occupying the west bank during the same years...
only once Israel was attacked and took the land from Jordan, did the palestinians find their new identity.
for a quick lesson take a peek at http://youtube.com/watch?v=a6gxaGp_NM8 - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What is this, peace accord #156 between Israel and its neighbors?
- Rhine23, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11If it is so secret how do we know about it :/
- animefx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Would you PLEASE stop using "BREAKING" just to get your stories on the front page of Digg? This has been used way to much. This is going to drive me crazy.
- betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Didn't Mao say all power is derived for the end of a gun?
- biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My SO is a press officer for the Israeli consulate. She was just as surprised about this "news" as everyone else this morning. Not that this story is absolutely incorrect (she's not nearly high enough to be in the loop about such things), but press officers and Consul Generals usually get a whiff of stuff like this before they end up... well... before they end up on Digg.
Just my .02 - sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6And anyone can see that Israel has made more productive use of the land since then than the olive farmers (most of whom didn't even occupy the parts now called Israel). And since when has ownership of land not included violent expulsion or occupation of the previous inhabitants? Do you apply different rules to the settlers of America than you do to the Jews? From whom did those olive farmers take the land called Palestine? How did the British come to "own" rights to the place? Get some perspective and stop pretending that you're not making special rules to condemn Jews.
- nagumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3muuhgnoo: Although much of what you say is correct and accurate, your statement that Israel, upon being founded, determined that Palestinians in Israel would not be able to vote is incorrect. In fact, any Palestinians who were living within the 1948 borders of Israel at the time of the founding were granted automatic citizenship (same for all religions). It is true, however, that other Palestinians who were not so lucky to live within the borders decided upon by the UN did not and cannot receive citizenship (which I oppose - as an Israeli, a Jew and a human being). Also, in a disgusting law that seems almost Cheney-like, it seems that now Israeli Arabs will NOT be able to grant legal resident status (like a US green card) to their spouses.
--
Naomi, in Israel - heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5BREAKING wind
- shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FIXING.
- tuxerware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3can you please stop using the word "BREAKING" in the headline!!!
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mgapparel is a spammer selling T-shirts. Don't click the link, just digg him down.
- ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope this is true. It makes a lot of sense actually. All Syria really wanted was the Golan Heights more out of a pride thing than anything else. All Israel wanted was to not get shelled from there or have the Jordan river diverted. The marriage of Syria and Iran had to break eventually. Considering Iraq (and maybe the whole mideast) is getting ready for a Sunni/Shiite civil war, it didn't make sense to be supporting Shiite Hezbollah when the country is filling up with Sunni refugees from Iraq. As well, the success Hezbollah had against Israel with Iranian weapons must have gave them a scare. Though Hezbollah is not tough enough to march on Israel, they probably could march on Syria. Better for Syria to cut them off now. Without Syria, Hezbollah will have a very hard time getting supplies by sea, so Hezbollah is checkmated. This is not only good for Israel but also Lebanon and a boost to the Sunni side in the coming war. Good one Syria. Next development to look for after the yanks leave is some Sunni/Kurd alignment. Since Kurdistan would mean an immediate Turkish invasion, they had better align themselves with the Sunni's maybe making a deal to get Kirkuk for driving the Shias out of Bagdad. Whatever Christians left in Iraq will side with this Sunni/Kurd alliance as they can't stand Shiites above all else.
This is going to be one hell of a war. - heiroglyph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess that's the downside of secret peace agreements. Ya gotta let the people with the weapons know! ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is no peace deal. The Israelis would be asked to give up the Golan heights, a position from which the Syrian Arabs shelled half of Israel. It will never happen. I hope for a greater Israel where the Arabs are driven from the holy land.
- slickricks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg down as inaccurate (at least according to the Israeli government). See: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467742843&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
If you read the article these negotiations ended summer '06, before Sharon's stroke. No way this plan gets carried through by Olmert, who has shown a proclivity to maintain the status quo as his interim rise to power would suggest. - stargatesteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HAVE YOU BEEN READING THE OTHER POSTS? Both sides are saying nothing happened! The same site with this story had a story stating this was inaccurate!
- stargatesteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3> This is the same as if you suggested the US could "give" Iraq now to Israel, because its "theirs".
Nope. We have a military contingent in Iraq. It is not a part of America. "Officially" there is a government in Iraq, there wasn't in British Palestine. Our forces are there to try to keep peace, Britain's were in British Palestine to help control their nation. (please, no flames. I don't support the war in Iraq, I'm just pointing out the reason for the troops being there) - mijohnst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is all the fault of that damn Bush administration and if…..Oh wait, this is good news… Thank you Democrats!!
- ComputerGuru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't get it.
The agreement is 100% in Israel's favor, with literally nothing but Syria regaining a portion of the Golan heights, then converting it into a park for Israeli Settlers. Why the hell would they agree to this? - Quidam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Condi Rice isn't a factor in ANY peace agreement...she just knows how to support wars
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Inaccurate....
- Vigilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When Israel wars with Iran in the coming months Syria knows if they back Iran Iran will fight out of Syria in effect destroying Syria. Israel have most certainly threatened Syria with this scenario and so Syria have made an agreement. However some of the concessions from Israel are pretty unreal they are very stubborn and dishonest with their middle east neighbors so that is why if this is true Israel will not honor their end. This is heavy global intrigue Syria could also be laying a trap of sorts. Either way it sure does look like Israel wants to attack Iran and that means America too and that means draft and thats is sad scary *****.
- IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haaretz is about the most respected newspaper in Israel.
- portis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not so SECRET is it?
- jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But I also disagree with the term secret here - Especially if it's supposed to be "BREAKING." The vast majority of political agreements are "secret" then.
Japan and America came to a "secret" peace by this definition - It was secret to the American people until broadcast on the radio. Any parallels here? - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1obnoxious title, questionable source... That's digg for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6267117.stm - cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Breaking: Breaking is Broken!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> This is the same as if you suggested the US could "give" Iraq now to Israel, because its "theirs".
...actually, I was thinking Proto Rico. - xxrealmsxx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Buried as inaccurate because the source of the article discredits it:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/814085.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please do list Security Council (mandatory) resolutions broken.
- ahsen74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its the reality of the situation, not me:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/814346.html - banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hate the word BREAKING
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is