The draft of a ceasefire agreement developed by John Kerry and Hamas supporters Turkey and Qatar — without input from Israel, Egypt or the PA — and presented to Israel on Friday, is precisely as bad as was reported yesterday.
It allows Hamas to keep its rockets and tunnels (they are not mentioned) and grants Hamas most of its demands. It does not suggest that Hamas will pay any penalty for its aggression and war crimes; indeed it will be rewarded.
It’s interesting that the word “Hamas” doesn’t even appear. “The Palestinian factions” are not listed, probably because some of them are designated as terrorist entities by the US and other nations, and “payment of salaries of public employees,” skates close to financing terrorism — something prohibited by US and international law (h/t: SB).
Of course this proposal was not accepted by Israel. If it is allowed to continue, Israel will destroy the remaining tunnels and rocket launchers and possibly even bring down the Hamas government. It will take at least a few weeks, and during this time there will be an accelerating humanitarian crisis in which the civilian population of Gaza will suffer enormously. Israel, too, will suffer casualties.
For that reason, an end to the fighting is desirable. But an agreement to end it must do more than provide Hamas with a respite to rebuild its tunnels and restock its rocket warehouses. It must effectively provide for the disarmament of Hamas and for the punishment of Hamas leaders who are guilty of war crimes.
Participation in the process of ending the conflict should be limited to the countries that are directly affected by conditions in Gaza: Israel, Egypt and the PA (perhaps also Jordan). Turkey and Qatar have no more place at the table than New Zealand. Why should they?
The UN, John Kerry, various governments and media that have expressed anguish over the humanitarian situation should realize that this is the best hope to end the conflict and save innocent lives.
But if they persist in demanding that Israel surrender to aggression, then they bear the responsibility for the suffering of innocents no less than the Hamas war criminals that precipitated it.
I am pleasantly surprised by Netanyahu’s resolve as demonstrated thus far. I hope he can maintain this in the face of intensifying pressure, which is certain.
I am only a little bit surprised by the behavior of Obama/Kerry. My only surprise is that they did not wait until after the mid-term elections to be this blatantly anti-Israel. I guess events forced Obama to show his true colors in this regard a little earlier than he’d have liked; he couldn’t help himself.
Obama, from the beginning of his presidency, has made his top priority the blackmailing of Israel into accepting a suicidal Saudi-style “peace” [surrender] deal with the thugs of the PA, or failing that, the sabotage of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership that has existed for at least the last 47 years. From there, he intends to isolate Israel as a pariah state, exposing her to political/economic strangulation a la Rhodesia in the 1970s.
Obama has engaged in olympic-class deceit and deception in the pursuit of this goal, aimed at duping Jewish American voters into believing that he had Israel’s back, but this element of garnering Jewish support in the U.S. was a key element of his overall strategy. He really didn’t need the Jewish vote to win – certainly not in ’08 and probably not in ’12 – but he needed to be able to tell Netanyahu that the Jews here supported the Obama agenda, as evidenced by their support, and not Netanyahu’s agenda, thus making Netanyahu and Israel feel that much more isolated and vulnerable. Also, Jewish support for Obama would dampen non-Jewish support for Israel in the larger U.S. polity; many would understandably conclude that if the Jews in the U.S. didn’t care enough about Israel to vote against Obama, then why should they care about Israel? Because large, mainstream establishment Israel advocacy organizations such as AIPAC would not hold Obama accountable for his anti-Israel policies during his first term, they have lost credibility and political clout. This was all quite intentional per Obama’s scheme.
It is a rotten situation, but Israel is strong nonetheless. In fact, as long as the Iran nuclear arms threat is dealt with, one might even argue that without intending this result, Obama has been “good” for Israel in kind of “boy named Sue” sort of way. Obama has forced Israel to broaden her economic, diplomatic, and even military relationships with other powers so that she would not be so dependent on one power as she had been on the U.S. for many years. Though this has not been put to the test as yet (it probably soon will be), it is not implausible at this point that some draconian UNSCR aimed at Israel in the near future might be vetoed by Russia or China, a scenario unthinkable ten years ago.
Vic is right in his previous post that Israel would do well to be able to live without U.S. aid; I expect the U.S. to cut off the same in the very near future. I also hope and expect that the Israeli leadership has taken this into account in their war planning.
Am Chai Israel!