• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Possible ceasefire in Gaza

bub

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Une trêve de 48 heures à Gaza ? - lesoir.be

"Israel may accept a 48 hours truce to allow Hamas to stop launching rockets.
If this is not the case, Israel could launch a ground offensive.

That could be a consequence of European and UN strong diplomatic pressures.
In the meantime, Arab countries press Egypt to open its border with Gaza.

As for the Hamas, it said that the end of the blockade would make them stop launching rockets.

So far, Israel has never succeeded in preventing rockets to be launched, even when it uses the military way, while at least 64 civilians have been killed, according the the UN. Hamas has promised that in case of ground offensive, rockets would be launched every day."

The article also says that while the first raids have killed many members of the Hamas, they now destroy empty buildings and uselessly endanger the life of civilians.
 
IMO, Israel should reject any ceasefire along those terms for the following reasons:

1. It would achieve no meaningful security gains for Israel.
2. It would not achieve the release of Cpl. Shalit.
3. Hamas would gain from conditioning a halt (almost certainly temporary) in its rocketfire to Israel's opening Gaza's crossings. Hence, Israel would only be able to return to the status quo ante by making fresh concessions to Hamas.
4. Hamas would achieve its gains without meeting the Madrid Quartet's minimal conditions (recognition of Israel's right to exist, abandon violence, respect existing diplomatic agreements).
5. Hamas would gain a respite during which it could rebuild its capacities. Given the lessons of post-2006 Lebanon in which Hezbollah rearmed, the medium-term result would be reduced security for Israel.
6. Hamas would retain control of the Gaza Strip, undermining potential Arab moderates.

Such an outcome would leave Hamas to declare it had succeeded. Should Israel open its crossings with the Gaza Strip, Hamas would be positioned to argue that its methods can bring about gains while the diplomatic process cannot. Israel, in the meantime, would face another muddled military outcome and its capacity to deter future acts of agression would further erode. Therefore, Israel should reject any arrangements along the lines described in Le Soir. Such an arrangement runs counter to Israel's interests.
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, Israel should reject any ceasefire along those terms for the following reasons:

1. It would achieve no meaningful security gains for Israel.
2. It would not achieve the release of Cpl. Shalit.
3. Hamas would gain from conditioning a halt (almost certainly temporary) in its rocketfire to Israel's opening Gaza's crossings. Hence, Israel would only be able to return to the status quo ante by making fresh concessions to Hamas.
4. Hamas would achieve its gains without meeting the Madrid Quartet's minimal conditions (recognition of Israel's right to exist, abandon violence, respect existing diplomatic agreements).
5. Hamas would gain a respite during which it could rebuild its capacities. Given the lessons of post-2006 Lebanon in which Hezbollah rearmed, the medium-term result would be reduced security for Israel.
6. Hamas would retain control of the Gaza Strip, undermining potential Arab moderates.

Such an outcome would leave Hamas to declare it had succeeded. Should Israel open its crossings with the Gaza Strip, Hamas would be positioned to argue that its methods can bring about gains while the diplomatic process cannot. Israel, in the meantime, would face another muddled military outcome and its capacity to deter future acts of agression would further erode. Therefore, Israel should reject any arrangements along the lines described in Le Soir. Such an arrangement runs counter to Israel's interests.
Click to expand...

But since they are unable to destroy the Hamas and that they are bombing empty buildings, what is the point of keeping on bombing Gaza?

(and according to Le Figaro it would be a French or European truce proposal. Livni is going to Paris on tuesday and will discuss about it)
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
4. Hamas would achieve its gains without meeting the Madrid Quartet's minimal conditions (recognition of Israel's right to exist, abandon violence, respect existing diplomatic agreements).
Click to expand...

The Quartet himself asks for a ceasefire

Le Quartette demande le cessez-le-feu à Gaza

mardi 30.12.2008, 20:35
Le Quartette pour le Proche-Orient a demandé mardi un cessez-le-feu immédiat à Gaza qui soit « pleinement respecté », selon un compte-rendu publié par l’ONU à l’issue d’une conférence téléphonique des membres du Quartette.
Click to expand...

le fil info - lesoir.be
 
bub said:
But since they are unable to destroy the Hamas and that they are bombing empty buildings, what is the point of keeping on bombing Gaza?

(and according to Le Figaro it would be a French or European truce proposal. Livni is going to Paris on tuesday and will discuss about it)
Click to expand...

So give up, right? ~Sheesh~

Look, Hamas launches rockets nearly every day anyway, regardless of whether there's an active blockade.

I cannot believe objective journalists can report Hamas's demands and offers of ceasefire with a straight face.
 
JMak said:
So give up, right? ~Sheesh~

Look, Hamas launches rockets nearly every day anyway, regardless of whether there's an active blockade.

I cannot believe objective journalists can report Hamas's demands and offers of ceasefire with a straight face.
Click to expand...

Israel's latest blockade of Gaza is threatening to destroy the territory's commercial sector and drive more people into the hands of extremists, according to a report published yesterday.
Click to expand...

Blockade helps Gaza militants, says report | World news | The Guardian
 
bub said:
Blockade helps Gaza militants, says report | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Right. It's Israel's fault that there are extremists. If Israel would give up their sovereignty and abandon the Middle East there would be no extremists.

Sheesh, where do you people come from? You're just the equivalent Blame America Firster blaming Israel for being attacked by terrorists.

The blockade only helps the terrorists...errr...militants because those they are converting are equally anti-Semitic as they are and like the terrorists want to see Israel wiped off the map. So they're gullible dullards completely brainwashed by propaganda...so what?
 
JMak said:
Right. It's Israel's fault that there are extremists. If Israel would give up their sovereignty and abandon the Middle East there would be no extremists.

Sheesh, where do you people come from? You're just the equivalent Blame America Firster blaming Israel for being attacked by terrorists.

The blockade only helps the terrorists...errr...militants because those they are converting are equally anti-Semitic as they are and like the terrorists want to see Israel wiped off the map. So they're gullible dullards completely brainwashed by propaganda...so what?
Click to expand...

It's not me who says that, it's an Israeli report.
 
bub said:
Une trêve de 48 heures à Gaza ? - lesoir.be

"Israel may accept a 48 hours truce to allow Hamas to stop launching rockets.
If this is not the case, Israel could launch a ground offensive.

That could be a consequence of European and UN strong diplomatic pressures.
In the meantime, Arab countries press Egypt to open its border with Gaza.

As for the Hamas, it said that the end of the blockade would make them stop launching rockets.

So far, Israel has never succeeded in preventing rockets to be launched, even when it uses the military way, while at least 64 civilians have been killed, according the the UN. Hamas has promised that in case of ground offensive, rockets would be launched every day."

The article also says that while the first raids have killed many members of the Hamas, they now destroy empty buildings and uselessly endanger the life of civilians.
Click to expand...

Fool me once, shame on you (Hamas)
Fool me twice, shame on me (Israel)
 
bub said:
"Israel may accept a 48 hours truce to allow Hamas to stop launching rockets.
If this is not the case, Israel could launch a ground offensive.

As for the Hamas, it said that the end of the blockade would make them stop launching rockets.
Click to expand...
I've asked this before, and I havent gotten an answer:

IF the reason for the rocket attacks is the blockade, why isnt Hamas hitting Egypt with rockets?
 
Goobieman said:
I've asked this before, and I havent gotten an answer:

IF the reason for the rocket attacks is the blockade, why isnt Hamas hitting Egypt with rockets?
Click to expand...

Because Egypt lets them build underground tunnels.
 
shiznit770 said:
Because Egypt lets them build underground tunnels.
Click to expand...

So did Israel...intentionally or otherwise.

So why attack Israel because of the blockade?
 
bub said:
Une trêve de 48*heures à Gaza*? - lesoir.be

"Israel may accept a 48 hours truce to allow Hamas to stop launching rockets.
If this is not the case, Israel could launch a ground offensive.

That could be a consequence of European and UN strong diplomatic pressures.
In the meantime, Arab countries press Egypt to open its border with Gaza.

As for the Hamas, it said that the end of the blockade would make them stop launching rockets.

So far, Israel has never succeeded in preventing rockets to be launched, even when it uses the military way, while at least 64 civilians have been killed, according the the UN. Hamas has promised that in case of ground offensive, rockets would be launched every day."

The article also says that while the first raids have killed many members of the Hamas, they now destroy empty buildings and uselessly endanger the life of civilians.
Click to expand...

This is the stance Israel should continue to take on the issue. Long range reprisals are clearly not significant deterrents to Hamas. It is clear that Hamas is struggling to maintain control or they would not look for a cease fire. They see how effective the Israel was in the West Bank and do not want a repeat in Gaza.

Many will confuse the air strikes as the cause for the talks of ceasefire when it was in fact the very public plan of a ground invasion that encouraged a ceasefire.

At this point I would almost rather see a ground invasion than a ceasefire as any government formed under Hamas, even if not hostile to Israel, could not be in the best interest of the people of Gaza.
 
JMak said:
So did Israel...intentionally or otherwise.
So why attack Israel because of the blockade?
Click to expand...
I have a couple guesses.
 
shiznit770 said:
This is the stance Israel should continue to take on the issue. Long range reprisals are clearly not significant deterrents to Hamas. It is clear that Hamas is struggling to maintain control or they would not look for a cease fire. They see how effective the Israel was in the West Bank and do not want a repeat in Gaza.

Many will confuse the air strikes as the cause for the talks of ceasefire when it was in fact the very public plan of a ground invasion that encouraged a ceasefire.

At this point I would almost rather see a ground invasion than a ceasefire as any government formed under Hamas, even if not hostile to Israel, could not be in the best interest of the people of Gaza.
Click to expand...

These aren't reprisals. Israel is attacking Hamas strongholds and facilities. And why do you conclude that Hamas seeking a ceasefire, after climaing to be victims here, is a function of losing control? Control of what? Hamas is proposing a ceasefire because it's clear that they won a propaganda war. The world's media, Europe, and the UN are all firmly supporting the poor Palestinians whose leaders they elected and terrorists they support.
 
JMak said:
These aren't reprisals. Israel is attacking Hamas strongholds and facilities. And why do you conclude that Hamas seeking a ceasefire, after climaing to be victims here, is a function of losing control? Control of what? Hamas is proposing a ceasefire because it's clear that they won a propaganda war. The world's media, Europe, and the UN are all firmly supporting the poor Palestinians whose leaders they elected and terrorists they support.
Click to expand...

Hamas barely maintains the resources necessary to launch their rocket attacks. An Israeli invasion would topple their network. Hamas gains support when Israel attacks its infrastructure from a distance but would lose all support if Gaza was invaded and policed, as was seen in the West Bank.

I agree they won the propaganda war and Israel would be good to learn from their mistakes. After decades of fighting and the evolution of media, the Israel responses are seen for what they are, reprisals.

I have to admit my original position that the Israeli attacks would never bring peace may have been mistaken. Though I attribute the possible peace to Hamas' fear of annihilation.
 
bub said:
The Quartet himself asks for a ceasefire
Click to expand...

Bub,

I have not yet seen the exact text of the Quartet's request. However, if the Quartet has retreated from the three conditions it has previously set forth, I believe Israel should not accept the ceasefire request.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Bub,

I have not yet seen the exact text of the Quartet's request. However, if the Quartet has retreated from the three conditions it has previously set forth, I believe Israel should not accept the ceasefire request.
Click to expand...

a ceasefire is temporary, it would be a truce. That would be the first step before negociation with the Hamas. They could negociate the end of the blockade vs. end of rocket launches.
 
bub said:
a ceasefire is temporary, it would be a truce. That would be the first step before negociation with the Hamas. They could negociate the end of the blockade vs. end of rocket launches.
Click to expand...

Should such terms be offered, Israel should reject them. Such terms would favor Hamas.

In effect, Hamas would gain an end of the restrictions simply from its having resorted to firing rockets on Israel. In any negotiation, Israel should seek nothing less than fulfillment of the Madrid Quartet's terms (recognition of Israel, abandoning of violence by Hamas, and respect for existing diplomatic agreements by Hamas), along with a verifiable regime for Hamas' returning the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority and disarming, and the release of Cpl. Shalit. Any prolonged ceasefire should be conditioned on such terms.

Hamas should not benefit from its having resorted to rocket attacks. Otherwise, Hamas' position will be further strengthened and the position of moderates who might be more inclined to pursue diplomacy weakened.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Should such terms be offered, Israel should reject them. Such terms would favor Hamas.

In effect, Hamas would gain an end of the restrictions simply from its having resorted to firing rockets on Israel. In any negotiation, Israel should seek nothing less than fulfillment of the Madrid Quartet's terms (recognition of Israel, abandoning of violence by Hamas, and respect for existing diplomatic agreements by Hamas), along with a verifiable regime for Hamas' returning the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority and disarming, and the release of Cpl. Shalit. Any prolonged ceasefire should be conditioned on such terms.

Hamas should not benefit from its having resorted to rocket attacks. Otherwise, Hamas' position will be further strengthened and the position of moderates who might be more inclined to pursue diplomacy weakened.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. Far too many truces have been struck with only half-ass concessions on both sides. A truce without the terms you mentioned will never lead to the much needed peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom