Hamas says cease-fire is a 'tactic'

[Big Don]

Hamas says cease-fire is a 'tactic'
Breitbart/AP Story
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The chief of Hamas said Saturday that the Palestinian militant group would accept an Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel but it would be a "tactic" in the group's struggle with the Jewish state. Khaled Mashaal, the Damascus-based Hamas Leader, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television that Egypt had proposed a six-month truce between the Hamas rulers of Gaza and Israel. He said his group was ready to cooperate but added: "It is a tactic in conducting the struggle ... It is normal for any resistance ... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit. ... Hamas is known for that. In there was a cease-fire and then the operations were resumed."
------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that is really stunning about this, is that Mashaal as much as admitted Hamas has no real interest in peace. The on again-off again cease-fires in Israel are nothing new. The palestinians and their terrorist supporters have no hope of defeating Israel force on force, so when Israel beats on them pretty good, they go screaming for (Yet) another cease-fire, only to violate the terms of it within days, weeks, hell, sometimes hours.

Perhaps with this admission, the American left will see that those whose cause they champion are not worthy of it. Nah, that'll never happen...

 

[tellner]

They've never said any different with any of the other cease-fires. They're absolutely up front about their desire to destroy the state of Israel, exterminate its current inhabitants and kill or enslave all Jews worldwide. The last may be rhetorical excess on their part. But it doesn't leave any doubt at all about how what they want.

The best "deal" they've offered is that if Israel withdraws to the 1947 UN Partition Plan boundaries they will have serious negotiations in good faith. I find that the prospect consoles me only slightly.

 

[Tez3]

Many terrorist organisations will agree to a ceasefire, it gives them time to regroup and re-equip. It's a known tactic. It has the added bonus of making them seem 'reasonable' about peace talks. They enter the talks in apparent good faith, re-stock the weapons, give the fighters some R&R, make new plans and then when they are ready find something offensive in the negotiations, walk out and proclaim the cease fire over but of course it wasn't their fault!

 

[tellner]

Ayup. That's how it works. If memory serves the Arabic term Hamas used for the last "truce" translates as "a pause to recover".

 

[CoryKS]

It's called a hudna. It's basically a way of calling "times" when you're getting your *** handed to you so that you can find a way to stab your enemy in the back when they're not looking. Only works on those foolish enough to believe they are facing an honorable enemy.

 

[Twin Fist]

I keep asking myself when the world is going to get tired of the palistinians crap and put an end to it................

 

[tellner]

I keep asking myself when the world is going to get tired of the palistinians crap and put an end to it................

The Israelis have done some pretty bad things in the Occupied Territories. And I'm saying this as a hardcore Zionist. But for reasons which should be obvious they're allergic to anything like "Final Solutions to the (fill in the ethnicity) Problem".

Besides, what would you have them do? Surround the territories, turn off the water for a couple weeks and then advance behind a rolling artillery barrage killing everything that moves? That would be the definitive way. It would be more or less what they're enemies want to do, but it wouldn't solve the problem. It would just cause bigger ones.

Expel every Muslim Arab who isn't an Israeli citizen of proven loyalty? That's Meier Kahane's solution. It's more humane, but most Israelis don't think it would work.

Give up their country, let the Arabs have it all and go along with whatever they want? I'll take Door Number One before I let that happen. So would even the most peace-hungry Israelis.

The only real solution is to find someone who has some credibility within the Arab population - the word "Palestinian" referred to Jews in Israel up until just a few decades ago - and who is willing to sit down and negotiate realistically. Anwar Sadat was brave enough to do that with Menachem Begin. King Hussein of Jordan was wise - and bruised - enough. His son takes after the old man. Arafat wasn't up to it. Abbas might be, but he's utterly corrupt. Hamas isn't quite as corrupt but is constitutionally incapable of anything except "Toten Jude!" Victory would destroy them.

 

[Twin Fist]

I dont think negotiation will ever work, not while the rest of the arab world is pushing them to keep fighting and paying for it. I wish that wasnt the case tho. Funny that you should mention Sadat, considering how they paid him back for sitting down with Israel.

And you are right, the Israelis have done a lot of excessive and heavy handed crap themselves. Still, it isnt hard to see who the good guys are in this situation.

 

[Big Don]

The only real solution is to find someone who has some credibility within the Arab population

Actually, Tom Clancy had a fairly good and novel idea for peace in Israel in his book The Sum of All Fears. Introduce a number of tribunals made up of one Islamic Imam, one Rabbi and one Christian, give them the authority to deal with things informally and back them to the hilt with troops from a historically neutral country.

 

[tellner]

Tom Clancy writes fiction aimed at a very specific American demographic with very particular religious and political views. His area of expertise, such as it is, is not in diplomacy, foreign policy or Middle Eastern politics.

What he's suggesting is a colossally bad idea.

First, it gives the power to the clergy. This may play well with evangelical readers in the US who kind of like the idea of the Church forcibly inserting itself everywhere. It is precisely the wrong approach there as here.

Second, why include a Christian priest? The Christian areas of Gaza and the West Bank - Ramallah and Bethlehem come to mind - were ethnically cleansed after the first Intifada. The Christians don't have a horse in the race anymore. It's more of Clancy playing to his Christian American audience.

Third, these guys have a mandate to solve things "informally" but "backed to the hilt" by soldiers. About half a second's consideration should tell you how terribly that would turn out. These guys are not responsible to any particular government. They have agendas of their own don't include whatever you think they should be doing. And they have troops at their disposal. Not good. Very bad.

Think al Sadr, Kahane, the Maronites, the Muslim Brotherhood and Pat Robertson all with someone else's guns and soldiers. They have carte blanche to handle things "their way" and don't have to worry about silly things like laws or treaties. And they're all supposed to work together for some undefined common goal. The phrase is "Cluster**** of Biblical Proportions".

Who would this historically neutral party be? In the entire Muslim world the only country that might qualify would be Turkey. But they're on good terms with Israel. And no Arab likes the idea of Turkish troops showing up to shoot whoever needs shooting. It couldn't be any predominantly Christian country. No African nation has the money or quite frankly the skill and professionalism to do the job. I don't see most of Asia wanting to get involved except maybe China. The US would never stand for that. And so on. Then you've got to convince this country to bleed men and money into an open-ended commitment to stopping a war in the Middle East under the command of a bunch of religious leaders not responsible to any recognizable government.

It might work. "When rats fly and winos don't get high. When James Brown ain't funky and King Kong ain't a Monkey. When rattlesnakes have knees and money grows on trees...."

 

[Tez3]

I can't speak for the other groups but you'd be hard put to find one Rabbi (or even two!)to speak for all Jewish people. I can imagine all the arguments and discussions now!

 

[tellner]

It's hard enough to find one Rabbi to speak for a single congregation.

"Dear Rabbi," said the card he got in the hospital "The Board of Directors wishes you a speedy recovery by a vote of 6 to 3."

 

[Twin Fist]

Tellner,
the reason it worked in the book was that the palistinians WANTED peace. They wernt throwing rocks and bombs. the idea was interesting. The disputed land was governed by the trioka, the rabbi, the imam and the priest. The troops just kept the peace. But it only worked because the palistinians wanted peace.


Thats not the case in reality, sadly.

Being a huge clancy fan, i will say this. There is one thing the fans of clancy have in common. They all believe in the basic goodness of america.

Thats the point of view that he writes from. Jack Ryan in the books is not an expert in diplomacy, Middle Eastern politics, hell, politics AT ALL, etc. He is just an educated man who tries to do the right thing. And thats why he succeeds, because trying to do right, and using right and wrong as your guide, generally leads you in the right direction.

just like america. his country doesnt always know what it is doing, but we as a people TRY to do the right thing, and usually, thats what we end up doing.

He didnt get rich selling his product to a small, limited demographic.

and Plus, he did see 9-11 comming


oh crap, way off topic. Sorry.

I do think Hammas would be more willing to crap the crap they pull if the other arab states were to stop bankrolling them.

 

[Tez3]

If Hamas spent all the money that was given to them I imagine we'd have a huge war in the Middle East, as it is they spend just enough to appease their bankers and the rest gets salted away in Swiss bank accounts.

 

[Big Don]

If Hamas spent all the money that was given to them I imagine we'd have a huge war in the Middle East, as it is they spend just enough to appease their bankers and the rest gets salted away in Swiss bank accounts.

Then wouldn't a good course of action be to cut all foreign aid funding to palestinian causes until they spend responsibly. It is shameful the level of poverty their "leaders" keep them in to make Israel look bad.

 

[Tez3]

Then wouldn't a good course of action be to cut all foreign aid funding to palestinian causes until they spend responsibly. It is shameful the level of poverty their "leaders" keep them in to make Israel look bad.

I don't know about your government but ours has always been more pro Arab than anything else though that hasn't in the past stopped them treating Arabs badly, basically though as the causers of the problem starting back in 1917, the onus is on Britain to try to sort some sort of resolution to the Middle East problem. We set up the borders, we set families up to rule over these new made up countries and then we made promises that we had no intention of keeping until our hand was forced rightly by Jews needing a place to live. We can't ignore it.
The Civil Servants have always had a rather romantic (and paternalistic) view of Arabs dating from before Lawrence's time. That's done no one any good.
The strange thing is that the countries bankrolling Hamas are also trading partners of Israel though on the quiet and actually have little problems with Israel, however it benefits them to keep their peoples eyes firmly on the 'bad' Israelis so their population doesn't get around to enquiring too much into the goings on of their rulers.
The treatment of guest workers, male Muslim Pakistanis, in Dubai is an outrage yet the Muslims in Pakistan are outraged by Israel not by their fellow Muslims who leave them for dead by the side of the road after accidents on the unsafe building sites. There's loads more but that's a different discussion