built again. unless you address the grievances of the people there and the siege and the occupation, this is something that's going to go on and on again. knowing that -- >> doesn't a cease-fire have to come first? hamas rejected an earlier cease-fire saying it didn't meet broader demands. what needs to happen? i'll go back to my original question, doesn't a cease-fire need to happen first before serious talk can take place? >> well, yes and no. as you mentioned, there was a cease-fire attempt earlier this week and the week before that the palestinian side, the militants in gaza offered truce terms as well. those were rejected which the israelis. the idea here is that there should be a cease-fire, but the cease-fire should actually end all forms of violence on both sides, but just because projectiles are -- >> it was hamas who violated the cease-fire. it wasn't israel. >>'s that's just empirically untrue. if you look throughout the