Tweet
Responding to Israel’s unilateral declaration of a ceasefire, Hamas now says it will hold its fire for a week as well. I didn’t expect that, and it’s very welcome. PM Olmert doesn’t give a timetable for withdrawing from Gaza, but did say, according to the WSJ, that "Israel will consider a troop pull-out" if the ceasefire holds. Within the timetable of the current declarations, there will be a new U.S. administration in power, and all factions will undoubtedly look to it for immediate signals for where to go next. Hillary Clinton indicated at her Senate confirmation hearing that moving from the Gaza crisis to some sort of productive way forward for Israel/Palestine will be an early administration priority. Here’s the test.
Good debate in the previous thread. Sghiteinfla asked where my head is at. I don’t know yet, and am waiting to see if this is a false dawn or something more productive. Macaquerman surveyed the situation like this:
By not firing, but by not indicating that they are withdrawing, the Israelis are turning the tables on Hamas. Hamas’ rocket fire was meant to make Israel either not respond and look weak or to respond and be an aggressor. Now Hamas can either not fire on the Israeli Army and be perceived as cowardly as well as weak, or have to prove their commitment to matyrdom while making the Israelis look less like the blood-crazed killers.
I think that’s right, in general, but I’d take it a step further. To whom does it matter if Hamas looks weak? The population of Gaza, first and foremost. And there I’d wonder whether the population would think Hamas looks weak by declaring a ceasefire or looks responsible for taking a face-saving path out of the crisis. The test will be what happens this week and beyond — to be banal; it’s not like I have any great insight here — and there the new administration really will have a chance at changing the situation. If the history of U.S. negotiations during Israeli/Palestinian crises is any indication, expect incremental, confidence-building steps rather than empty grand gestures. (It really is true, after all, that Bush was the first president to call for a Palestinian state, but rhetoric without implementation is self-congratulation.)
65 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
The question I have is this: What will we do to make things fair for both parties? Meaning Israel and the Palestinians? I am sure the Palestinians know that Congress is in the tank for tools like AIPAC. What are we gonna do to get the Israelis to stop building settlements on the West Bank and to dismantle those already there.
There’s no reason to dismantle the settlements. Why shouldn’t they still be there when sovereignty over the West bank passes to a new state?
Sorry this is off-topic — Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials
The House speaker suggests to “FOX News Sunday” that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions of Bush administration officials, saying they may not “have a right to ignore” them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..officials/
Why doesn’t Israel relocate illegal Jewish settlers to Israel proper, build homes for them there-stimulate the local economy, etc, and leave the actual settlements for the Palestinians that have lost their homes to Israeli bulldozers and bombs? Talk about a magnanimous peace gesture…
I feel pretty cynical. What’s framed as fair, is probably more fair to Israelis than Palestinians. IMHO, It seems everytime the Palestinians are offered a few bones, they’re supposed to run and snap at the scraps, told they’re terra-ists if they don’t.
I’m hoping to be proved wrong.
Who is moving into those settlements? The equivalent to the Rick Warrens and Pat Robertsons here. Only of the Jewish faith. I don’t think they’ll take too well to being ruled by anyone of a different faith.
Digg is open
Ok I am going to state the obvious but does anybody think the fact that this “unilateral cease fire” is coinciding with the kick off of inauguration activities is just a in fact a coincidence? I certainly don’t and couldn’t imagine anybody thinking otherwise.
The Hamas response which changed since yesterday is the right one if you ask me because now they keep the focus on Israel where it should be and they in effect regain some moral high ground by showing the world that YES they can in fact hold their water when the situation calls for it. But remember this and notice it won’t be mentioned anywhere in our mainstream media in conjunction with this story. Hamas called for a cease fire several times before now but Israel said no. Now you will see the media folks falling all over themselves lauding Israel’s “self restraint” in enacting a unilateral cease fire. But the biggest thing I am looking for is to see what the reporter who will now be allowed into Gaza will be reporting back about the carnage there. I predict that the numbers of the dead and injured will rise dramatically with the aid agencies now being able to have freedom of movement. The UN has already accused Israel of war crimes several times. Now we will see if they will follow through and investigate.
Both the Palestinians and the Israelis need to rebuild their world and share their humanity.
America is complicit in all of the violence, either for arming the Israelis or provoking and maligning the Palestinians. We should be encouraging peace and stability rather than testing our arsenal (to someone’s substantial ‘profit’) or poisoning the world.
The Israelis, the Palestinians AND the Americans must confront their own humanity or its lack.
I propose that America begin this process, starting on Tuesday, next.
Oh and Ackerman didn’t Clinton push for a two state solution with Arafat and Israel? I realize I might be wrong about that but I thought that was part of the negotiations right before he left office.
At this point, after so much suffering, I think Hamas (possibly kicking and screaming), and the Palestinian people in general would be satisfied with the UN Borders drawn up a generation ago.
At the time the borders were drawn up, they meant taking land and displacing Palestinians, that is no longer the case. Going back to the UN borders would give the Palestinians a state.
Why destroy perfectly good housing? When sovereignty passes, the people living in the houses should be allowed to stay and help build the nation of Palestine, becoming Palestinian citizens.
Or, if that doesn’t accord with their feelings, they might move into Israel or back to Brooklyn.
Do we know how many children have been injured. Those pictures of Lebanese children did Israel no favors in terms of PR.
my impression is that this whole “must look strong” thing is much more a characteristic of israeli politics (and ours) than it is palestinian politics.
what makes you think this is so?
Right now I believe the numbers are about 350 children dead and over 1,000 injured. Its truly heartbreaking and indefensible if you ask me.
I think there will be some sort of push to put Fatah in charge of Gaza.
48 hrs & 0 min the two day threshold
Hamas is providing leadership to the people.
Showing their strength (or proving they’re not weak) is just about all they have left.
because there are over 400,000 settlers on occupied palestinian land. not saying it shouldn’t be done, only that the first israeli politician who proposes is will risk assassination – political and literal. the israelis have backed themselves into a corner and i don’t see how they work themselves out of it without help.
What I would like to know, during the ceasefire, will Israel allow the (relatively) unimpeded transfer of food, fuel and medical supplies into Gaza, or will they maintain the state of siege that was a major contributing factor in the creation of this crisis?
i agree.
in fact, i’d say that is the meaning of the bit spencer quotes
i don’t think its a turning of the tables at all – it’s a message about who is boss and who is the dog in the cage. not even the cage belongs to the dog. (hope everyone knows this is not my view, just how i think a ceasefire wo a withdrawal will be seen).
As in Lebanon, Israel created massive destruction with no strategic goal or plan in mind. At a certain point, an external event like the Inauguration causes them to stop but is also used as a pretext for them to stop. During its Lebanon fiasco, I used the analogy of a drunk who starts a fight in a bar sure his friends will break it up before he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. That’s Israel. What we will see now is the application of a lot of fig leaves to cover Israel’s bad behavior. It’s all kabuki.
Israel went into Gaza because the two parties in power Kadima and Labor were down in the polls. Gaza has never represented a military threat to Israel ever. The missiles were never more than a minor irritant. Now Kadima and Labor are doing better with the public because what could be more popular than seeing your armed forces beating up on essentially undefended civilians. So the Inauguration, cause or pretext is as good a reason as any other to stop. It makes it look like the Israelis are being amenable and flexible whereas if they had been interested in our interests they never would have gone in in the first place.
This is all so old and stale, even the bit about this opening the way for a “new” American initiative. Our Middle East policy under Obama will still be run by the likes of Dennis Ross. Hillary Clinton repeats the same policy lines that, oh let me see, got us exactly nowhere when they were pronounced under her husband’s Presidency.
I am just surprised that confronted with the same old same old anyone thinks it is going to be any different this time.
What’s driving the cease-fire is Tuesday’s inauguration. The Israeli’s understand quite well that they are not going to be getting the free ride from Obama that they got from Bush. They may not know yet, how tough the new admin is going to be on them, but they have to prepare for the worst. Mrs. Clinton is there to reassure them while Obama turns off the aid spigot. It’s a good cop bad cop routine in the making. Nothing will be said, but things will be done, and the Israeli’s won’t be able to do anything about it, because they have no friends left, thanks to the latest and previous slaughters inflicted on their neighbors.
agree completely with your comment @8
kabuki. the so called “generous offer” – but the subsequent negotiations at taba were supposed to have been very productive. i’d like to know the names of the players of both sets of negotiations.
this was the substance of the 2002 arab peace initiative. my question is will israel gov agree? see my earlier comment about the number of jewish israeli settlers now living on occupied palestinian land.
The vast majority of settlers come from former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.
Look what happened the last time Fatah was in control of Gaza.
Basically the conflict is now the US and Israel vs the rest of the planet. The UN has undertaken investigations on several fronts. At least five countries have ousted Israeli diplomats and severed relations w/ Israel.
Can the US continue to buck the perceptions of the rest of the world.
47 hrs & 40 min
Well said.
Which means they’ve been kicked around before and it made them tough as nails.
To say nothing of mean and nasty, e.g., the settler who entered a mosque several years ago and opened up on the worshipers with an automatic weapon.
You should ask yourself two questions. First, when has Israel ever done anything out of consideration for us? And second have you seen even the most minor indication that the Obama Administration will not be as blindly supportive of Israel as its predecessors? Obama’s own comments about Israel, protecting his daughters, declaring Jerusalem Israel’s capital (later retracted), his choice of Clinton at State, the presence of the likes of Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk. This idea that Israel does’t know about Obama and are scared of him, etc. etc. is just pure BS.
Fixed it for ya.
do you know any palestinians who’ve lived in gaza? i don’t, but from my very little experience that is not what palestinians are primarily looking for. could be very wrong, so wondered what you based that on.
Obama was not asked how he would feel if his daughters were denied food or medicine or bombed by the Palestinian press.
47 hrs & 33 min
thank you for saying this. so fucking true.
Relocating the settlers is comparable to the U.S. attempting to disband all the paramilitary militias around this country. I don’t know about the former but the latter ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.
Don’t know why I hadn’t thought of this before. Every Friday there’s a program on WMNF called True Talk. Both hosts are Muslim. It’s on at 11am ET and you can listen online then or later from the archive. They routinely have people on via phone from Gaza and Israel.
Ahmed and Samar drive the wingnuts batshit crazy. *g*
are you thinking of baruch goldstein? that’s the extreme end of the spectrum. lots right wingers, but not all of the settlers are and most right wingers are not like those in kach (which i think has been outlawed in israel).
Unfortunately I think the only way the settlers would leave is by force, which is what the Israelis have had to resort to at times on the limited relocations they’ve done.
thank you!
Yep, he’s the one. I understand they’re aren’t many like him, thank goodness, but those kind of actions are silently supported by a lot of the right wingers. We suffer the same thing here. Guy on Sunday Forum this morning called in wanting to annihilate the Palestinians. Didn’t get far, they cut him off.
I should add that you can email or call them while they’re on the air. They are very appreciative of listener input.
Thanks . Do you have any idea of how many settlers that there are?
yeah. i have some stories (although not for online) of meeting settlers at kedumim .
When the Israeli Army leaves, don’t you think that the majority of settlers will leave with them?
subscribed to the podcast via itunes and saw they had a call in phone number prominently located on their webpage.now just have to remember to start listening. thanks again.
better get back to chores… *g*
In the neighborhood of 500,000, I think. A few weeks ago I ran across a chart showing the increase over the past few years. Will have to find it again.
Not a chance. They’ll fort up.
I’ll remind ya. It’s one of my favourite programs. Never miss it.
No chart yet but there’s this:
Wow! I never would have thought it was that much. Thanks again.
If they do fort up, could they last a year? Would they have to smuggle in arms, medicine, and food?
From some of the pictures I’ve seen they could feed themselves for quite a while if they know how to garden. Israel would more than likely do mini Berlin Airlift ops from Jolly Greens or some such. How long they could last is anybody’s guess. Good snipers would really put a hurtin’ on them though.
thanks!
should not be slacking, but i posted the link for ian not long ago so i remembered where to look.
wikipedia gives the current total number of jewish settlers living on occupied land as 484,562 (data from 2005/2006).
Well, I was close. That represents a third of the population of Gaza. Thanks.
I would assume that the state of Israel, as part of the transfer of sovereignty, would be barred from supplying arms to the settlers.
Ah, back again from my most recent ‘commune’ with nature.
I have much sympathy for those latitudinally unfortunate souls for whom winter offers no opportunity to slip and slide (and marvel; “Jeez, look at all the pretty snow. Hmm, where am I gonna put this bunch? Oh lord! Here comes that plow … again … um … darn …)
Heh,heh, heh.
At this point, considering America’s role in the ‘mess’, perhaps we should simply offer to allow one ’side’ to come and live here, in “God’s country”, (assuming they’d have any ‘interest’, which group would we find more ammenable as neighbors?)…
You can bet yer sweet bippy that Israel would use any rationale to supply besieged settlers.
Gotta go feed the strays at work. Later.
Namaste
Sure, Palestinians in the sparsely populated west. I can hear the slogan…
Wyoming, a state without people
The Jewish community in the middle-sized prairie city where I live is bringing a steady stream of Israeli Jews here – these are people who originally went to Israel from the former Soviet Union. The purpose is partly to shore up the community here, which has been decreasing in number of late.
I don’t know how many or if this happening in other cities as well, but I find it interesting.
I wasn’t trying imply it was a great deal. I just tire of people attributing Bush with being the first to offer a two state solution if he wasn’t the first. Thanks for that info by the way. More people should read it so they will know the truth
Back at the beginning of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (1974-75), a Jewish friend of mine in Cordova Alaska told me, “What’s going to happen is that Soviet Jews will go to Israel, so they can get into the US. You watch.”
That’s pretty much the way it happened until the West Bank was opened up for expanded settlements at an increased rate. There are still a lot of people leaving Israel for the USA, mostly for better opportunities here, and to feel safer. The same has gone for people from any part of the conflagrated Middle East, who could get into the USA, going all the way back to the Armenian Holocaust.
I’m in Canada, but the principle still holds, I imagine.
fair enough. i don’t hear much about bush’s two state solution (probably because i live in MA), but i do about the “generous offer” – not your fault i’ve od’ed on it. thanks!
Yes, it is absolutely indefensible. I don’t know how anybody can say a bunch of tiny tots/preschoolers/grammar schoolers are terra-ists, or even better: “acceptable collateral damage” or something similiar.