Sunday, November 26, 2006
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Journalist from Jerusalem If you have attended t...
- Some Interesting Developments New PM in Palestine ...
- Interesting article in Haartez "Thousands of Pale...
- The Music of Struggle Enjoy some Israeli and Pal...
- Israeli troops fire on Women Palestinian women d...
- Is Israel an Apartheid State? A British View: Wor...
- The Power of the Israeli Lobby? There is a debat...
- Read some of my latest stuff here: Gibbon was ri...
- Arabs Pressure Rice On U.S. Peace Efforts The Bu...
- Suicide Bombing Dr. Robert Pape a prominent poli...
17 Comments:
Perhaps just the thought of an agreement between Israel and Palestine is a step in the right direction. This certainly sounds like good news, but an agreement between these two countries does not seem to be very convincing to me. What ensures that this agreement will withstand? Will anyone else be involved to help enforce this agreement? Will the UN have any part in this. These are just a few of the questions that I have on this issue. Any feedback?
This is a step in the right direction, however, it is only Hamas that is seeking a truce. At any given time, one Palestinian party is willing to just give up and let Israel keep the status quo, or their last promise, and another will take up the struggle, accusing the peaceful party of selling out, much like other unbalanced, colonial arrangements. There can only be a real truce when all parties agree to it.
I agree with mnoellef on the issue of how one group may just call the group that signed a ceasefire a sell out an continue with its own operations. One group may not seem to stand as a consensus for all parties. However, Hamas is the elected party of the people, and I think that Fatah will follow along because it will not want to look like its behind. Fatah and Hamas will be able to scrape along anyone else who does not fall in line.
I think the agreement between these two opposing parties is the primary step if lasting peace is the goal. Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas, and all Palestinian parties concerned have agreed that a two state solution can remedy many of the root causes of the conflict. Although Abbas has committed to a ceasefire, there are still some pressing questions that need to be answered. Will unrelated rebel groups or individuals fire rockets from Gaza? If so, will it be "justified" for Israel to retaliate?
Another aspect of this article that was new to me was the idea of secret underground tunnels running between Gaza and Egypt. Apparently weapons and cigarettes are being smuggled illegally; which could lead to more serious implications if allowed to continue.
Read more about it here... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1241836,00.html
While a cease fire is certainly a step in the right direction, I remain a skeptic. I'm skeptic because there have been cease fires in the past to no avail, because it always seems that both sides are just looking for an excuse to back out. All it takes is 1 single rogue or stupid member of Hamas to set off a rocket, even if its by accident and Israel will renew its attacks. Israel will claim they are justified because the Palestinians broke the cease fire. While I want and hope for peace it seems unlikely because there are just too many factions with too many different agendas. In conclusion it appears as though the Middle East is as close to peace as it is to renewed and reinvigorated violence.
I disagree with those who posted who state that this is only one side reaching out to the other. One person mentioned that Hamas seeking a truce, failing to mention that others are reaching out. I think that position is ignorant of what the other parties are doing. Israel’s leaders are reaching out as well if you listen to this report from NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6542623) you will hear about what the other side is doing as well. The Israeli Prime Minister is taking actions and his platform on which he was elected outlines a plan of action to deal with these maters. It is unfair to say that only one side seeks peace. One reason that these leaders must take action is low poll numbers and a fear that they will be replaced in the next election. The fear of being replaced and the thought of continuing bloodshed may mean that now is a better time than ever for these leaders to do everything in their power to find peace.
While this is certainly a good sign and a step in the right direction, I feel that both sides simply agreeing to a ceasefire is not enough. I think both sides need to recognize the fact that no matter how good Hamas' intentions are in this proposed ceasefire, the PA simply doesn't seem to have the power at this moment to control all rogue Palestinian factions. As it stands right now, I'm sure that if even one rogue missile is fired by Palestinians behind Hamas' back, Isreal will retaliate, thus ending the ceasefire.
In order to tackle the problem of security, I think Israel and Hamas need to do more than just agree not to attack eachother. Israel should be offering to help Hamas control rogue Palestinian factions (and Hamas should be eager to accept)- not only would this provide Israelis with greater security, but it would also help create a new environment of cooperation that would be conducive to productive negotiations.
However, I don't really see this happening any time soon. Hamas would be afraid of seeming to "sell out" to the Israelis, and Israel doesn't seem all that interested in cooperation at the moment.
The current cease-fire appears to be the result of intense pressure on both sides of the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently returned from a meeting with U.S. President Bush that was held in Washington, D.C. While the two expressed a unified hard line against the Iranian nuclear program, I believe that President Bush aggressively lobbied the Prime Minister about restarting the stalled peace process. As is almost always the case, the U.S. has stood by Israel, especially at the UN where it just recently vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for its Gaza incursions where shelling killed 18 Palestinian civilians. However, the President has been under relentless scrutiny for his Middle East policies that appear to have directly and indirectly led to a drastic increase in violence and instability in the region. In order to quell this criticism, Bush has expressed his openness to new solutions to the problem of Iraq. Many have begun to link the various problems in the region such as the Iranian nuclear program, the growing power and influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon where just last week a pro-Western member of the Sinora government was assassinated, and the chaos in Iraq with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I feel it is believed that if the U.S. can be seen as overseeing the revival of steps towards peace between the two parties, it will remove a major fundamental cause of extremism in the Middle East. Furthermore, Israel is under additional international pressure for the estimated 100 casualties it has caused in Gaza during failed attempts to stop Palestinian rocket fire that has left two Israelis dead and several more wounded. The government is also facing a domestic public that is extremely unsatisfied with its inability to retrieve the two soldiers taken by Hezbollah despite an intense month-long war as well as the soldier taken by Palestinians into Gaza and rocket fire despite major incursions into the territory. These could possibly explain for the serious about face of Prime Minister Olmert who up to this point has relied almost entirely on military force.
Hamas has shown major resilience through its relentless rocket fire into Israel in the face of Israeli Defense Force operations aimed at stopping it. However, as is always the case, money is the lifeblood of any government. The Hamas-led government has been under a financial embargo by Israel and her allies (the United States) since its electoral victories in January due to its unwillingness to recognize Israel. This is creating a humanitarian situation for many Palestinians that already live in terrible circumstances. The international and domestic outrage caused by the latest Palestinian civilian casualties that include the death of unarmed women, has been beneficial for Hamas who has recently been involved in negotiations with President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah over the creation of a unity government and the appointment of a non-Hamas person as Prime Minister. The timing appears right for both sides to end the violence. Hopefully if the cease-fire is upheld by both parties than a unified Palestinian government can negotiate the release of the captured Israeli soldier and the Gaza incursions will end. These would be extremely important trust-building steps on the road towards permanent peace.
This is a good sign that both sides are worn down from continuous fighting. There's a question of how long a truce can remain, but any peace is a good one.
It's also interesting to see that Mashal is willing for an agreement. Only goes to show that progress is possible, and people do change with time.
It's important they continue this process though. They need some sort of diplomacy and better living conditions so that military attacks and terrorism are no longer the only sole ethods for people and govs. to effect change.
It's a nice gesture to agree to a truce, but it is going to take all of the major players to have a real effect; not just Hamas. As everyone has mentioned, this is a step in the right direction. However, I thought I saw in the news today that rockets flew into Israel just 2 days after this agreement was made. I am not sure if they came from the Gaza area or not, but if they did then it becomes increasingly difficult to take anyone's word in this conflict when it comes to possible peace agreements. As Dan Curtin mentioned, this will likely mean a retaliation by Israel thus continuing the conflict.
I think that the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip could benefit greatly from a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. I feel that the majority of Palestinians innocently suffer due to politics and that play out as armed conflicts between the two groups. The exchange of prisoners and the withdraw of Israeli tanks from Gaza will help all parties involved. However I am a disappointed that Hamas gave a timetable of only six months and threatened a third intifada if negotiations for creating a sovereign Palestinian State didn’t happen fast enough. I think this sends the message that Hamas expect negotiations to fail, in essence giving up on them before they have even occurred.
Although I am a little skeptical about a 'truce' between Hamas and Israel, I do believe that the two are at least closer to achieving more peaceful relations. In 2004, Hamas offered a similar truce to Israel. They offered a ten year ceasefire if Israel would withdraw to the '67 borders. This latest offer for truce is limited to the almost completely Palestinian inhabited Gaza Strip. The West Bank has been the area where Israel has been more seriously pursuing its settlements; and also the area that Israel is much less likely to concede. Taking small steps towards peace is much more practical and will be more fruitful than trying to settle a comprehensive peace plan.
However, in the same statement that Khaled Marshal said Hamas was open to negotiations, he also threatened Israel with a third intifada if they did not capitalize on this opportunity within a six month window. Israel will not be intimidated by militants, these type of threats only help Israel justify their policies to the international community.
This does not come as a large surprise to me, as the Palestinian side seems to be more willing more than Israel to sign a peace agreement. I think it is a great step in the right direction for the region as long as both sides remain within the agreements confines. Hammas and the rest of Palestine must agree on this aggreement if anything is to be settle because of the many different groups throught Palestine. Any one of those groups could attack Israel and it could be misconcieved as a hammas related attack, and certainly ISrael will retailiate and withdraw itself from the agreement.
I think some of the other posters are ignoring some of the realities on the ground.
I would venture so far as to say that many Palestinians may not support Hamas' sometimes extremist tactics, but they do not necessarily disagree or fight against them. As Prof. Khan mentioned, in the eyes of Palestinians these "terrorists" or "rebels" are actually fighting to force change. Sadly, Israel rightly or wrongly responds to these attacks with reactionary violence.
The PA and Hamas aren't capable of controlling every one of its citizens and members. They don't even have a state nor their tax money. The attacks are caused by the terrible living conditions and opportunities in Gaza. These cannot all be random youth that like to play with guns and hate Israel with all their energy. They're frustrated and see no other method but to fight.
Israel seems to believe that by continuously killing the "militants" and increasing their power that Palestinians will finally believe it's futile to attack and quit. This is not a effective tactic. If they're not willing to concede then they should just give the Palestinians diseased blankets and put them on reservation camps. I guess that's the old name for refugee camps.
Being a little extreme to make a point, but I feel that some of the posters aren't seeing the big picture. Either cut down all the trees (rebels) to remove the forrest (the rebel movement/Palestinians) or find some contained way for them to grow.
This entire blog has centered around a supposed "cease-fire" agreement between the representatives of the various Palestinian factions and the Israeli government. The terms of the cease-fire were an end of Israeli incursions into Gaza in exchange for an end to indiscriminate Palestinian rocket attacks into Israeli towns.
The cease-fire took effect at 6am on Sunday.
By Monday afternoon, 11 rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel.
For all the talk about Israel's inability to live up to its agreements, look at who it deals with; a fractured, uncohesive Palestinian adversary with 5 heads going in differnt directions at once. If 2 heads negotiate, 3 keep fighting. If 4 heads want peace, the 5th will do everything it can to stop it.
The Israeli government is as dishonest a partner as any, but at least when one head says something, the rest follow.
I wrote something and I am displeased that the blogger didnt save. So once again the article was cetered upon talks of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. This cease-fire could have been a beginning to a possible solution. It could have played to be a significant role if it was held more than a few hours allowing time for the prisoners that were being detained to be let go, and by doing so it would have created further discussion of a longterm peace agreement. In the initial agreement it would have called for the end of incursions into the Gaza Strip but the West Bank. It creates a stigma of what can be. Another reason why Palestinians as long as Israelis are far beyond frustrated with there own parties.
As mentioned several times above, this does seem like a right step towards not normalizing, but perhaps easing some tensions between Palestinian and Israeli governments. What is stopping the progress I believe are the intergovernmental tensions in both in Israel and Palestine, specially in Palestine though, due to disagreements within the goup levels (like disagreements between Fatah Members and within Hamas party) and also among the two parties of Hamas and Fatah. I think a consensus is needed in the Palestinian political system for there to be any sort of future negotiations with Israeis.
Post a Comment
<< Home