Palestinians agree Israel truce

[subsuelo]

It says the proposed ceasefire will be a "comprehensive, reciprocal and simultaneous truce", and will later be extended to the West Bank.

Fatah and Hamas, the two main rival Palestinian groups, did not attend the talks in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

Israel has already rejected proposals by Hamas for such a ceasefire.

BBC - read more

[subsuelo]

1. Israeli ministers oppose truce with Hamas

A majority of Israeli security cabinet ministers on Wednesday voiced their objection to the Egypt-brokered ceasefire deal with Palestinian militant groups, Israeli media reported.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refrained from making any definitive decision during the meeting, saying he would rather wait for the defense establishment to study the offer first.

While Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was visiting the Golan Heights, did not attend the meeting, said the report.

Xinhuanet - read more

[notesdev]

2. Pretty foolish

to agree to a ceasefire with a group that

a) has already broken a number of ceasefire agreements, sometimes the very next day
b) has made clear that its only motivation for agreeing to a ceasefire is to get a breather to re-arm and re-ignite the conflict when they are good and ready
c) is following the doctrine of hudna
d) can't even stay its bloodthirst long enough to let humanitarian supplies into the territory it controls

[subsuelo]

3. No, what is foolish is not even trying

Both sides have plenty of justifiable fears. Do you require a list of Palestinian grievances?

In the final analysis, there is no excuse to not even try.

[notesdev]

4. The question is

under what conditions could one reasonably expect Hamas to change its fundamental reason for existence, as stated in its charter; and lacking that, what incentive Israel would possibly have to negotiate with an organization dedicated to its destruction. Hamas can't be trusted; even Egypt found them impossible to deal with in good faith.

[subsuelo]

5. "what incentive Israel would possibly have" ...?

Are you serious?

How about living at peace and good relations with its neighbors?

:shrug:

[notesdev]

6. That option

is not on the table. If it were, I would agree that would be sufficient incentive to negotiate. Hamas would have to violate the core reasons for its own existence as stated in its charter in order to offer that.

And they're not even pretending to offer that. All they are offering is a "hudna", and they've explicitly stated that there is no long-term peace option on the table.

[subsuelo]

8. How else do you expect to get there, other than during a ceasefire?

[notesdev]

10. I expect

that the route to "getting there" will necessarily have to go through the replacement of Hamas with a group that actually does want peace. Hamas has shown in word and deed that it prefers war and all the hardships that that brings.

Asking for a ceasefire mere days after launching armed attacks on humanitarian supply convoys is not credible.

[subsuelo]

11. Fine, let's replace Israel's government with a group that actually wants peace too

Any problem with that?

[notesdev]

14. No problem at all

Israel has a democracy, so go ahead and campaign for the candidates that you would like to see win.

Good luck trying to figure out how to solve the problem on the other side.

[subsuelo]

16. Then we both agree that leadership on both sides needs replacing

with leaders who are actually interested in peace, instead of the current war profiteers and status quo politicians invested in recklessly bombing away at the good citizens of the other side.

That being established, in regards to the current topic, I maintain that the only reason Israeli leadership consistently rejects ceasefire and truce proposals is preservation of the status quo and the continued business of war.

[notesdev]

19. No I don't agree

You can replace the Israeli leadership with whoever you want and nothing will change, as, short of national suicide, there is nothing they can do to sufficiently appease the demands put upon them.

The only way things will change is when the Arab side decides that peace is more valuable to them than is killing Jews. And that's not going to happen under Hamas or Fatah or any other leadership - there are no Ghandis among them, and if there were, they would have such a leader killed (as they did to Mubarak).

You will not get peace until the Arabs want peace. And they have spoken loud and clear, time and time again, that they do not want any peace that includes the continued existence of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. It's all the fault of those damn Arabs!!

I'm pretty sure things will change with the Israeli leadership if Nutty gets elected....

I'm assuming from yr mention of Mubarak (it's interesting to note that a parallel is the assassination of Rabin by an Israeli extremist) that yr comment 'The only way things will change is when the Arab side decides that peace is more valuable to them than is killing Jews.' is a particulary clumsy blanket statement about all Arab states. Not sure how interested you are in history, but both Egypt and Jordan have peace agreements with Israel, and there's something called the Arab Peace Plan:

'Arab nations today formally approved a unified land for peace plan to be put to Israel, calling it a historic chance to secure lasting stability in the region.

The deal - which would see Arab League members recognise Israel and guarantee its security in return for the country withdrawing to 1967 borders - has been heavily pushed at a two-day summit in Saudi Arabia as a take it or leave it opportunity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/29/israel.saudiarabia

What was that you were saying about those Jew-hatin' Arabs not wanting a peace that included the continued existance of Israel? ;)

[azurnoir]

12. Once again we're back to

but, but, but the Hamas Charter says....... however for about the thousandth time the Fatah charter says the same thing and has not been changed despite what a dead man said 15 years ago.

Why is Israel willing to deal with Fatah then? Could it be that the area that Fatah supposedly controls is in fact under the control of IDF and the Palestinians there are forced to put up with what ever Israel chooses to do at the moment, whether it be home demolitions, assassinations, or land theft?

Now as to claims that Hamas only wants a truce to rearm, that comes into conflict with this statement, seems Hamas is rearming without a truce, and possibly with Egypt's help(that last part IMHO was thrown in for good measure) as a means of casting doubt on Egypt's motivations.

"Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter was quoted as saying. He said 900 Qassam rockets had been fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip this year as opposed to only 1,100 in total in 2007.Dichter also slapped Egypt for not effectively stopping weapons smuggling into the coastal strip, claiming that "as long as the Egyptians aren't fulfilling their obligation to prevent weapons smuggling, there's no justification to take part in their talks," according to another local daily Ha'aretz.

If anything the Palestinians should be looking at this with great suspicion

t says the proposed ceasefire will be a "comprehensive, reciprocal and simultaneous truce", and will later be extended to the West Bank.

If recent history has shown anything Israel will use this to "step up" operations ie arrests assassinations, blockades in the OPT while claiming "ceasefire" with Hamas, thus turning the situation in to a lose-lose for the Palestinians as a whole. Any "ceasefire" must include the OPT also.

[Vegasaurus]

7. Foolish to try what?

Make peace with a group that daily says it doesn't want peace, that its goals are to annihilate you and take over your country, or to rid the entire area of your ethnicity?

What's to try (and that's a serious question, given Hamas's and the other militants' definitive stance)?

[subsuelo]

9. Just listen to yourself

You ask why should one make peace with a group that doesn't want peace.

Hello?

[Vegasaurus]

13. You say Israel doesn't want peace, but it is the only side that has made concessions

Gaza, etcetc.

Maybe they don't seem like concessions, but what have the Palestninans genuinely done to advance peace?

Not what they have "taken" , but what they have done to advance peace.

Any one thing will do.

[subsuelo]

15. Which side is the side constantly proposing truces and cease fires?

Which side is the side constantly rejecting truces and cease fires?

Seems pretty obvious to me

[pelsar]

17. talk is cheap...

if hamas wants the situation to be when israel pulled out of gaza.....all they have to do is stop trying to kill israelis daily...stop attacking the humanitarian food supplies..stop trying to kill israelis who are delivering fuel....and stop trying to kill israelis farming via kassams and mortars.....

whats so difficult?....i guess its obvious: its difficult for them to stop trying to kill israelis

[Vegasaurus]

18. Talk is cheap

They propose, and then don't follow through. Rockets still fly.

And they admit that any truce is only to rearm more.

Why make a truce with people who can't even pretend better than this?

[eyl]

20. How many times

Do the Palestinians have to declare a cease-fire and violate it before people stop castigating Israel for not immediately agreeing whenever one is offered?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. How many times...

has Israel actually agreed to a cease-fire?

[eyl]

23. Formally, I don't think it ever did

the IDF has, however, refrained from attacks on previous occasions; Palestinian attacks resumed within days (at most)

[Vegasaurus]

24. Every single goodwill action by Israel

including ceasefires, has resulted in MORE violence from the Palestinians.

The minute they have more freedom of movement, for example, they use it to try to kill Israelis, rather than to develop their own lives.

So there is no reason for Israel ever to believe a word Hamas says.

The only way to believe Hamas is to see the proof in their actions.

Stop shooting rockets and blowing things up, even for a week, and then maybe there would be reason to believe them.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yeah, that's what I thought...

I think there's two problems. One is that cease-fires in the past haven't been official ones agreed to by both Israel and the Palestinian leadership that include not only Gaza but the West Bank, as well as Israel. Any ceasefire should be official, and be applied to all who engage in violent attacks on the other side, which includes the likes of various militant groups not aligned with Hamas, and the extremists like the Hebron settlers....

[oberliner]

25. Israel agreed to a cease fire in 2005, 3 weeks later there was a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv

Palestinian, Israeli leaders announce cease-fire

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (CNN) -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a cease-fire Tuesday, hailing it as a new opportunity for peace in the Middle East.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/mideast/index.html

Suicide Blast Kills Four in Tel Aviv

JERUSALEM, Feb. 26 -- A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a crowded nightclub in Tel Aviv late Friday, police said, killing at least four bystanders and shattering a fragile, unofficial truce that Israeli and Palestinian leaders had hoped would mark the end of four years of deadly conflict.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55514-2005Feb26.html