Hamas-Israel deal about to be reached?
Time.com's Tim McGirk reports from Jerusalem today that:
- both Israeli and Palestinian sources expect that by the middle of next week, a temporary truce between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt may go into effect. It won't be announced as such - Israel is squeamish about officially striking a deal with what it deems a terrorist group - but if it goes ahead, Hamas will strong-arm its own fighters and those belonging to Islamic Jihad into halting the barrage of rockets aimed at the farming communities and towns of southern Israel. In exchange, Israel is expected to refrain from targeted killings of Hamas operatives, and will hold off on mounting any major assault into Gaza. Israel will also commit itself to gradually lifting the blockade on goods reaching Gaza's besieged inhabitants.
Israel is still pressing for the accord to include the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for almost two years now since his capture on the Israeli side of the boundary with Gaza, but Hamas sources say negotiations over Shalit's freedom will start later. The militants are demanding that Shalit be traded for "over 400" Palestinians being held in Israeli jails. So far, Israel is refusing, saying it will only release around 70 prisoners who were not involved in deadly attacks.
Let's hope this one is.
If you haven't yet read my recent Boston Review article on Hamas, that gives considerable background about this negotiation, you can find it here.
Could it really be possible? A Hamas Israel truce that Israel will actually respect?
The truce has been agreed - let's hope that both sides respect it.
Unfortunately, if history is any indication Israel will follow its usual pattern with regard to cease-fires, truces, etc., and try to provoke Hamas into breaking the truce, and if Hamas will not break the truce, Israel will find or create a pretext to attack "for security reasons".
Or Hamas will decide to "retaliate" when the IDF has a clash outside Gaza with some other group that hasn't signed onto the ceasefire, and then claim that the truce was never broken. Neither party has been exactly scrupulous about honoring its truce obligations in the past.
Both have an interest in seeing this one take hold, though, so I have some hope for it.