Hamas agrees to truce
Khaled Mashaal, the top leader of Hamas, has now told al-Hayat that Hamas "is prepared to suspend attacks if Israel stops targeting militants and agrees to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners," according to this story by AP's Lara Sukhtian.
I'll be heading over to the Hayat website to get the text of that interview. (In a couple of hours I leave for New York, so I hope I can read the interview on the plane.)
Sukhtian writes:
- Mashaal said Hamas, which has called for Israel to be replaced by an Islamic state, would agree to stop attacks if Israel ends "aggression, invasion, assassination, killings" and agrees to release all Palestinian prisoners.
"If the enemy abides by these conditions, we, in Hamas, and other resistance forces in general, are ready to deal positively with the issue of pacification or temporary truce," Mashaal told the London-based newspaper, which did not say when or where the interview was conducted.
As I understand it, Hamas is agreeing to a ceasefire of limited duration, which quite understyandably they expect Israel to join. If that does not happen, evidently the ceasefire becomes null and void.
Sukhtian notes:
- A senior Hamas leader in the West Bank has said the group has agreed to suspend attacks for 30 days to test Israel's response.
In summer 2003, Hamas had agreed to a truce that fell apart after less than two months.
Israel has refused to guarantee it would not pursue militants, but has said it will respond to calm with calm.
Firstly, it challenges Sharon to truly back down from continuing to use violence, assassinations, etc., to impose his own version of "pacification" on the 3.5 million Palestinians of the occupied territories.
Secondly it tests the Bush administration to really help in moving Israel towards things Israel should have done a long time ago. Some short-term (but very important) things like releasing all the thousands of Palestinian detainees who are being held with no "probable cause" for their detention at all, and helping open up the Palestinian economy. But also, serious longterm moves like speeding up the total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and moving immediately to serious (and long, long overdue) negotiations on all final-status issues.
Thirdly, it tests Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other Palestinian militant groups to see if they truly can control their own, often hotheaded supporters and get them to go along with the truce. If they can, that will immensely strengthen their political position as a potential part of the Palestinian ruling coalition.
Fourthly and finally, it tests Abu Mazen-- both his intention and his capability. Personally, though, I think he's already passed all the many, many tests to which he's been subjected. He has the intention to make peace. But it's all the other parties-- particularly the Israelis and Americans-- which will determine whether he ends up with both the phsyical and the political capability of doing so.
Of course, the way the Americans and Israelis like to tell it, all this is really only a "test" of Abu Mazen.
But remember, back in summer of 2003, he passed an exactly similar test very successfully. The Israelis and Americans certainly didn't do what they should have back then.
Will they, this time? Let's hope...
Hamas has added the condition that all Palestinian prisoners be released?
What negotiation will finally settle on, I don't know. And what the final press releases will say, I also don't know. But I do know that Israel will not "Release all Palestinian prisoners", at least, not before a final peace treaty. There are just too many of them who will go back into the murder business for Israel to do that. Nobody interested in peace would support such a proposal.
Hamas could end the hudna a week after the prisoner s were released, with a refreshed core of killers added to its ranks.
WarrenW, do you think that Israel should be negotiating with Hamas, period?
WarrenW, it wsrikes me you perhaps haven't really grasped that this is a political struggle we're talking about, not just a bunch of "killers". The 7,000-plus Palestinian political prisoners are either (as in the case of, probably, most of them) not people who have committed violent acts. Or, they are people who committed violent acts under dthe discipline of one of the organizations; or they just committed unpolitical acts of violence.
If there is a ceasefire agreed to by all the Palestinian factions then the factions will take responsibility for bringing their people among the released prisoners under their discipline. The Palestinians as a whole will deal with any non-political men of violence, through their criminal justice system.
Just as, on the Israeli side, the Israeli authorities are expected to "turn off" the violence of their assassination squads and control any people who've been committing unauthorized acts of violence.
I really don't see why that's so hard to understand? It's what has happened in every other single case of decolonization, in Africa or Asia, or wherever. The colonial power releases the political prisoners of the national-liberation forces as part of the negotiation or the pre-nego0tiation.
It's called "politics". It's called "decolonization". It's called "peacemaking".
I can understand that some Israelis are fearful of the process. Let me assure you that many Palestinians are fearful of it, too. But on balance, the majority of people in both communities seem finally to be at a point where they realize it's better than the alternative.
So what is your particular standing, Warren, to be so opposed to it?
No Preference and Helena
I do think that the Israeli government should be negotiating with Hamas. Although, if the PA vehemently disagrees, then perhaps not.
The Intifada is a small, very irregular, war. It is not a political struggle nor are the prisoners "Political prisoners", jailed for their beliefs.
I understand the sides have agreed to stop the violence and move to negotiations. It is also possible that once the prisoners are freed there will be new attacks on Israel by the strengthened Palestinian military. Freeing the prisoners adds to the military strength of just one side, in exchange for what? Paper and promises?
Perhaps my phrase "Murder business" misdirected you. Substitute the more accurate phrase "Palestinian military".
This is not a case of "decolonization". There are no colonies. What is a colony of what?
I am in favor of peace. I think peace may be unlikely, and that warfare may resume. If that happens, with the Palestinian military replenished, the rate of killing may be much higher. This is not to be desired.
Some of the Palestinians say the "Disengagement" is proof that "Armed struggle" is the right path. Dominance by this point of view is the likeliest path to renewed warfare.