| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
And what is Hamas going to do in return? Israeli officials should carefully consider why Hamas may be offering this temporary tahdia, or calm. Does Hamas fear it has bitten off more than it can chew, and that decisive action by Israel in Gaza may be in the offing? Or will they simply take advantage of the period of "calm" in order to continue preparing for later action? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.) Simply put, Israel's leadership must ask what lies on the other side of the "calm" -- not what they "hope" or "trust" will happen.
Negotiating with jihadists is a risky proposition, as the negotiator risks rewarding the behavior that has led to the present situation. Indeed, as the article notes, "...cutting a deal with Hamas would amount to international recognition of its control of Gaza." If Israel allows Hamas to control or appear to control the terms of the cease-fire, Israel looks weak, and Hamas and other jihadist groups will try to press the advantage.
The article doesn't say anything about Israel's terms, but these would be just a start:
1. Release Gilad Shalit.
2. Put an end to incitement in Hamas-controlled media -- for example, praising the Jerusalem yeshiva attacker.
3. If Hamas likes to think of itself as "controlling" the Gaza Strip, they need to actually control it, or admit they can't or won't. Rocket attacks must end, and "loose cannon" jihadist groups are no excuse.
Those would be minimal requirements. There are many others that could and should be added, including the demand that Hamas renounce the goal of destroying Israel.
"Hamas sets terms for Israel cease-fire," by Ibrahim Barzak for the Associated Press:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - The Hamas prime minister called publicly Wednesday for a period of calm with Israel, laying out conditions that would end attacks on Palestinian militants, open Gaza's borders and lift economic sanctions.
But shortly after the appeal by Ismail Haniyeh, Israeli troops opened fire on a car in the West Bank town of Bethlehem and killed four Palestinian militants, clouding the prospects for a cease-fire.
A bit of biased reporting. A few paragraphs below, we find out more about these "militants."
Among the conditions for an end to fighting that Haniyeh set earlier was a halt to Israeli military operations in the West Bank.
"We are talking about a mutual comprehensive calm, which means that the enemy must fulfill its obligations," Haniyeh said in a speech at Gaza City's Islamic University. "The Israelis must stop the aggression ... including assassinations and invasions, end the sanctions and open the borders."
Haniyeh's offer by came amid signs that Israel and Hamas are moving closer to an Egyptian-brokered deal to end weeks of fighting that have killed more than 120 Palestinians and five Israelis.
Israel stepped up attacks on Gaza two weeks ago in response to repeated rocket barrages on southern Israeli towns by Hamas militants. The fighting has subsided in recent days. But both sides have denied talk of a formal truce and there are no direct contacts.
The U.S. fears continued fighting will torpedo peace talks between Israel and moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who controls a West Bank government that rivals Hamas' rule of Gaza.
Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist and is sworn to its destruction. Israel refuses to deal with the Hamas government.
But cutting a deal with Hamas would amount to international recognition of its control of Gaza. Israel and Abbas -- who are involved in internationally backed peace talks -- would essentially be agreeing to work with the militants instead of trying to topple them, allowing Hamas to stay in power while they try to negotiate a peace deal.
The deal could also give Abbas a new foothold in the area.
At the center of the arrangement would be deployment of officers loyal to Abbas at Gaza's border crossings with Israel and Egypt. Hamas officials said they accept such a deployment in principle, even though it means giving up some control. They said they have given Egypt names of pro-Abbas officers who would be acceptable to Hamas.
Haniyeh said "all of the factions are involved," signaling that Hamas' call for a halt to the fighting has the support of smaller militant groups that have often scuttled cease-fire attempts in the past.
Haniyeh used the word "tahdia," or calm, to describe the informal cease-fire he sought. He did not use the Arabic word "hudna," which is interpreted as a more formal truce. Both terms denote a temporary cease-fire rather than a permanent peace, but even the subtle differences between the words has led to fierce debate among Arabs in past cease-fire efforts.
Israel has repeatedly warned that Hamas would use any lull to rearm. And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak made clear Wednesday that a cease-fire was not yet in place.
"We are not in a situation of an arrangement here," Barak said during a tour of the Gaza border. "We are in the midst of operations aimed at stopping rocket fire," he added. "There is no change in what we're doing. What awaits us here is more operations."
The remarks were followed by the Israeli West Bank attack. Palestinian security officials said one of the four killed was the commander of Islamic Jihad in the Bethlehem area, Mohammed Shehadeh, and two others were also members of Islamic Jihad. The fourth belonged to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah.
More specifically, an article at YNet News identifies Shehadeh as the jihadist believed to be the mastermind of the yeshiva attack. That really lets the air out of the notion that this operation by Israeli forces should have any bearing on the cease-fire.
Islamic Jihad leader Nafez Azzam in Gaza denounced the killings.
"This new crime reflects the true face of the occupation," he said. "Killing still continues while they are talking about the possibility of bringing calm. But if they think that calm means Palestinian surrender, they are mistaken."
Posted by Marisol at March 12, 2008 2:58 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Money says that Olmert accepts it.
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 12, 2008 3:08 PM
"At the center of the arrangement would be deployment of officers loyal to Abbas at Gaza's border crossings with Israel and Egypt."
I'm sure Abbas' crew would curb the smuggling...
Here's a good little article for anyone interested regarding the latest possibility of a hudna
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205261307377&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
at March 12, 2008 3:58 PM
WWMD - What would Muslims do?
If you follow Islamic rules of engagement, Israel would agree to whatever terms that Hamas or Fatah proposes. Then they would immediately launch a large scale attack on Gaza.
Historically, when Muslims sue for peace, it is because they are losing.
Hit 'em when they are down.
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 12, 2008 4:03 PM
Maybe Israel should offer a three State solution: recognize a Palestinian State on the West bank, and a seperate Palestinian State in Gaza. That would put Abbas in the position of denying self-determination to the people of Gaza, a charge leveled at Israel for 60 years. With no Israel settlements in Gaza, Israel could recognize a Palestinian Gazian State tomorrow without any major issues to prevent it.
If Abbas tries to prevent it, he can fight a civil war with Hamas, who can then turn their rockets on him.
Let the Arab States decide on who to support, the repressive West bank regime, or the freedom-loving people of Gaza.
Then turn the whole mess over to the United Nations.
Posted by: rational at March 12, 2008 4:26 PM
Will someone please tell me if I'm right or wrong on something.
Wasn't it just recently that Israel abandoned their settlements and handed Gaza over to the "Palestinians"? Then once Gaza was handed over, Hamas moved in and started lobbing rockets into Israel from there.
Also, does anyone know if Hezbollah (sp) ever returned the Israeli soldiers they kidnapped to instigate Israel's attack on Lebanon?
Posted by: n8 at March 12, 2008 4:39 PM
Will someone please tell me if I'm right or wrong on something.
Wasn't it just recently that Israel abandoned their settlements and handed Gaza over to the "Palestinians"? Then once Gaza was handed over, Hamas moved in and started lobbing rockets into Israel from there.
Also, does anyone know if Hezbollah (sp) ever returned the Israeli soldiers they kidnapped to instigate Israel's attack on Lebanon?
Posted by: n8
You're correct...and no, Hizballah hasn't given back the kidnapped soldiers.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 12, 2008 4:50 PM
Well, they are doing exactly as mohammed told them to do - ask for peace if they need to regroup and/or rearm. This time they have to go and do a little thinking. but, the peace cannot last longer than 10 years and will be broken at any time by the muslims.
We need to stop this nonsense and tell them the terms of peace and if not - boom, boom, boom, etc.
I am sure that greater minds than me can come up with something that will strangle them if they do not keep peace for LONGER than what they determine it should be. And I don't mean, ... oh this is the 17th time I told you no-no... oh shucks, now I have to go back and ask the UN and the Europeans who have a treaty with the muslims to take their side (EAD), Congress, etc. Yes, maybe we should go to Congress - BUT THAT IS ALL!
And this giving them 17 times like the UN and lefties (who were ok with and they weren't even tired of counting the number of times the sanctions could be broken!) is hogwash.
Geez, I am getting sick of the stupidity of our politicians. I know a few pigs who have gonads larger than the combined gonads of all our politicians here in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe - and they have more brains too!
Posted by: R_not at March 12, 2008 5:32 PM
If you will only let the Palestians have land there will be 'peace'. The more land you give the more 'peaceful' it becomes. I know because that is what the media, the UN, the US, the EU... says.
Please excuse the writing in crayon we are not allowed anything sharp in here!
Posted by: James at March 12, 2008 5:35 PM
"Put an end to incitement in Hamas-controlled media"..ROTFLMAO..also allow building of new synagogues for the impending peace, and discos.
Posted by: epaminondas at March 12, 2008 5:39 PM
No cease-fire unless it's on Israel's terms. If anything, Israel should ramp up action until this happens. Why give Hamas breathing room?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 12, 2008 6:12 PM
The best way to achieve a calm with Hamas is to find them and shoot them, at which point they become calm.
Posted by: jewdog at March 12, 2008 6:23 PM
Rice is getting the thumbscrews ready to apply to Olmert to appease Hamas and accept this "hudna"
Posted by: viahj at March 12, 2008 7:42 PM
Condi has been trying to put a positive spin on Abbas's recent statement that he "opposed armed struggle and was in favor of a negotiated settlement, though that might change later". It's the changed later part that people are wondering about. Could it be that he meant that after Israel made concessions the armed struggle would resume, or am I being too cynical?
Pour me a drink, Condi, put on some music and lull me to sleep, and then maybe I can have the same dreams as you.
at March 12, 2008 9:23 PM
"The U.S. fears continued fighting will torpedo peace talks between Israel and moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who controls a West Bank government that rivals Hamas' rule of Gaza."
-- from the article above
Neither Bush, nor Rice, nor any Western maker of policy, has a right to dictate to Israel what it should do for its own defense. Advice may be given, but it is only of value if it is given by those who have a clear understanding of Islamic doctrine, fixed in stone, about agreements and "truce treaties" (there is no such thing as a permanent peace treaty between Muslims and non-Muslims where the former agree to a real peace, and not merely a "truce" when on the ropes, in order to recover for the next assault). Only those who have thoroughly assiimilated the traditional Islamic view of war and peace, set out for example in Majid Khadduri's Law of War and Peace in Islam, and who understand that while "Pacta Sunt Servanda" (treaties are to be obeyed) has for a long time been the guiding principle for treaty-making in the Western world, it is irrelevant to Muslim states and polities, where it is the example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, and his "truce treaty" made with the Meccans in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, and then was broken by him as soon as he felt powerful enough to do so, some 18 months later, that counts.
Does Rice know this? Does Bush? Does Gates? Does Stephen Hadley? Do any of those who are supposed "experts" on the Arab-Israeli conflict --the assorted dready dennis-rosses and aaron-millers and richard-hasses who cannot really admit that they have spent so much of their professional lives involved in negotiations and diplomacy that, essentially, was based on their own ignorance of Islam, an ignorance they are not likely at this point to admit to, for it is all too embarrassing, and the farce of "Israeli-Arab" or "Israeli-'Palestinian'" negotiations, if fully understood and exposed, would leave too much egg on too many solemn faces.
Stupidaggini, everywhere you look. Che incubo.
Posted by: Hugh at March 12, 2008 10:22 PM
The comment of Rep. Steve King that a victory for B.Hussein Obama will be seen by Al Quaida and our other enemies as a victory for them.
The FARC group of leftist rebels want to meet with him as soon as he becomes President. Cause he said he wants to meet with all these groups.
In a strange way he is Cindy Sheehan's mythological alternate son.
Welcome to the new world.
Posted by: dgene at March 12, 2008 10:54 PM
Hugh, I can not find anything wrong in you statements. And on the surface it looks the way you say. The contrarian POV is that they do know and they are just letting the rope out for the hanging. Mind you I have not thought it all the way out just trying to get my head around the real motives.
As I was reading all of the posts I had a thought that maybe Condi was pressuring Abbas AKA Hamas to throw a little peace offering and see what happens. Again what are the motives of the players or better what are their strategies.
US - They want peace in the area with Israel recognized. Appears, even if that means compromise (with land) or other things. Contrary POV, Appear to be for peace to lull they enemy into thinking the are winning.
Israel - They want peace and to be left alone to build their nation. Appears, they are doing this in spite of the attacks. Continue to hint at compromise for peace. Contrary POV, Hold ground and attack when the shortest and best outcome is possible.
Islam - They want the Israels dead every last one of them along with anything that is Jewish in culture. Appears, to play the victim card for international sympathy. Always speak and act in defensive terms. Tactical advantage is all and deceit is the trump card. Contrary POV, they will settle for peace when they have the political, economic and public opinion strength. Then they maybe able to feel important and accepted by the world community. This is so that they can continue the Islamization of the world.
Would like to hear others thoughts or views. Did I miss something?
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 12, 2008 11:05 PM
Islamic Jihad leader Nafez Azzam in Gaza denounced the killings.
"This new crime reflects the true face of the occupation," he said. "Killing still continues while they are talking about the possibility of bringing calm. But if they think that calm means Palestinian surrender, they are mistaken."
funny the occupiers of jewish lands are the muslims and the Palestin peaple were offered there own country in 47 but the muslims of the middle east could not take not being top dog in isreal so thyey went to war they could have peace at any time they want but will not take it
Posted by: nomoreoiljizha at March 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Does Abbas want peace with Israel - a true lasting peace? When did he abandon his own belief that Israel's ultimate destruction is a necessity. What does Olmert gain by working with him? Fatah and Hamas may be rivals but both have the same beliefs where Israel is concerned. Only their methods differ (somewhat).
Posted by: PMK at March 13, 2008 9:05 AM
Now that Hamas has admitted that they use women, children and old folks as human shields, Israel should understand that there will be no peace until the muslims are thoroughly defeated/destroyed.
Every time a rocket lands in Israel, a village in Gaza should be leveled.
Ohlmert, when the muslims say they won't rest until Israel is destroyed, take them at their word and destroy them first.
Tell Condi to live under constant rocket attacks for a while and then see how peaceful she's feeling.
Face it GW, yours is the next in a long line of U.S. administrations that failed to bring peace to the middle east.
Posted by: walterc at March 13, 2008 6:12 PM
This is a open letter to Condi Rice..Dr. Rice, you know and I know that there will never be peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Neither side really wants peace especially the Palestinians.What is to be gained by peace? Not long ago I saw you on TV with Abbas and a representative of Israel and you had this look on your face that my mother use to have when someone was trying to hand her a load of bull. I am a African American male and I know that look. I know you have your duties to try and broker peace but your face told the real story. We as black people come from a long line of survivors and we know bull when we see it.I can't wait to read your book after you leave office so you can tell a brother whats really going on over there. Take care...bloodstone
Posted by: bloodstone at March 16, 2008 12:25 AM
This is a open letter to Condi Rice..Dr. Rice, you know and I know that there will never be peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Neither side really wants peace especially the Palestinians.What is to be gained by peace? Not long ago I saw you on TV with Abbas and a representative of Israel and you had this look on your face that my mother use to have when someone was trying to hand her a load of bull. I am a African American male and I know that look. I know you have your duties to try and broker peace but your face told the real story. We as black people come from a long line of survivors and we know bull when we see it.I can't wait to read your book after you leave office so you can tell a brother whats really going on over there. Take care...bloodstone
Posted by: bloodstone at March 16, 2008 12:26 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)