Unilateral Gaza Ceasefire: Now what happens?

[DSeid]

This gives some idea that the Obama administration understands well the importance of marginalizing Hamas.

Sitting behind an almost bare desk in the Oval Office, Obama called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. Obama pledged “active engagement” for a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, aides said.

“In the aftermath of the Gaza conflict, he emphasized his determination to work to help consolidate the cease-fire by establishing an effective anti-smuggling regime to prevent Hamas from re-arming, and facilitating in partnership with the Palestinian Authority a major reconstruction effort for Palestinians in Gaza,” Gibbs said in a statement.

Other world leaders are also wanting to deal Hamas out of any reconstruction effort, at least until they commit to the goal of a long term peace with Israel rather than its obliteration.

This dilemma, however, is also appreciated abroad, and a key EU official, EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said Monday in Jerusalem that while the expected humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip would flow quickly, reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure would only begin when the EU had an acceptable Palestinian partner.

While Ferrero-Waldner did not explicitly single out Hamas, she strongly hinted that it would be difficult to rebuild Gaza as long as Hamas remained opposed to peace efforts.

I do not know how it will all shake out.

[FinnAgain]

Well if we (finally) see some real global pressure to deal only with semi-moderate Palestinian politicians and to deliberately de-fang genocidal lunatics like Hamas, we might get somewhere. I’ve said, since Hamas first gained power, that genocidal rejectionsists who explicitly deny all past agreements and Israel’s right to exist aren’t exactly good negotiating partners. (What’s the compromise position? “Okay, you can kill half of the Jews in the region, but that’s our final offer Hamas.”)
Perhaps recent events will open up enough of a window that Hamas can be marginalized while the PA becomes ascendant and an actual force for stability and peace in the region.

My hope is that although Fatah still plays to the ‘street’ by spouting rejectionist bullshit, that their actions will put paid to their rhetoric. They seem to understand perfectly well the consequences of terrorist attacks against Israel, and they want no part in it. If they manage to keep things calm enough in the West Bank that a peace treaty gets signed and they get a sovereign state, then there will be an even stronger incentive for them to continue along that path.

After all, once money comes rolling in and Palestinians living in the West Bank can travel freely and participate in the global economy, it’ll be hard for the leadership to start a war with the only gain being blockade and destruction. The so called “Lost Generation” will still be a problem, but if the PA can keep attacks against the iDF/checkpoints clamped down, over time even radicals may come to see the benefits of peace and prosperity over blood and martyrdom.

Another war in Gaza (or Lebanon), especially a protracted one might have the potential to further radicalize the citizens of the West Bank, but the lack of violent protests during this war was somewhat surprising. IIRC the largest protest was a couple hundred, and the PA stopped other protests that had aimed at traveling to a ‘stone’s throw away’ from IDF posts/checkpoints. Meanwhile, in Gaza, there was a protest roughly a thousand strong to commemorate the memory of Arafat… not exactly a saint himself but someone whose memory Hams has aligned itself against.

Keeping Hezbollah tamped down, however, will require diplomatic pressure placed on both Syria and, most importantly, Iran. I’m not sure that the international community has the strength of will to do that, to be honest. But I’m also not sure how much of an effect another war against Hezbollah would have if PA administrated territories are already on their way to peace and prosperity. If the PA could keep dissent from spilling over into bloodshed during what was seen as a war against Palestinians (rather than a war against Hamas), there’s a fairly good chance that they could do the same for a low-to-moderate intensity conflict against Hezbollah.

It seems as if the Israelis may really be ready for peace talks again after the disaster that was Clinton’s initiative, and even the Palestinians in the West Bank may be tired of violence and ready to come back to the negotiating table. I’m trying not to get overly optimistic here, but I honestly do think that there’s a good chance that an internationally baked PA that was really committed to peace could achieve in Gaza what no amount of Israeli bombing or persuasion could. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that, maybe, we’ll see two states with an equitable distribution of arable land, water resources and finally peace and security for those who wish it. Fuck it all, and I’m sober.

[RTFirefly]

Well if we (finally) see some real global pressure to deal only with semi-moderate Palestinian politicians and to deliberately de-fang genocidal lunatics like Hamas, we might get somewhere.

Yeah, let’s negotiate with that nice Mr. Abbas, who doesn’t represent the people who are causing problems for us.

And maybe when I’m mad at my boss, I’ll go negotiate with my drinking buddy, who’ll agree that my boss is a shit, and that I deserve an immediate raise and a promotion.

And this will do me about as much good as it will do Israel to negotiate with Abbas.

ETA:

Keeping Hezbollah tamped down, however, will require diplomatic pressure placed on both Syria and, most importantly, Iran.

The Palestinians would know their place if it weren’t for those outside agitators.

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

We may never know the exact totals of the civilians vs the militants who were killed, but as always, some will be tempted to play morality-via-etch-a-sketch. I wonder if an in depth investigation will be launched at some poitn.

Along the same lines, reported via PMW :

[

The following is the description of the children’s combat support roles, quoted in an Israeli Arab weekly:

"[The newspaper] Kul Al-Arab called many Gaza Strip residents, to comprehend the situation of the people who are suffering for two weeks from the wild Israeli aggression...

Khaled, from A-Rimal [in Gaza], said: 'We the children, in small groups and in civilian clothes, are fulfilling missions of support for the [Hamas] Resistance fighters, by transmitting messages about the movements of the enemy forces, or by bringing them ammunition and food. We ourselves are not aware of the movements of the Resistance fighters. We see them in one place, they suddenly disappear, and then reappear somewhere else. They are like ghosts, it is very hard to find them or hurt them.'"
[Kul-Al-Arab (Israeli Arab weekly), January 9, 2009]

](http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm#b130109)

I’d wager that we’ll never be totally sure ow how many of the casualties were involved in the fighting, and how many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[RTFirefly]

I’d wager that we’ll never be totally sure ow how many of the casualties were involved in the fighting, and how many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I can see it now: an Israeli soldier aims his rifle at a kid, thinking, “I’ll bet that little scum will warn Hamas of my position,” and pulls the trigger.

Thinks afterward, “I hated to have to kill him, but I had no choice.”

[DSeid]

RTF I’m just curious. Do you really see that now? Do you really read Finn comments and immediately imagine some Israeli soldier using that fact as an excuse to intentionally aim for children just standing there? Or are you just being as hyperbolic?

It is clear that a significant number of civilian (including child) deaths were unavoidable in a ground operation in an urban setting against an enemy that purposefully uses civilians as shields. To me this military objective wasn’t high value enough to justify those deaths and I fault the Israeli administration for not valuing them more. I have done that consistently. But to go from that to imagining a routine aiming for children in some evil Israeli fantasy is something that I am surprised is coming from you.

As for your analogy of Hamas as your boss who has the power to give you or deny you your raise. The analogy is crap. No nicer way to say it. Hamas is not in a position of unassailable control and the PA is hardly as powerless as the imagined drinking buddy. Hamas has a seat at the table any time it wants - all it has to do is commit to the concept that the goal of talking is to come to a long term peace settlement. They will not do that.

Returning to the RealPolitik. The reality right now is that Hamas has few friends despite their popularity in Arab media. Iran and maybe Syria. The other regional governments want them out of the picture as much as possible as they very much want a long term Israeli-Palestinian settlement. They know that the biggest threat to them is from the Islamist groups and that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict strips the Islamists of a rallying cry. IF a means is created that allows other supplies into Gaza and effectively keeps new rockets out (or in only very slowly), then a window of opportunity exists this Spring. Hamas may see no path to significance is left other than being part of a process to real peace and Israel may see that significant moves quickly to the PA will have meaningful pay-outs for long term security. Or not. We’ll see.

[RTFirefly]

@DSeid

RTF I’m just curious. Do you really see that now? Do you really read Finn comments and immediately imagine some Israeli soldier using that fact as an excuse to intentionally aim for children just standing there? Or are you just being as hyperbolic?

I am being a bit hyperbolic, but I just don’t see how this provides much of a fig leaf in the way of justification for the deaths of hundreds of children. It comes down to not particularly discriminate bombing, not particularly discriminate artillery shelling, or discriminate sharpshooting. The presence of children as runners for the Hamas fighters might’ve somewhat increased the numbers of children who were blown up by bombs or shells, but in the hundreds? It’s hard to believe.

As for your analogy of Hamas as your boss who has the power to give you or deny you your raise. The analogy is crap. No nicer way to say it. Hamas is not in a position of unassailable control and the PA is hardly as powerless as the imagined drinking buddy. Hamas has a seat at the table any time it wants - all it has to do is commit to the concept that the goal of talking is to come to a long term peace settlement. They will not do that.

The question is, who speaks for the Palestinian people? If those given a seat at the table on their behalf don’t have the backing of the people, no meaningful negotiation is going on.

Yes, I was being hyperbolic again. But throughout the past several years, the Israeli/US policy has been to do their best to adversely affect the circumstances of those they didn’t want to negotiate with, with the objective of being able to talk to someone else instead.

[FinnAgain]

@DSeid

Do you really read Finn comments and immediately imagine some Israeli soldier using that fact as an excuse to intentionally aim for children just standing there?

Just same old same old. More fun to get bombastic and bait me than it is to engage in honest debate.

It’s funny, one of the first things I teach my students when they start learning about critical thinking is that the phrase “I don’t know” is not bad or to be feared. There is a cultural assumption that ignorance, in and of itself, is shameful. I go out of my way to explain that only willful ignorance is an intellectual failing, that sometimes “I don’t know” is the only honest answer and that fallacious certainty is much worse than honest ignorance. In short, that the ability to admit our lack of knowledge is not intellectual weakness, but the beginning of intellectual strength.

Which is why the baiting instead of addressing my actual point, which I repeated at least twice. We don’t, and probably won’t, know for sure who was involved in the conflict and who wasn’t. Taking rockets to rocket launchers is hardly much less dangerous than picking up an AK yourself, and we’ve see Hamas use children as suicide bombers and combatants. Same with women. They’ve also got a policy of deliberately using human shields. Recently an Hamas member announced:

[

For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.

](http://newsblaze.com/story/20081229092838zzzz.nb/topstory.html)

In a situation like that, it becomes obvious why some would claim some sort of certainty when talking about the casualties. Their argument is predicated upon claims that Israeli bombs willy nilly, or targeted civilians, or what have you. The truth of the matter, however, is that we simply do not know how many women and children were valid targets, and how many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. What, 5? 87? 103? 329? What metric do we use?
And especially, what valid scientific statistical study would be base such a conclusion on?

Anybody who tells you that they have a good idea of how many casualties were innocent and how many weren’t either has access to specific information, or they’re trying to sell you something.
I’m not buying.

@DSeid

all it has to do is commit to the concept that the goal of talking is to come to a long term peace settlement. They will not do that.

What gets me is that after years now, I don’t see how anybody who has a computer could be ignorant of what Hamas’ goals, ideology and methods are. It is clear to anybody who knows the situation just what the result would be of allowing Hamas open borders and freedom of movement before they’d actually renounced genocide.

I mean, we have a group that explicitly is committed to genocide because they believe that God demands they exterminate the Jews so that they can achieve the Day of Resurrection. That due to Muslim conquest centuries ago, the Levant is a Waqf, and is an indivisible Muslim possession in perpetuity. They have explicitly renounced any and every former treaty or agreement with Israel, and explicitly denied that Israel has a right to go on existing. It stretches credulity close to the breaking point to see someone claim that Hamas should be allowed within rocket range of every single Israeli city, and allowed open borders… but then deny the glaringly obvious result.

It’s like someone who tells you that you should put a steak on the floor in front of a hungry dog, and then indignantly denies that they’ve just said you should feed the dog a steak.

It’s like claiming that 1933 was a victory for democracy and the world should have been ashamed of not giving it more of its demands at various negotiating tables. :rolleyes:

@DSeid

The reality right now is that Hamas has few friends despite their popularity in Arab media. Iran and maybe Syria. The other regional governments want them out of the picture as much as possible as they very much want a long term Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

I think that the two concepts are tied together. The rift between Arabs and Persians is somewhat comparable to the rift between Sunni and Shia, and both are at play here. As much as the Arab nations realize that peace in the I/P conflict is good for their own regional stability, they’re upset to see that Iran is involved in supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, oddly enough, is sometimes seem as an extra-regional interloper.

@DSeid

IF a means is created that allows other supplies into Gaza and effectively keeps new rockets out (or in only very slowly), then a window of opportunity exists this Spring. Hamas may see no path to significance is left other than being part of a process to real peace and Israel may see that significant moves quickly to the PA will have meaningful pay-outs for long term security. Or not. We’ll see.

I think you’re probably right, and it’ll be the next 3-6 months that get the ball rolling. Although it might be upwards of another year or two, I suppose. I still don’t think, however, that Hamas is as concerned with significance as they are with their ideology. When you’re on a mission from God, after all, what does it count whether or not others recognize your divine mission?

I think that we may very well see increased splintering among the various Palestinian factions. And I think that, in a very real sense, a Hamas that accepted peace and mutual coexistence would not be the same Hamas we have today. Ship of Theseus and all that aside, I think the point at which Hamas no longer demands genocide and the divinely given Waqf… well, that’s the point where we’ve got something new which is simply called Hamas.

[DSeid]

Several follow-ups then.

Threads devoted to the Israel/Palestine conflict have been criticized for getting bogged down in entrenched positions. Perhaps engaging in such hyperbole is not the best tactic for facilitating real dialog?

Reports of the numbers of civilians, including children, vary greatly. One Italian newspaper is quoting local Gazan sources as claiming a max of 500 killed, mostly militants. Israel is estimating 1300, 2/3 of whom were militants. Palestinian sources agree with about 1300 but claim that it was only 1/3 militants. In past engagements the IDF estimates have generally been the most accurate in hindsight, if anything overestimating the numbers killed. (Remember for example that in Jenin initial Palestinian reports had over 500 killed, and that the final numbers, confirmed later by the UN and Fatah, were well under 60.) So the IDF reports are likely fairly good.

In a circumstance of urban warfare of this scale in which the targets have intentionally surrounded themselves with civilians, intentionally attempt to draw fire to civilian locations, and intentionally put children in harms way, keeping the civilian casualties down that low is well nigh a miraculous achievement. The only way to have been more discriminate was to not have undertaken the ground operation at all - which again was my preference. But given an urban ground operation in those circumstances no other military in the world would have left with so few civilians dead. I think you underestimate the difficulty of the task.

Finally yes the Palestinian people have to be clear what it is they want to say. Those who endorse Hamas are speaking loudly and clearly and saying that they do not endorse a path to peace because Hamas is very clear that they do not endorse such a path. They are then responsible for the consequences of sending that message. Those want to endorse a path to peace will not support Hamas. No one gets a seat at the table unless it is clear that a path to peace - a long term peace - is the goal, so yeah, if it turns out that Hamas gets the support of the majority of the people then no meaningful negotiation is possible. Which again brings us back to the RealPolitik. Those who want a path to peace are going to have to either marginalize Hamas or somehow get them to accept that discussions with the goal of a long term settlement (not putting off obliterating Israel for a later day) is the only way forward. Iran’s interests are not served by peace; the Islamists interests are not served by peace; but most other players’ interests now are. Most of those power brokers see that reality. And they have all pretty much given up on getting Hamas to accept that discussions have the goal of a long term peace. So the only option left is to marginalize them.

[FinnAgain]

@DSeid

Perhaps engaging in such hyperbole is not the best tactic for facilitating real dialog?

Someone thought it would be?

@DSeid

Finally yes the Palestinian people have to be clear what it is they want to say. Those who endorse Hamas are speaking loudly and clearly and saying that they do not endorse a path to peace because Hamas is very clear that they do not endorse such a path.

I’m not sure this is the case, to be honest. IIRC, polls right after the election showed that people were fed up and viewed Fatah as hopelessly corrupt, not that they necessarily wanted Hamas to exterminate Israel. I think it’s something akin to “Don’t blame me I voted for Kodos!”

However:

@DSeid

They are then responsible for the consequences of sending that message.

If you change that to “…for the consequences of electing that government.”, then I’d have to agree. It is a childish view to think that freedom means freedom from consequences, and it’s one I’ve often heard from my younger students in fact. “I’m not free because if I don’t do my homework, I get marked down.”

Freedom allows us to make choices, but also to deal with their consequences. The freedom to elect a government also demands the responsibility of being bound by the consequences of that government’s election.

@DSeid

No one gets a seat at the table unless it is clear that a path to peace - a long term peace - is the goal, so yeah, if it turns out that Hamas gets the support of the majority of the people then no meaningful negotiation is possible.

This, in pragmatic terms, is certainly correct though. There is no basis for negotiation with someone who will simply try to destroy you once they re-arm. No state in the world would be obligated to accept such terms, and no private individual would either. How many people, if they’d been attacked by someone with a knife and wrestled him to the ground, would then agree to a proposal that if he stopped struggling they’d let him up so he could try to stab them again?

@DSeid

Which again brings us back to the RealPolitik. Those who want a path to peace are going to have to either marginalize Hamas or somehow get them to accept that discussions with the goal of a long term settlement (not putting off obliterating Israel for a later day) is the only way forward.

To be honest, I’m surprised this even has to be explicitly stated.
I don’t know why it’s a controversial proposition to state that you can’t have meaningful peace negotiations if one side explicitly rejects the very concept of peace.
I don’t know how anybody can demand patently bogus peace negotiations, then, as a solution to there not being peace.

[FinnAgain]

An interesting article from Spiegel:

[

In the Gaza Strip people are returning home – or to the rubble that was once their home. Many are blaming Hamas for the destruction because the militants hid among civilians and attracted Israeli fire. Yet no one dares to speak out openly.

What is left over when a person is hit by a tank shell. Blood, tissue, bone splinters, splatters on the wall.

And anger.

Mohammed Sadala’s rage is aimed at the man, whose remains he found in his bedroom: a Hamas fighter. He and a comrade broke into the home which had long stood empty after the Sadala family fled. The Hamas men shot at the approaching Israelis from the balcony. The soldiers fired back, killing the militants and destroying the house of the 10-strong family in the process.
[…]

“When Hamas came to power, they came to our aid with packages of groceries,” says Abu Abed. The 60-year-old’s sons, all of whom are trained hospital nurses, have been without work for years. That is true of many in the Gaza Strip. Now Abu Abed stands before the rumble of the house where he lived with four generations of his family. All that remains are the ground floor pillars. The Israeli navy had its eye on the building from the very beginning of the war. After all, its clear view of Gaza City and the sea would have provided a good base for Hamas.

“I’ve changed my mind about Hamas,” Abu Abed says. “I can’t support any party that wages a war that destroys our lives.” He is particularly pained by the fact that Hamas is still selling the cease-fire as a victory.

“Who has won here?” he asks and points to the debris that was once his home.

One of his neighbors weighs in: “Many people are now against Hamas but that won’t change anything,” he says. “Because anyone who stands up to them is killed.” Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip. There were news agency reports that during the war they allegedly executed suspected collaborators with Israel. The reign of terror will go on for some time, says the neighbor who doesn’t want to give his name. “There will never be a rebellion against Hamas. It would be suicide.”
[…]
“The abused civilians’ homes for their own purposes. That is not right,” Hail says with disgust while trying to remain polite.

](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,603203,00.html#ref=rss)

It seems that if people have a chance of shrugging off Hamas and/or fighting back, they might.
Time will tell. I still would wager that the West Bank getting sovereignty would probably be the best way to demonstrate the necessity of hunting down Hamas thugs.

[DSeid]

Quite a few developments of note in today’s Haaretz (the major left leaning Israeli daily).

As to whether or not the EU will try to keep Hamas dealt out of reconstruction is this EU aid chief’s comments.

“Hamas has an enormous responsibility for what happened here in Gaza,” said Michel, the humanitarian aid commissioner, as he stood in a United Nations aid compound damaged by an Israeli shelling.

He echoed Israeli criticisms that Hamas used civilians as “human shields” by fighting in populated areas and, describing Hamas rocket fire on Israel as a “provocation”, he said in English: “Hamas is acting in the way of a terrorist movement.”

Egypt is strongly encouraging Hamas to accept a long term cease fire with Israel before Israeli leadership changes. Israel has offered a long term cease fire with open border crossings if they also get Shalit back. Hamas says no. Hamas also says that they will not reconcile with the PA until the PA renounces any commitments to a path to peace.

Officials in Egypt are attempting to persuade Hamas to accept Israel’s current offer of a cease-fire in Gaza before a far less accommodating government under Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu is elected, the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported Monday. … Hamas’ Gaza spokesman Ayman Taha, meanwhile, has said recently that Israel has offered his Palestinian Islamist group a 10-year cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.

Egypt is also demanding a truce of a number of years’ duration. But Taha said the group would agree to a cease-fire of anywhere between one year and no more than 18 months. Another Hamas spokesman, Ismail Radwan, said a long-term cease-fire “kills” the right to resistance by the Palestinians.

Also Monday, the London-based newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Israel has offered Hamas a cease-fire for an unlimited amount of time and the opening of Gaza’s borders in return for abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

According to the report, Hamas rejected the offer on the grounds that it linked the opening of the border crossings to Shalit’s release. …

… Hamas official Hamdan also said Sunday that Fatah movement must end peace negotiations with Israel before any reconciliation talks can take place.

Syria wants to deal. They’ll talk to any Israeli leadership. And FWIW Olmert is optimistic.

[DSeid]

Well this is hopeful but I won’t get my hopes up too high.

AP interviews with Hamad and two other Hamas leaders in the war-ravaged territory they rule suggest some of that might be more bluster than reality - and the group may be ready for some serious deal making.

That raises the question of whether Hamas, which receives much of its funding and weapons from Tehran, can be coaxed out of Iran’s orbit. The question looks less preposterous than it did before U.S. President Barack Obama began extending olive branches to the Muslim world and Israel’s Gaza offensive reshuffled Mideast politics.

The militants appear to be in the throes of an internal power struggle between hard-liners and pragmatists. Which group comes out on top will likely depend on who is able to garner the most benefits in postwar Gaza.

The group’s Damascus-based political leader on Wednesday said that Israel’s conditions for a long-term truce with Hamas were unacceptable.

With hawks urging more violence, the window of opportunity to boost the voices of relative moderation is likely to be short. …

… Hamas’ pragmatists may have emerged from Israel’s offensive slightly stronger, perhaps because of a perception among some Gazans that the organization’s hawks overplayed their hand by provoking the wrath of Israel. …

… rebuilding Gaza after Israel’s onslaught is going to require open borders and a large inflow of money and material - things that Iran, whose aid to Hamas is strictly surreptitious because of Israeli restrictions, cannot provide.

Hamas says it wants international recognition as much as an end to the blockade of Gaza - but it won’t get either for free. For Hamas, the price may include allowing Fatah back into Gaza 20 months after it violently ousted them, along with halting its rocket fire and weapons smuggling. …

… the three Hamas leaders interviewed said they would accept statehood in just the West Bank and Gaza and would give up their resistance against Israel if that were achieved.

“We accept a state in the '67 borders,” said Hamad. “We are not talking about the destruction of Israel.”

One hard-line Hamas politician, Yehiel El Abadsa, said his group should not reconcile with Fatah and that Hamas will be the ones to rebuild Gaza.

That position may well put him at odds with the majority of Gaza’s 1.4 million inhabitants, who seem to be clamoring for an end to the divisions that are distancing their dreams for a state of their own.

Is there any hope for the ascendence of a pragmatic wing within Hamas?