Gaza: Truce Without Hope

It's rare in the history of national conflicts that you see truces that are doomed before they are even announced. Truces where both sides denounce each other and practically predict its demise. So this truce follows the miserable history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A truce painstakingly negotiated between Israel and Hamas with Egypt as mediator. A truce which could bring peace to Sderot and Gaza. A truce which could open the border crossings and relieve the suffocation of Gaza. A truce which could free Gilad Shalit. That's what it COULD do. What is will ACTUALLY do is probably something else entirely.

Here is retired IDF General Shlomo Brom and a Palestinian analyst uniting in their lament for the late, lamented truce that's only just begun:

"It is a strange agreement," said Khaled Abdel Shafi, an economist in Gaza. "Both sides are threatening each other. There is no sign of good intentions."

In Israel, some officials suggested that the main purpose of the agreement was to give legitimacy to a future military offensive, so that Israeli leaders could claim that they had exhausted all other possibilities first.

"It could be the start of a new era, but it won't be," said Shlomo Brom, a retired general at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv who has long called for a dialogue with Hamas.

"Listen to their declarations," he said. "Self-fulfilling prophecy."

Kershner's observation above is unfortunately right on the money. Within a month or perhaps sooner, the IDF will be rolling into Gaza to "flush out" insurgents and deal a "fatal blow" to Hamas terror. Equally unfortunate will be the disingenuous Israeli claim that they exhausted every option before resorting to force. In truth, they never gave the diplomatic option a reasonable chance and the military option is DOA. A real diplomatic initiative would have included Gilad Shalit's release, opening of the Gaza crossings, the freeing of Palestinian prisoners, and the inclusion of the West Bank in the ceasefire. The Israelis were not prepared for a comprehensive ceasefire, which in turn dooms this one to the ash heap of the history of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

"These obedient to God and Torah had lived many generations within Palestine in peace with their Arab neighbor's­."

Throughout history Arabs/Muslims have been willing to tolerate and use the talents of the infidel outsiders such as Jews and Armenians.
But if, and only if the infidel remained weak and oppressed with rights of a second class citizen.
Arabs particularly are rabid with fury that that the Arab archetype of perpetually weak and despised

This is the biggest sin of the Israeli Jew. Obviously, Arab populations don't give a flying f@#ck about Palestinians they are roundly feared and despised by most Arabs states.
But Arab states are half-heartedly willing to support Palestinian violence who are dumb enough to believe the propaganda sacrifice their children.

While other Arab states long ago made the decision that fighting Israel is a hopeless waste of money and resources.

[dschwarz]

>A real diplomatic initiative would have included Gilad Shalit's release, opening of the Gaza crossings, the freeing of Palestinian prisoners, and the inclusion of the West Bank in the ceasefire.

Sigh.

Include the West Bank in the ceasefire? Hamas does not control the West Bank, and Hamas is barely on speaking terms with Fatah. If the two Palestinian groups can't agree among themselves, how can you fault Israel for reaching terms with one group?

The fact that Gilad Shalit is not being released as part of the initiative is Hamas's fault, not Israel's. Hamas is holding Shalit under conditions that violate international law, and the ransom they are demanding for Shalit is unacceptably high. Hamas and Israel may yet agree on terms. This will be the subject of subsequent negotiations.

Gaza crossings will be opened gradually, if the cease fire holds. Fuel and supplies are already flowing into Gaza on the first day of the cease fire.

BBC is reporting on the terms of the deal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm

[DeWayne]

I agree in full context with the above post and description of conditions that first must be met, however completely disagree with a serious statement-error in the article, this statement being "So this truce follows the miserable history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

By saying "Israel" in this conflict gives serious misleading that the entire population of the new State of Israel are in agreement with what has been called the Aparthied operations of the secular Zionist-gov in control of the State of Israel and all Jewish population.

The truth of the matter is that religious Jewish people, some that had never left during the scattering, also others that returned to their 'Homeland' for religious matters, these obedient to God and Torah had lived many generations within Palestine in peace with their Arab neighbor's.

It was not until 1900s and what I call the rebellious generation, that Zionists and their Aparthied goals entered the Middle East and Palestine with help of the British Empire, this empire in this era changing from coal to oil used to drive their Navy.

More importantly in the new State of Israel, there are a good number of religious Jewish that still teach only the Messiah will re-establish Israel, speak out constantly about their efforts thwarted constantly to bring peace between peoples of this region. So if inclined to find need to name the problem within Israel, say Zionism and be more accurate.