All 2 entries tagged Hamas

Scary Ceasefires, Scary Cheney and Scary Vehicles

It’s a busy few days at the moment, not least for Dick Cheney, who has spent the week moaning to dictators about how awful dictators are, and letting Israel know that they won’t have to do anything they don’t want to.

Meanwhile the Israeli government is attempting to deny that they have been offered a ceasefire by Hamas , despite the fact that Hamas has repeatedly offered such a ceasefire in public. The government has also insisted that “our position is that if they don’t shoot at us from Gaza, we won’t shoot back”, which must strike Hamas as curious when it was repeated Israeli shelling of the West Bank in early 2006 which caused Hamas to abandon the 18-month unilateral ceasefire it had imposed upon itself.

And in a supreme act of generosity, Israel has allowed Russia to sell the Palestinians cars. They would have had machine guns on them, but Israel was scared that they might get used. Which is fair enough, but I can’t see Britain adopting the same policies on its arms sales to Israel . The strong do as they will, the weak suffer as they must.

Christopher Rossdale : 23 Mar 2008 11:35 |  Tags: Arms Trade Dick Cheney Hamas Israel And Palestine Peace Process |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Israel prepares to reject peace offer

Writing about web page http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1881042,00.html

The Arab proposal was aired by the Saudis in Beirut in 2002. It was dismissed by the Israelis, but has been reworked in the wake of the Lebanon war. Under the proposal, Arab governments offered to end the conflict and recognise Israel’s existence in return for a Palestinian state in the land occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugee question.

But Mr Peres said it was effectively unworkable. “We know actually the Saudi plan and again the problem arises, what happens to the terrorist groups? Because they are the basic obstacle right now.”

Once again the Israel is manoeuvring to block the most widely supported and desired peace plan available. They claim that they cannot dismantle the existing settlements in the West Bank, and instead plan on continued expansion. This has been ruled illegal by the World Court, voted against by the overwhelming majority of the UN, and yet they continue.

Their flimsy explanation for blocking it is the ‘danger’ from Hamas and co. There are a number of reasons why this is a poor excuse. Firstly, the leading research (see Robert Pape) shows terrorism to be a tactical and reactionary measure, and therefore when the provocation for it is removed, the likelihood of attacks diminishes sharply. Attacks by the IRA have subsided as a peaceful workable solution seems to be approaching, and Hamas themselves maintained an 18-month ceasefire, despite it’s unilateral nature and the fact that Israel continued its killings and shellings throughout this period. Common sense insists that any terrorist with his objective at the front of his mind would cease attacks if a solution appears reasonable. Both logic and empirical evidence insist that an end to the occupation would be the best move to protect Israel’s safety.

Hamas’s ceasefire is yet another reason why the excuse falls flat. They have proved that they are willing to pursue a democratic route, and to live by their word. It is true that they have not explicitly recognised Israel, this being made difficult by the religious imperative against accepting others into the land they believe God gave them, but they have offered a ten-year truce – an implicit recognition allowing plenty of scope to work with their neighbour. Israel’s rejection of their dialogue is an invitation to the more hard line militant wing of the organisation to revert to the tactics of old – surely not a safe move where Israel’s safety is concerned.

If Israel thinks a rejection of Palestinian rights and a continuation of the apartheid system is the way to minimise the danger to its own people, it is very mistaken. Israeli policy planners fully realise this, but also understand that preserving the popular misconception that withdrawal will lead to an increase in terror is a useful tool for justifying the expansion and occupation to its people. The line of logic often touted is that ‘we withdrew from Gaza and the danger continued, therefore withdrawal is bad’, but this is clearly flawed. Gaza’s borders are still controlled, travel is restricted, trade is cut off removing any possibility of economic independence, money is withheld, and sonic booms are often to be heard overhead. A family picnicking on the beach was blown to pieces. That’s not withdrawal. That’s living in fear – something the Israelis living near the border are quick to insist is unacceptable for them – so why not for the Palestinians? Obviously if Gaza was really allowed to be free, then it would become a centre for popular support for the West Bank – marches, celebration, and the demonstration that a free Palestinian people could be prosperous and happy; a wholly unacceptable situation. Consequently the line is that the Israeli army withdrew from Gaza, yet there is still resistance, and so withdrawal doesn’t work.

Dispelling the myth that a free Palestinian state would be more of a danger than an oppressed impoverished one is a vital part in showing that Israel must not be allowed to continue its cruel campaign against the Palestinian people. It is wholly untrue, and yet they plan to use it once again as a reason to reject peace.

Christopher Rossdale : 26 Sep 2006 12:57 |  Tags: Hamas Israel And Palestine Politics Terrorism |  Comments (5) |  Close comments |  Report a problem