Hamas announces 6-month truce with Israel

[dubman]

oh look, another hypersensitive tussle over israel and palestine.
GB2youtube

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

Can't blame them given the history. In contrast with Deckard, as I remember it, during previous attempts at a cease-fire, there would be things like kidnappings of Israeli soldiers or random missiles shot across the border into Israel that would prompt a military response from them. When dealing with a terrorist organization like Hamas, I'd say it's wise to be ready for anything.

It's quite possible that the Israeli heavy-handedness is sticking in my mind more over the last few occasions because it goes against what we've come to expect/what the popular view is. I do get the impression that Hamas violence is instantly linked with sabotaging progress, whereas the Israeli violence isn't. (does the recognition of being state-sanctioned give it more legitimacy?). I stand by my recollection, but as I say, I'm happy (and hoping) to be proven wrong, though that's obviously not to say I'm hoping for elements of Hamas to curtail things either. But either way, we'll see. Let's just say I'm noting it this time.

BB - gosh, very kind.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

It's quite possible that the Israeli heavy-handedness is sticking in my mind more over the last few occasions because it goes against what we've come to expect/what the popular view is. I do get the impression that Hamas violence is instantly linked with sabotaging progress, whereas the Israeli violence isn't. (does the recognition of being state-sanctioned give it more legitimacy?). I stand by my recollection, but as I say, I'm happy (and hoping) to be proven wrong, though that's obviously not to say I'm hoping for elements of Hamas to curtail things either. But either way, we'll see. Let's just say I'm noting it this time.

I honestly don't feel motivated to dig for the old stories of past cease-fires gone wrong right now, so I guess we can both just stand by our memories for the time being.

[Deckard]

Here's how it starts (from the BBC):

On Wednesday, before the truce came into effect, at least 40 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza at Israel, and the Israeli army killed one Palestinian militant in an air strike.

The militant group, Islamic Jihad, which lost several members to Israeli air strikes in recent days, claimed responsibility for some of the attacks.

What's frustrating is the same as what was frustrating during the attempts at sabotaging the Northern Ireland peace negotiations and IRA ceasefires. We've got a state - Israel - with all the backing and support behind it that it does, and when it acts, it tends to do so with government backing. And then we've got terrorist activity from the other side, against it. Now Hamas might have the mandate of having been democratically elected, but to deny that even in a ceasfire it's far less likely to be able to exert control over ALL those disparate militant groups that continue to engage in violence seems naive to me, just as expecting Sinn Fein to have been in a position to guarantee no attacks by the Real IRA was naive. They will always get through somehow.

In those circumstances, what you would expect - and hope for - is for the democractically elected element, the official party, Hamas, to condemn those attacks being carried out against Israel. Yet when it's done this on several occasions in the past, it's been met with Israeli insistence that Hamas control all the terrorists, or else "Israel will respond".

Now this is what I think is reckless, "deliberately naive" I'm tempted to call it. And this is the point at which it becomes necessary for me to repeat the phrase, to understand is not to condone* (and I can't emphasize that strongly enough)...

Controlling those renegade elements, or whatever you want to call them (terrorists), inevitably becomes much harder (though NO LESS NECESSARY) when the inequality of the two sides becomes more apparent. Since the last ceasefire collapsed in April 2007, 14 Israelis and about 600 Palestinians have been killed in fighting between the two sides. That's not to turn it into a pissing contest, but when you combine that fairly consistent inbalance with the structural difference, the vast inequality in living conditions between everyday people of both sides, and the overwhelming sense of powerlessness, surely it's inevitable that anger from the Palestinian side is going to run so much deeper and be more widespread, likely spilling over into terrorist activity from more extreme elements, than from the Israeli side? (That's not even going into the longstanding sense of anger at Israel's perceived 'land grab' in the first place).

I repeatedly ask myself, is it really that hard to grasp that the only way to maintain negotiations and secure peace is for the official parties of those negotiations to accept that there will almost certainly continue to be terrorist activity carried out to try to stall that process, not officially sanctioned but from certain groups out of the control of the official organisations. And for the reasons mentioned above, that will mostly come from the Palestinian side - not because Palestinians are somehow genetically more pre-disposed to violence, not because they're "the baddies", the unciviilised natives - but for reasons of organisation and anger that are intrinsically different to what Israel faces. What is surely incumbent upon those at the top is to condemn such activity whenever it happens, and to only take 'defensive measures' when that is genuinely what they are - as opposed to tit-for-tat (or rather tit-for-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat) vengeance.

It continually saddens me that official representatives of both sides so often seem to allow the peace process (and that's the key - it is a PROCESS) to slip away.

(* For the benefit of anyone who needs to hear me say it, of course rocket launches and market bombings and other indiscriminate violence are utterly deserving of condemnation, and by far the people to condemn the strongest are the terrorists. )

[Deckard]

I've just read that apparently the ceasefire doesn't apply in the West Bank. Now that could spell trouble should a Palestinian or an Israeli be killed there.....

[Sean]

It's already starting to fray a bit. Both sides blaming the other...

"Earlier, Palestinian militants fired three homemade rockets into southern Israel, the first such attack since a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza militants took effect last week.

Israel condemned the attack as a "gross violation" of the truce, but did not say whether it would retaliate.

The barrage wounded two people and capped a day of violence that presented the truce with its first serious test.

Just before midnight, Palestinian militants fired a mortar shell into an empty area in southern Israel. And in a pre-dawn raid, Israeli troops killed two Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus.

Islamic Jihad, a small armed group backed by Syria and Iran, claimed responsibility for the rocket fire. Although the West Bank is not included in the truce, the group said the Nablus raid had soured the atmosphere of calm.

"We cannot keep our hands tied when this is happening to our brothers in the West Bank," the militant group said.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm." He said Hamas will talk with other factions and make sure they are committed, too."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/...l_palestinians

[Deckard]

Depressing isn't it?

The issue (and possibly the confusion from my first post) is whether we include these Palestinian militant groups as part of Hamas, and whether it's realistic to expect Hamas to be able to control every militant group like this.

"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm."

OK, so Hamas haven't ordered it, nor are they supporting it (from the above statement). And obviously they can't be expected to guarantee that militants won't act to undermine their peace efforts.

But it would be awfully useful if Hamas would actually come out and condemn these attacks, unequivocally.

And Israel, for its part, needs to start acknowledging some distinction between those militants, and Hamas, otherwise there will absolutely NEVER be peace over there. Ever. Every time Hamas agrees a ceasefire, militants will go and do something, and Israel will respond in its usual heavy handed manner, and the whole thing will just keep going on.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Depressing isn't it?

The issue (and possibly the confusion from my first post) is whether we include these Palestinian militant groups as part of Hamas, and whether it's realistic to expect Hamas to be able to control every militant group like this.

"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm."

OK, so Hamas haven't ordered it, nor are they supporting it (from the above statement). And obviously they can't be expected to guarantee that militants won't act to undermine their peace efforts.

But it would be awfully useful if Hamas would actually come out and condemn these attacks, unequivocally.

And Israel, for its part, needs to start acknowledging some distinction between those militants, and Hamas, otherwise there will absolutely NEVER be peace over there. Ever. Every time Hamas agrees a ceasefire, militants will go and do something, and Israel will respond in its usual heavy handed manner, and the whole thing will just keep going on.

This is where the biggest problem lies in my opinion. Hamas agrees to a cease-fire, but then sits back and declares innocence when Israel continues to be attacked by other militant groups...even morally supports the attacks by making statements like the one I quoted, where the Hamas spokesman said the rocket attacks were the result of "Israeli provocation this morning". I mean, Hamas was voted into power, and as such, it's their responsibility to maintain order in their society, not condone unprovoked rockets being lobbed into Israel while acting as if their hands are clean of the whole affair.

[Jason Roth]

Originally Posted by Sean

I mean, Hamas was voted into power, and as such, it's their responsibility to maintain order in their society, not condone unprovoked rockets being lobbed into Israel while acting as if their hands are clean of the whole affair.

Wow, someone who gets it.

Hey Deckard, got any more great predictions? I mean, you were so close this time. Just replace 'Israeli assault' with 'Palestinian assault' and you're there.

[BeautifulBurnout]

This kind of reminds me of the IRA and the "Real" IRA at the time the Irish Troubles were coming to an end and negotiations were taking place. The IRA wanted dialogue and cease-fire, and the "Real" IRA were doing their damnedest to sabotage the process.

I am hoping that, in many respects, this is a good sign. As long as Israel hold their nerve and don't retaliate in an over-egged way.

The cycle of violence has to be broken. History tells us that no amount of "an eye for an eye" or displays of force will ever do that.

Sean: Yes you are right overall, except we don't know at this stage the unprovoked-ness or otherwise of the jihad rockets. The fact that the West Bank is not included in the cease-fire agreement is bizarre to say the least. I think I need to see a much bigger picture before I pronounce on it.