“Seeking to unify Gaza Strip factions on their truce with Israel, Egypt hosted leaders of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad earlier this month in Cairo.”
One wonders what Egypt is really up to. The goal of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is to obliterate the Jewish state of Israel. Endless truces have come and gone, as jihadists have continued their assault on Israel.
Although Egypt is said to be a mediator in pushing Hamas and Israel to agree to a five-year ceasefire deal, the meeting “was chaired by Hamas political bureau head Ismail Haniyeh and his Islamic Jihad counterpart, Secretary-General Ziad al-Nakhalah,” which gives an indication of where this so-called truce deal is really going.
Note that Israel in the article is presented as the aggressor:
The fighting, in which 34 Palestinians were killed, erupted after Israel assassinated Islamic Jihad commander Bahaa Abu al-Atta and his wife, and in a separate attack that day, killed a son of Islamic Jihad leader Akram al-Ajouri.
Israel is by no means the aggressor in this long-standing conflict. Israel has struggled to survive as a Jewish state since its founding, and it will not be left alone, since the goal of the surrounding Muslim Arab nations has always been to “free Palestine” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This means to obliterate Israel.
Read The Palestinian Delusion.
“Egypt firms up truce positions between Israel, Gaza factions,” by Rasha Abou Jalal, Al-Monitor, December 12, 2019:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Seeking to unify Gaza Strip factions on their truce with Israel, Egypt hosted leaders of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad earlier this month in Cairo.
The Dec. 3 meeting was chaired by Hamas political bureau head Ismail Haniyeh and his Islamic Jihad counterpart, Secretary-General Ziad al-Nakhalah. The men discussed a number of issues, most notably the Egypt-sponsored truce understandings signed between the Palestinian resistance and Israel in late March.
Following the meeting — which dragged on for more than five hours — the two movements said they will continue to coordinate closely and further develop joint operations. They stressed that their strategic relations are tantamount to a sustained alliance.
They also claimed to have overcome all attempts to sow discord among the movements’ members, which they said is what caused Hamas to refrain from participating in the Nov. 12-13 military confrontation that ignited between the Islamic Jihad and Israel. (Some observers, however, have speculated that Hamas sat out the fight to score points with Israel.) The fighting, in which 34 Palestinians were killed….
Buraq says
Israel should say that they agree to a peace deal …… provided that if Hamas (or any of the jihad franchisees they harbor in Gaza) fires a rocket at Israel, then Hamas accept Israel’s right to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh at leisure!
Frank Anderson says
Buraq, The way suicide bombings were slowed almost to the current near stop was Israel’s fully justified “targeted killings” of leaders sending the bombers into Israel. No agreement was necessary. Same should and probably does apply for leaders directing the firing of rockets, mortars, balloons and other bombs into Israel today. It is not the person carrying or firing the bomb that can stop it. It is the leadership that allows, promotes, assists, and authorizes the killing that should pay the price.
Israel understands this, more or less across party lines. Why not the rest of Judaism and the rest of non-Jews?
Battle says
The left media claimed “Israel assassinated Islamic Jihad commander Bahaa Abu al-Atta and his wife”
Not an assassination. The thug was shot.
mortimer says
It’s heartbreaking to see them meet to discuss a cease-fire. They should be discussing economic cooperation, water-sharing, hospitals, schools, new factories. Rather, they are seeking a truce while they prepare for more jihad. The warfare helps no one in the Middle East. Israel is going to remain, so Arabs should accept it and start benefiting from it by making deals that will help people and their children.
Frank Anderson says
Short but potentially useful story: 40 years ago I was in charge of video recording various events at law school including mock negotiations conducted by a class on the subject. That inspired me to purchase and read 6 books on the subject, as I did not have money or time to take the class. The unanimous conclusion of all 6 was that the first step when thinking about entering a negotiation is to consider the subject: Is there anything to negotiate?
If the subject has only two choices, war or peace, freedom or slavery, life or death. . .what is to talk about?
Islam universally proclaims that lying whenever advantage can be obtained is encouraged, Clear examples are used as subjects for the “final, perfect, complete and unchangeable” rules, goals and practices. The second step in the generally suggested negotiating process is to determine if the counterpart is sufficiently trustworthy to deal honestly and to perform the deal when it is concluded. China is illustrating the importance of that measure today.
Islam cannot change. Any proposal to change, to reform, is blasphemy or apostasy, punishable by death. Peace is absent in a religion, which is also under US law a criminal conspiracy, to conduct war until the entire world is killed or enslaved. Depending on who is estimating, between 250 and 1000 million people have been killed to date, and rising daily.
Negotiations with muslims is nothing more than wishful thinking, a denial of reality, a Viktor Frankl “delusion of reprieve” that keeps otherwise useless, high-priced, untalented, deliberately ignorant negotiators employed. If the negotiators first will confront the reality of the counterpart, they would be forced to admit they have nothing beneficial to contribute, and would have to find some other way to milk us. Some lawyers will actually decline a case because they see the client will not benefit by their handling. But others cheerfully take the client’s money, time and welfare knowing full well the client will suffer as the final result. Which would you rather advise you?
gravenimage says
Spot on analysis, Frank.
Frank Anderson says
I infuriated a judge that I stood before often in a case where she expected me to talk with the other side when there was NOTHING to discuss. The debtor was trying to fraudulent stick my client, his brother, with debts he did not owe. The judge did not want to hear it. After 3 hearings in 2 weeks, 2 sworn statements from the debtor’s office manager and secretary, and forced testimony of the debtor’s attorney, all exposing the debtor’s fraud, MY client won.
gravenimage says
Great to hear, Frank.
Much as I am for dialogue and diplomacy, this is never a good idea when dealing with someone obviously not acting in good faith. When that person wants to kill you this is all the more true.
Frank Anderson says
GI, as we do on much, we agree on this.
gravenimage says
🙂
Infidel says
Like its other ‘moderate’ allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Jordan and Bahrein, Egypt is no more trustworthy when it comes to taking a stance against Jihad.
ntesdorf says
The simplest way to stop the struggle is for Israel to steadfastly continue its policy of targetted killing of the Hamas leaders sending rockets, mortars, fire balloons and suicide bombers into Israel. No agreements with the Muslim side is then necessary and futile time wasting can be avoided. When something proves effective, one needs to continue with it.
gravenimage says
Egypt hosts Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to broker truce with Israel; Hamas chairs meeting
……………………..
We know what a “truce” with those who openly want to destroy Israel outright will be worth.
Frank Anderson says
So WHY spend the time, money and distraction in utterly useless and obviously futile sham negotiations. Islam is not going to change and accept any Jewish presence IN THE WORLD, much less in Israel.
gravenimage says
Even many Israelis don’t know much about Islam. Frank. And even some who do understand that Muslims will never make peace with Israel feel they have to go through the motions to prove their own commitment to peace.
But I think that Muslims backing down when the US Embassy was moved to Jerusalem has shown that taking a strong stand is better for Israel.