Challenge Hamas
Haaretz EditorialThe writer David Grossman called on the government of Israel in these pages yesterday to cease its preoccupation with the number and identity of Palestinian prisoners who would potentially be swapped for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Grossman believes Israel should make Hamas a broader offer that would involve "a total cease-fire, an end to all terror activities from Gaza and a lifting of the siege." The start of such negotiations would see Shalit and the prisoners exchanged.
The proposal deserves serious consideration as the basis for a new policy. It is unfortunate that four years have been wasted and something along these lines was not adopted soon after Shalit's abduction in 2006. There is no certainty, however, that Hamas would have agreed to the proposal then, or that it will do so now. It is also worth examining the impact such a deal would have on the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan. But the point of departure is that there is no sense in allowing the existing situation to continue.
A few days after the abduction and the failure of operation "Southern Shalit" to locate and rescue the soldier, astute voices from the top ranks of the Israel Defense Forces reached the conclusion that if Shalit was to be brought back, a new policy was necessary. These voices, which apparently reflected the position of GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant and then chief of staff Dan Halutz, sought to recognize the reality that had been created in Gaza following the Hamas victory in the PA elections four months earlier, and the establishment of the Ismail Haniyeh government (Hamas' violent takeover of the Strip only took place in June 2007 ).
The IDF wanted to pose the following option to Hamas: Preserve your rule of power or continue your violent struggle against Israel. A proposal to seek a broad agreement on Israel-Hamas relations was drafted - which was to include a cease-fire, an end to terrorist attacks and the launching of Qassam rockets, an end to efforts to acquire more weapons for use against Israel and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. A report on this attitude held by the IDF, published by Haaretz, angered then-prime minister Ehud Olmert, who opposed a prisoner exchange deal. He shelved the idea and subsequently rejected similar ones raised during Operation Cast Lead.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not bound by Olmert's objections. He should revive the idea and challenge Hamas. Israel needs to embark on an initiative that would fundamentally alter the situation along the southern border, without fearing dialogue with Hamas. It must not regard the current situation as simply fate.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Since the take-over, the tactic on the part of Israel, the Quartet, and the Arab League has been to weaken Hamas, while building up the political clout of Fatah and the PA under Salaam Fayyad. Today's poll reveals that over half of Palestinians now support Fayyad for PM, which is impressive, because at about the same time 2 years ago, he was at around 2%. An extended cease-fire/prisoner exchange with Hamas can only happen when Fatah feels that its rule in West Bank is not compromised. Meanwhile, releasing prisoners is problematic, because of Marwan Barghouti. Barghouti presents a direct political challenge to both the Fatah old guard as well as Hamas. Since Israel has thrown their lot in with Abbas and Fayyad, they cannot release Barghouti and jeopardize the balance of power. I think there will be no prisoner swap and no release of Shalit at least until the next PA elections, which in turn will not happen until the old guard of Fatah knows they will win.
Bill Clinton also said that. So did Dennis Ross. Yeah, but how many Jews died under the Oslo fiasco? Any lefties stepping up to take personal responsibility for that? Thought so.
can get out of it' is how it is with the mafia-like Hamas. There is no negotiating with the criminal mind.
I applaud the bold policy recommendation. I think the benefit to Israel's global image (of which the relevance towards Israel's continued security will hardly be overestimated) alone is worth such an action. However, remember that Hamas' ability to control all rocket fire coming from the strip is questionable at best - ie, there's plenty of spoilers to such an accord. However, before an accord was even reached I suspect its benefit would be shown - that Hamas, challenged, would not be able to rise to the occasion of managing its inheritance responsibly, nor of forsaken their patrons for the sake of normalcy.
I applaud the bold policy recommendation. I think the benefit to Israel's global image (of which the relevance towards Israel's continued security will hardly be overestimated) alone is worth such an action. However, remember that Hamas' ability to control all rocket fire coming from the strip is questionable at best - ie, there's plenty of spoilers to such an accord. However, before an accord was even reached I suspect its benefit would be shown - that Hamas, challenged, would not be able to rise to the occasion of managing its inheritance responsibly, nor of forsaken their patrons for the sake of normalcy.
Why should an organistion committed to Israel's destruction agree to a cease fire? What's in it for them?
What does?
try it's charter as quoted in Wikipedia: "The Hamas charter (or covenant), issued in 1988, calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[47] and the obliteration or nullification of Israel"
According to Haaretz: "The IDF wanted to pose the following option to Hamas: Preserve your rule of power or continue your violent struggle against Israel" i.e. a carrot (quiet = quiet + prisoner exchange) and stick (Israel will end Hamas's rule by force if necessary). It actually seems like a reasonable proposal. Haaretz, however, only supports the "carrot" (releasing thousands of terorists for Shalit and allowing unfettered acces to Gaza so Hamas can obtain arms freely like Hizballa), it would never support the stick even when, inevitably, Hamas or its sattelite groups in Gaza again launch missles at Israel. Its illogical and simply disingenous for Haaretz to use Galant's alleged balanced proposal to in support of its policy of capitulation.
The current sanction has created a situation that Israel can get a peace with Iran and control Hamas and Hezbollah. Because unlike what the jewish people think, many Iranian officials want having relation with Israel , and in fear of clerics they affraid to express. The sanctions have created a situation that they can ignore the clerics. Getting peace, is much better than killing the other , both for Iran and Israel. because no one can not destroy the other without dengerously empowering the Arabs
And isn't it amazing how the leadership of Israel's defense and intelligence forces often tend to be more inclined towards dialogue, and peace agreements, than are its politicians. Other than being more informed about, and familiar with, any given situation, the most telling difference is that their concern is strictly Israel's defense and security - without ANY political knives held to their necks!
preparadness for war should leaving Lebanon and Gaza failed. These unfilfilled pocket Napoleons should concentrate on their primary function and stop playing oracles.