Olmert Gives Peace A Chance
The ceasefire announcement by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas covers all attacks
by either side.
This looks like the first positive move since Hamas won the parliamentary election. It indicates that the US/European/Israeli boycott of Hamas succeeded in forcing Hamas to recognize that violence would get it nowhere. And it indicates that the Israeli government similarly recognized that it cannot defeat the Palestinian uprising by smashing it militarily.
Hopefully, the cease-fire will be a prelude to negotiations.
PM Olmert said Sunday "The state of Israel is so strong that it can allow itself to hold back, to give a real chance to the cease-fire. After all, a cease-fire is not the supreme goal. It is only a stage in the process, which we hope will create the dynamic that will lead to negotiations and dialogue, and perhaps will finally bring about an agreement between us and the Palestinians."
This is good news and may represent the first success of the Baker mission.
Comments (21)
Great!
Who knows whether it will work. But
as one of panglossian slogans goes (with a picture of a basketball court in the background) " You miss
100% of the shots you don't try."
November 25, 2006 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olmert may see an opportunity to test Hamas' legitimacy. If the ceasefire holds, that is, no freelancers do anything, Hamas shows they are in charge. That someone is in charge means there is someone to negotiate with.
November 25, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "boycott" has had some effect, but is hardly the deus ex machina that has forced Olmert to negotiate this ceasefire. It has more to do with the fact that the escalation of violence on the part of the Israelis in Gaza has increased the firing of Katushas into Israel. Shades of the summer war. Apart from the usual enthusiasts, the prospects of Defensive Shield II:Gaza has been deemed a non-starter.
Then we have the increasing noise those who are deciding that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv will do a damn thing to get off the ball and are busily drafting their own proposals. The rumored Baker conclusions are simply adding to the drumbeats already sounding from Europe and the Arabs. Post Lebanon and Beit Hanoun, the coalition of the boycotters is eroding.
The internal politics of Israel are another important factor. Olmert desperately needs to appear pro-active and score a success somewhere or lose his job. The father of the kidnapped Gilad Shalit, politicians and respected /militarysecurity experts calling for negotiation with Hamas/Abbas/Assad threaten the policy of unilateralism.
The WH contribution to the "peace" process has consisted of pressuring Olmert et al to approve of arming, training and even supplying "foreign" fighters to Abbas in order to bring on a civil war with Hamas.
It's my hope that wiser Isreali heads are deciding to forego the helpful advice from their numerous American "friends" and contemplating the notion that Israeli interests can be better served by venturing beyond the American umbrella that enforces Israel's status as a virtual vassal state.
November 25, 2006 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Israel now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel.... Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights. James Baker, May 22, 1989 Speech at AIPAC Conference
Looks like there's a not-so-new sheriff in town.
November 25, 2006 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians have already broken the cease fire. Missiles have been fired into Israel from Gaza.
Perhaps more importantly the King of Jordan pointed out this morning that there are three civil wars going on in the Arab World. In Iraq, Lebanon and among the Palestinians. The Israelis would have to be idiots to listen to those who ignore the realities of the Arab World.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 26, 2006 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It indicates that the US/European/Israeli boycott of Hamas succeeded in forcing Hamas to recognize that
violence would get it nowhere."
...................
How can one be so gullible to believe that hamas will stop its terrorism? hamas has been smuggling arms this whole time, preparing for war with Israel. hamas will use this "ceasefire" to continue to build its war machine and when the time is right will launch a major offensive against Israel from gaza, in conjunction with hezbollah from the north. Appeasing terrorists and making concessions with them always leads to greater violence. We saw that this past summer when two areas Israel vacated were the areas where it was attacked from. But liberals like Rosenberg still delude themselves.
November 26, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How can one be so gullible..." "The Israelis would have to be idiots to listen to those who ignore the realities of the Arab World."
There is always good time to bash Israeli government for something. Good that I was too lazy to criticize it for rejecting cease fire proposals. I would also advise to wait a bit before declaring that the ceasefire failed.
As far as "Hamas war machine" is concerned, it is so negligible that Israel can concentrate on political aspects.
November 26, 2006 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question for the "Israel is always right, Everybody else always wrong" crowd.
How does Israel lose by testing the Palestinians and adopting a cease-fire?
Olmert has obviously decided that there is always time to re-start the killing if the cease-fire collapses. How come all these brave souls here in the States are so put out that the PM of Israel and the Palestinian President want to try an alternative.
Another question for these usual suspects. If, for you, Israel is always right when it assumes the worst about its adversaries, do you utilize the same logic for the USA. In other words, if Israel is right to adopt a militant stance, is America also right in Iraq, etc? Is Israel sui generis?
November 26, 2006 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
They potentially lose by letting Hamas gain further arms during the ceasefire. Additionally, if everytime Israelis are killed by Palestnians folks like you argue there is a ceasefire the Palestinians a chance there will be a lot more dead Israelis.
Yes, the United States is correct about the nature of the enemy is Iraq. What is different is the location and power of Israel and the United States.
The United States can leave Iraq and leave chaos in its wake and what are the real consequences for Americans? For Israelis the consequence is death and potential anhilation.
What you, the peace at any price crowd, don't acknowledge that the uneven balance between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. What if the status quo remains? The Palestinaian go about their lives periodically killing Israelis. The Israelis live in an armed state periodically attacking Palestinians.
If your fantasy is wrong the consquences is a Palestinians State and the end of Israel. Exactly what evidience do you have that the Palestinians or at least their leaders want Israel to exist?
This is the point you don't grasp. If the Israelis want to take risks for peace they ought to do that. It is not that they are always right. It is that the consequences of their being wrong are castrophic for them but nowhere near that for the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians and the Arabs want peace why don't they actually offer it?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 26, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just over at one of the radical Palestinian discussion groups. Here is one selection that is the mirror image of the rightwingers who post here.
"Abas is a fool. Why does he believe the Israelis will live up to the terms of the ceasefire....The Jews have never observed a single agreement they signed with the Palestinians. Even Rabin kept building settlements all during Oslo.... I'll support a ceasefire if someone can show me proof that the Jews have ever kept faith with any agreement, ever, not just with Palestinians but with any Arabs.... The Jews want the Palestinians dead. How can we negotiate with them? We can negotiate when inshallah we are as strong as they are, not now."
Interesting. The diehards on both sides say the same things.
November 26, 2006 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palestinians don't want peace as much as (perceived) justice. Neither side wants peace at any price.
Disagree that status quo means eventual extinction for Israel. So far, it looks like eventual extinction of the Palestinians as a nation. That is, exhaustion and emigration will eviscerate their culture.
Israel only faced an existential threat when the surrounding states attacked. With Egypt not a threat, that issue is pretty much settled. No state will threaten Israel again, in a serious way. I can't see any scenario where Iran trucks in a nuke, since that would eliminate both the habitable land and the (perceived) oppressed people.
November 26, 2006 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked that quote from the extremist hate site, it made me chuckle for a second. But that's because it is yet another example of a Palestinian supporter co-opting the language and reality of the situation and calling it their own. They have worked for years to convince the world that they, part of a 200 million-strong Arab world, are really the poor, trod-upon underdogs. Sorry, but that simply isn't the case. Particularly when Hamas insists upon continual rocket attacks against strictly civilian targets. There is no way to justify this sort of reckless terrorism, just as there is no morality or humanity involved in the vicious suicide attacks they love to perpetrate on senior citizens and children. It is what it is, and it is certainly detrimental to the Palestinian cause, whose legitimacy is another debate altogether.
That said, I suppose it won't hurt Israel at all to talk with the Palestinians, provided the latter are even willing to do that. What does hurt Israel is taking any Palestinian promises at face value. How many rockets have hit Israeli soil since the latest "ceasefire"? How many ceasefires have we seen come and go? In this case, I wouldn't say that international pressure forced Hamas to do anything. Rather, the usual criticism from the usual places forced Israel to publicly declare it will no longer defend itself against the Quassam attacks. Thus, you get a ceasefire which won't last through the end of the week, as we have already seen countless times before.
And on an unrelated topic, there really is no comparing the position of the U.S. in Iraq and that of Israel vis a vis the Palestinians. The United States is neck deep in an occupation caused by a voluntary war of aggression. I don't think I need to go into much detail about that. Most of us realize that grave war crimes have been committed by the Bush junta, and that America is in a precarious position caused by its own choices.
Israel, on the other hand, is engaged in a slow-motion conflict with potentially existential fallout should things go particularly badly for it. Now, I know the usual folks will shout about the disparity of forces between the IDF and Hamas and other extremist groups. This, however, misses the point entirely, given that the entire Arab world and then some - Iran especially - is arrayed against Israel and would like nothing better than to see the map redrawn without a Jewish state. Without taking that strategic reality into consideration, it does little good to pontificate about "disproportionate" military responses.
As far as the U.S. and the Iraqi occupation is concerned, the U.S. is not justified in any of the actions it has taken to date, and is certainly not justified in continuing its repression of the Iraqi people. But, like I said, this is a far different proposition than one which finds one side - Israel - defending itself against attacks on its civilian population. If that isn't obvious, it should be.
So, overall, negotiation is nearly always preferable to violence, and is in this instance. But when dealing with an adversary, Hamas, who has repeatedly and strenuously called for a genocidal resolution to the conflict, it is advisable to approach cautiously and demand proof of good will before sprinting down an overly optimistic path.
November 26, 2006 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, however, misses the point entirely, given that the entire Arab world and then some - Iran especially - is arrayed against Israel and would like nothing better than to see the map redrawn without a Jewish state. Without taking that strategic reality into consideration, it does little good to pontificate about "disproportionate" military responses.
How is Iran's desire to see the map redrawn without a Jewish state a "strategic reality"? That is, is Iran currently in posession of an army that could destroy Israel? As I understand Israel outspends all of its neighbors combined on its military, and is at peace with Egypt and Jordan. The fact that they also have several nuclear missiles is worth noting as well, as is the fact that the US would doubtlessly rush to Isreal's defense should they be subject to a large scale attack.
And even if Iran were a potential military threat to Israel, how would that figure in to the Palestinians relative defenslessness against the Israelis? Is the hypothetical war with Iran and the Arab world an imaginary second front on that battle?
November 26, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
All we are saying , is give peace a chance.
November 26, 2006 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here we have a classic example of the sort of moral equivalence to which the left is so prone. Jewish skeptics say that Palestinians break ceasefires and Palestinian skeptics say Jews break ceasefires. Therefore, they are just as bad as each other and both are equally wrong. Only the enlightened left knows the truth.
Here's a newsflash for ya, MJ: Palestinians who say that Israel is responsible for ceasefire breakdowns in the past are...how to put this simply?...WRONG. Here's a choice line from the NYT article on the ceasefire:
Mark my words, the chances of this ceasefire holding for any significant length of time is quite small, although I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. One thing is a near certainty, however. Even if this time proves no different from the past and Palestinian terrorists break the ceasefire, MJ Rosenberg will still be urging Israel to offer up more concessions and saying we need to "test" the Palestinians.
November 26, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
More talking points from Brad's temple bulletin.
November 26, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Haaretz, Condi may do a detour from Jordan and will be gracing Israel and the PA with her august presence in order to give some head pats and no doubt, claim that her liege deserves a share of the golden pixie dust of hope being showered upon the parties to the ceasefire.
There has been a bit of injured harrumphing in the Israeli media about the perceived snubbing of Israel by the WH. The WH made no plans to send any notables to Israel during the Jordanian sojourn and worse, declined to invite Olmert (or Abbas) to participate in the summit.
The JP reports:
"US diplomatic officials, meanwhile, denied speculation that the cease-fire declaration was timed to coincide with US President George W. Bush's visit to Jordan on Wednesday to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
According to this speculation, Olmert and Abbas wanted to "clear the air" before Bush's arrival to pave the way for a possible Bush-Olmert-Abbas summit.
US officials downplayed this, saying that while Olmert and Abbas might have had an interest in presenting Bush with a "gift," Hamas - without whom the cease-fire deal would not have been possible - had no interest in doing Bush any favors.
The US officials said even with the cease-fire, there were no plans at this time for a Bush-Olmert-Abbas summit in Jordan. "
Haaretz chimes in:
"The second element that has influenced events is the visit of the United States president and secretary of state to Jordan this week. They have publicly ignored the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and focused on Iraq. The hint to Olmert and Abbas was clear: Show some progress."
Oh dear. If this ceasefire agreement is motivated more by the demands on Olmert and Abbas to provide Bush with a golden * for his legacy than the needs of their respective populations, the odds against it's viability appear even longer than hoped for by it's opponents.
November 26, 2006 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if this time proves no different from the past and Palestinian terrorists break the ceasefire, MJ Rosenberg will still be urging Israel to offer up more concessions and saying we need to "test" the Palestinians.
Is that really what MJ will be doing . Brad ? Or will he still be urging Israel to continue to search for a way of reaching peace ? All wars end sometime . Few end with unconditional surrender and probably that's true of this one also if only because the balance of strength on the two sides will never facilitate that. QED MJ and others who wish Israel well will never stop urging it to search for peace .November 27, 2006 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
overall, negotiation is nearly always preferable to violence, and is in this instance. But when dealing with an adversary, Hamas, who has repeatedly and strenuously called for a genocidal resolution to the conflict, it is advisable to approach cautiously and demand proof of good will before sprinting down an overly optimistic path
Who can disgree ?
November 27, 2006 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Negotiations are the better approach. Zionists and then Israelis have been negotiating with Arabs from before there was a state of Israel. Rabin's and Barak's risks for peace were heroic.
What amuses me about M.J. and others who complain endlessly about Israel is how they attribute no choice to any of the Arabs. As my cousin, fluent in Arabic and conversant with many Arabs, has told me they want the Jews gone from the Middle East. Why is it that the Left will not treat Arabs as adults who make joices.
If M.J. is wrong will the Israels end up with their heads cut off or with holes drilled in their heads? It is not the U.S. army that is slaughting Arabs in Iraq.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 27, 2006 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rabin's and Barak's risks for peace were heroic
Yes
cousin fluent in Arabic and conversant with many Arabs, has told me they want the Jews gone from the Middle East.
Of course. As is also true of other troubled areas around the world : Ireland , Bosnia , Rwanda . It ain't easy. And maybe there is no solution in many of those locations other than the North American model of one group becoming so clearly superior that the minority gives itself permission to stop fighting because it is so clearly futile.
If M.J. is wrong will the Israels end up with their heads cut of
MJ advocates that the Israelis negotiate not that they make foolish agreements. I expect there's a good chance he has friends and relatives in Israel and is as concerned about their welfare as you.It's possible to believe that there are such things as slippery slopes but not conclude that every slope is one. Until there's good reason to think it applies , give the Israelis credit for knowing when to hold and when to fold.
November 27, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink