11 thoughts on “Gaza: Leaping into the Abyss – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Negotiate with who exactly, about what. And when Hamas builds up their army and launches war #2 what would be the Richard Silverstein plan.

  2. Bill Pearlman says “when.” I say try something that’s never been tried. Negotiate a ceasefire w. Hamas that includes the release of Shalit and the end of rocket fire along w. cessation of offensive action by the IDF against militants. Your plan is mistrust them & prepare for inevitable war. Mine is be pragmatic & test out Hamas’ seriousness before you resort to force.

  3. Yet more proof of Barak’s weakness and unsuitability to come to decisions which will bring long-term benefits for all.

  4. Richard says:

    I say try something that’s never been tried. Negotiate a ceasefire w. Hamas that includes the release of Shalit and the end of rocket fire along w. cessation of offensive action by the IDF against militants. Your plan is mistrust them & prepare for inevitable war. Mine is be pragmatic & test out Hamas’ seriousness before you resort to force.

    This is not just a Richard Silverstein suggestion – this is what 64% of Israelis are demanding – a negotiated ceasefire with the Hamas and a negotiated return of Shalit with the Hamas. The Hamas have already proven their ability to crush the clan-warlords in securing the release of Alan Johnson, but we can only hope that the Hamas have already secured Shalit and that he is not being held by Fatah clan-warlords, since only if he is being held by the Hamas would Shalit be well-treated and his life guaranteed, (in accordance with Islamic Law, which I have been studying in depth for some time now).

    However, we already know that the US would not be supportive of Israel in these negotiations – the USG have much to lose were Israel and Palestine to move away from a situation of permanent war. Israel is literally between the devil (USG’s influence in their affairs) and the deep blue sea (permanent war due to constant confiscation of the land of Palestinians and never-ending settlement expansion in the occupied territories).

  5. Bill Pearlman said:

    Negotiate with who exactly, about what.

    Ex-Mossad Chief, Efraim Halevy has been, for some considerable length of time now, suggesting that Israel should negotiate with the Hamas government.

    Halevy has proven to us that his commentaries, time and time again, are sound, pragmatic, and are based on a realistic understanding of the situation ‘on the ground’.

    Halevy, 2003
    “The road map is not a road map. It is a plan for an imposed settlement. It marks out a clear route that leads to an imposed settlement. I don’t think an imposed settlement is good for Israel. It’s not good for the Palestinians, either. History shows that every imposed settlement has been a temporary settlement. So I believe that our future here in the region has to be based on our learning one day to live with the Arabs and the Palestinians. I believe that is an attainable goal, but it can’t be attained by means of some imposed Pax Americana. I don’t think the Americans have an interest in this kind of Pax Americana, either. It will impose on the United States responsibility that it won’t be able to come to terms with.”
    Would you demand that the issue of the right of return be placed on the negotiating table at this stage, now?
    “Definitely. It’s true that the Palestinians will not renounce the right of return now. But I say that just as the Palestinians want to know what the light is at end of their tunnel, we should also demand to know what the light is at the end of our tunnel. And if what they are demanding is a state within the 1967 borders, we have to demand that they forgo the right of return. I would go further: what we have to demand is that the Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of Zionism. Not the fact of Zionism but its legitimacy. Just as we are about to recognize that a Palestinian state is legitimate, they have to recognize that the Zionist enterprise is legitimate.

    “That recognition cannot be implicit. It must be totally explicit. It’s true that there are certain things in which ambiguity can be constructive, but at junctures of decision ambiguity is destructive. It sows the seeds of future calamity. In my opinion, then, we have to be clear and determined on this issue. We have to obtain from the Palestinians explicit recognition of the legitimacy of Zionism. If we obtain that legitimacy, the whole question of the border of Zionism will become far simpler.”
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=336836

    Halevy, May 2005:
    “If Israel supports the policy of democratization in the Arab world, then it must accept the results of freely held elections in the Palestinian territories. Democratic elections do not entail a guarantee of victory by one particular party and therefore one must assume that there is a possibility that Hamas will play a role in the political life of the Palestinian Authority and Israel will be powerless to prevent this from happening. Hams today represents between 30 and 40 percent of the Palestinian population. These 30 to 40 percent are much more cohesive than the “silent” 60 percent of Fatah and its associates. Therefore, realistically, we must envisage a situation in which Hamas will be sitting at negotiating tables and will continue to be a political force in Palestinian society. There is no point in Israel having to discuss what response it will fashion to what will be celebrated as “an Arab victory.” Israel is one of the most powerful nations in the Middle East, powerful in terms of its defense and military capabilities, powerful in terms of its economic and social successes, powerful in terms of its international networking with the economies of the world, and powerful in terms of the degree of internal national solidarity despite the many divisions that characterize Israel’s society. Rather than cringe in the face of “an Arab victory” Israel must exhibit its superior capacity to move resolutely towards a reconciliation with the peoples of the region out of a position of inner conviction and strength.”
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/QA.jhtml?qaNo=125

    Halevy, April 2006
    In 1997, Halevy reveals, Israel received via Jordan the offer of a 30-year truce from the Islamic resistance movement Hamas, now in charge of the Palestinian Authority. […] The Hamas offer was neither given high priority nor properly explored, and may, Halevy says, have been no more than a trial balloon. But the extraordinary thing is that it was made just days before Mossad agents tried to assassinate Khaled Meshal …
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_black/2006/04/how_hamas_offered_israel_a_cea.html

    2008
    MJ: Why do you think Israel and Washington should talk with Hamas?
    EH: Hamas has, unfortunately, demonstrated that they are more credible and effective as a political force inside Palestinian society than Fatah, the movement founded by [former Palestinian Authority president] Yassir Arafat, which is now more than ever discredited as weak, enormously corrupt and politically inept.

    [Hamas has] pulled off three “feats” in recent years in conditions of great adversity. They won the general elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006; they preempted a Fatah design to wrest control of Gaza from them in 2007; and they broke out of a virtual siege that Israel imposed upon them in January 2008. In each case, they affected a strategic surprise upon all other players in the region and upon the United States, and in each case, no effective counter strategy mounted by the US and Israel proved effective…

    It makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005.”
    https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2008/02/22/ephraim-halevy-former-shin-bet-director-favors-talks-with-hamas/

    I don’t know, Bill, I feel sure you wouldn’t don’t support martyrdom tactics, but that’s exactly the road that Israeli govt. is pushing it’s enforced military-service youth down when they stubbornly declare ‘No negotiations’. Who knows how many more IDF kids could be killed in this ill-proposed onslaught or how many more hostages could be taken. Who knows how many new suicide bombers and Qassam launchers have been birthed through the most recent onslaught or how many will be produced if the ill-proposed future onslaught of Barak’s were to be given the green light. It’s not like we are ignorant of the processes of creation of these types of people anymore – enough studies and enough data have been collected over the years which prove the processes of their creation.

  6. Richard: I have never heard that Hamas is interested in a settlement with Israel. The best we could hope for is a “hudna”. If you have reason to believe that Hamas is interested in coexisting with Israel, recognizing Israel or as Halevy said is quoted above, “providing explicit recognition for the legitimacy of zionism” I’d be interested to hear why you believe that.

  7. ‘I say try something that’s never been tried.’

    Me too, Richard.

    http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

    This way Hamas, Israel, Fatah et al. are able to step outside the loop for once, take up an enforced sabbatical, a gap year away from all their many martial activities. OK, it’s only a stopgap measure; it won’t solve the main problem but it can buy the time needed to sort it out. It provides both a welcome respite for everyone involved in this conflict – and reason enough for EVERYONE to keep matters on hold until something far better than the present arrangement is found.

    In the end, what is there to lose? A little bit of ‘Israel,’ perhaps, a few acres of ‘Palestine’ – maybe not even that. What is there to gain? A proper breathing space, a period of sufficient calm and reflection in which, free from the shadow of real or threatened violence, a better and brighter future can be sourced from out this increasingly malevolent monster.

    Not even an army of politicians could ever solve this one on their own? Not in a million years. Even the best of them – and that’s not too many – will need assistance, some massive leverage to alter the course of such continual confrontation.

    “Give me a lever long enough and I can move the world. …”

    OK. Let’s say we’ve got our lever,… http://yorketowers.blogspot.com… and once we’ve got the world, what’s is there then to stop us all from moving it?

  8. The best we could hope for is a “hudna”.

    Hamas has talked of a “70 year hudna.” That’s an awfully long ceasefire. That’s in effect a pro forma settlement. During that time a full settlement could easily be agreed upon.

  9. Hamas speaks of a 70 year Hudna because it doesn’t WANT a settlement. They would use a hudna only to prepare themselves better for the next round of fighting. You accuse me of repeating myself, but I’m interested in understanding why you think that a settlement could easily be agreed upon. Because I am much less optimistic. I have not seen any indication that Hamas is interested in a settlement with Israel. If you have seen signs of it, I would appreciate you letting me know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *