Topic: Israel: Operation Protective Edge - page 7. (Read 14700 times)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...558338,00.html

Egypt wants Palestinian Authority to supplant Hamas in Gaza
Cairo proposes deployment of PA security forces into Gaza border perimeter with Israel, moving handling of Strip finances to Abbas.
Elior Levy
Published: 08.13.14, 14:13 / Israel News

Palestinian sources have leaked the latest Egyptian ceasefire proposal on Wednesday, which envisions the Palestinian Authority supplanting Hamas in Gaza. Cairo has called on both sides to accept the proposal by midnight, when the current 72-hour truce ends.


The points covered in the draft document are as follows:

1. Talks on the building of a seaport and airport for Gaza will be postponed in one month, after the situation between the two sides stabilizes. In addition, talks on prisoner releases and the returning of the bodies of IDF soldiers Oron Shaul and Hadar Holdin will also be postponed.

2. The border crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip will be opened to movement of both goods and people. Construction materials to rebuild the Strip will be allowed in, and Israel will also authorize the import and export of goods between the Gaza Strip and the west Bank. This, under the terms agreed on between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

3. The border perimeter (the buffer zone on the Gaza border which Palestinians are not allowed to enter, will be cancelled. Palestinian Authority security forces will enter the area instead, as of January 1, 2015.
The perimeter will be gradually reduced: at first to a distance of 300 meters from the border, and in three months (in November) to 100 meters. The second phase will end with the deployment of PA troops to the area.

4. Gaza's fishing area will be gradually expanded from 6 miles to 12 - that will be done in coordination with Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The PA will also coordinate Gaza's financial issues with Israel.

Egypt called on both sides to accept and commit to its proposal by midnight Wednesday, when the current 72-hour ceasefire comes to an end.

The Palestinian side still won't accept these terms, and has demanded to amend it.


The Palestinian sources have not mentioned the opening of the Rafah border crossing, and it was unclear whether this issue will be included in this agreement, or in a separate Egyptian-Palestinian agreement without Israeli involvement.

But the concept should work. It just has to be done without too much involvement by Israel, because their goals are somewhat different. It's only important to give Israel what it says it wants publically. Just disregard their private sentiments while protecting yourself from their certain interference. Not an easy path, I know. But if it was easy, it would already be done.

As I mentioned, truth isn't the issue, perception is. The problem is that unless the average American can accept a different perspective on Palestine, there are zero politicians that will do anything. This is why I go back to a different model of governance. Pretty much any American will accept an economic thrust to improve quality of life. It will make sense to them, because it's what they want for themselves. You need to ignore the substantial difference in how business works pretty much everywhere in the middle east versus western democracies. Explaining that would give anyone a headache.

I think Abbas only really looks like that to your average American. G7 government actors should and I think do, know better. And since the latter and not the former are our targets then I see no reason why Abbas can't fill that roll. I suppose the largest issue would be Palestinian perceptions of these people. Abbas has been able to control violence very well in the West Bank, and keep Hamas and the Palestinian Jihad (as well as a dozen other factions) in check. But i wouldn't be opposed to seeing someone else take the reigns (and I don't think Abbas would be opposed to it either) if there was a viable option within the Palestinian polity.

As for the condemning, that's what the unity government was for, and that's one reason why it was so threatening to Israel. Hence the current conflict. If the unity government survives then we may still have such an opportunity, but it will take discourse time to recover from Operation Protective Edge, which will give Netanyahu's administration plenty of time to come up with other tactics to disrupt the unity government. And unfortunately Israel has proven very adept at this in the past and Hamas and especially the Palestinian Jihad are temperamental enough to be pushed.

Much like Hamas, he is pigeonholed. Hamas is the villain, and Abbas is the weak politician who just can't control the extremists. Mind you, I'm not saying any of this is factually true, I'm just saying that is the perspective in most western countries. Once a politician is diminished that way, or a business leader for that matter, things just don't get better. Well, there are exceptions, but I don't see Abbas as another Churchill, or Palestine as Great Britain.

Haha, it wasn't really meant to be a maneuver per say, it's just that there are always entrenched actors within conflict that have no incentives to see said conflict end and these actors will try to disrupt peace processes. The question becomes: do we want that to happen here?

And in the West Bank: The Palestinian Authority does marginalize them and keep them under their thumb / combat them. The Palestinian Authority also hindered Hamas' service production in the West Bank in order to keep them under control as well (a tactic picked up in 2007).

Hamas actively fights other more Salafi factions in Gaza that attack Israel as well. They've done so for years and have even rescued foreign journalists who had been captured by such groups. As for the Islamic Jihad movement, they are larger players that Hamas has tried a more co-opt approach on. Hamas can usually coerce them into following plans, but they can't always outright control them. Islamic Jihad unlike Hamas has no really strong service provision wing and are mostly just militants. As base militants they have far less incentive to abide by ceasefires. They also don't like Hamas always speaking for them and are usually represented as a third party in some peace talks (they have a delegation partaking in ongoing ceasefire talks currently for example).

Nice maneuver.

But that isn't exactly what I meant by differentiating. There is no way to differentiate within Israel when it's in Israel's interests to blame everything on who they choose. It's impossible to prove. The only way for success is to vehemently condemn acts like that, and Hamas doesn't have the...I don't know if status is exactly the right word...to make that believable to the world. There needs to be a central government to say the right things, and unfortunately a method for repressing extremist comments. Yes, that opposes Jeffersonian democracy ideals. But there isn't going to be a Jeffersonian democracy there for centuries if ever, so it's a moot problem.

That's my goal too, for the most part. I don't really care if Al Qaeda ever has dignity for example, but we can't and shouldn't allow Al Qaeda style cells disrupt a larger peace process between the main actors. Just like we shouldn't let settler violence stop it. Which is of course why it is vital to be able to distinguish between Hamas and these other smaller factions. Which Israel can, it just generally doesn't have any incentive to do so publicly.

I think this economic track that you mentioned does have potential, which is why I think that Israel was so concerned with and threw such a fit over a Palestinian unity government despite the fact that it has been "calling" for one for years.

The kidnappings were simply something that Israel seized on as an excuse to target Hamas. Hamas denied responsibility for them and third parties even took credit for them publicly, but Netanyahu was content to blame Hamas anyway, even when it seemed most likely that the kidnappers were acting outside of organizational networks. This was just another stroke of propaganda brilliance that allowed them to target an existing threat: the unity government very aggressively without seeming to be instigating it.

In these particular instances shouldn't the Palestinian authority or Hamas actively work to prevent these and punish those who defy cease-fires?

Or are they and it's not being reported?

Strategically, I see this as being the same thing. It goes back to Israel one way or the other, and the exact path is kind of irrelevant for my purposes. I mean, it's almost certainly funneled through US sources, but I would be surprised to hear it WASN'T traced back to Israel. If it were the IDF directly, that could backfire badly, and that would be a silly risk on their part.

I think Abbas can't move this forward. Circumstance is what it is. But a strong business leader who isn't interested in war or extreme positions could use his support to get put into power, and do the needful. No guarantees, of course, but there is a decent chance.

It won't happen though, even though this still the most opportune time. It gets less opportune as time passes, and the window will eventually close once again for several years. Sadly.

Well thank you very much. As for the people that I discuss the conflict with: They aren't my target audience. I usually engage with individuals who have very entrenched interests in the conflict. Tizanabi, Ghosthunter, Floppycock, etc were / are zionists (not used in any sort of conspiratorial or religious sense of the term, rather the political sense). Tizanabi flat out stated that he would 100% support anything that Israel ever did. Others like Mr. Baker are religious conservatives, thekinggov: neocons, and people like Verm, asfdxjhgdf, and Born2Run: racists / militants.It is for the Islamic Jihad (the group that appears to have fired them). They aren't interested in peace.

That's always been my stance since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. A separate productive discourse with Abbas in the West Bank focusing on West Bank specific peace plan promises and issues. As Palestinians get more of what they want / need and see progress on Palestinian state building through Abbas' tactics while things remain stagnant for Hamas, then that rather effectively politically marginalizes Hamas. Unfortunately as things stand now, in the face of Israeli administration refusal to halt settlement expansion or live up to any West Bank specific peace promises / hold constructive and real talks with Abbas, we see the opposite happening. Abbas weakened and portrayed as a puppet in the face of Israeli abuses while Hamas is the only faction seen as resisting Israel.

If so, that is pretty practical proof that it has potential as a strategy. Unfortunately, once the rockets start flying and the kidnappings/murders start, it all goes out the window. I honestly have no understanding of groups like Islamic Jihad. Their concept of life is too dramatically different than mine. I can accept that wars happen, but the idea is to try and find peace, while letting all sides have some dignity.

It's my biggest beef against Woodrow Wilson. But that's a different issue and a different war.

I agree with this description, and I actually think that is really what is at the root of the current escalation in conflict. The Palestinians formed a unity government which is incredibly dangerous to Israel on an international diplomatic level and I think Israel was very perceptive of that. It historically has used Hamas to counter Fatah's diplomatic efforts. Unity threatened that vital mechanism, so Israel encouraged conflict or, rather, encouraged division by tightening the screws on Hamas via the blockade and by arbitrarily arresting hundreds of Hamas activists without charge or trial. The current conflict (though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was hoping to start a war like this) has been rather effective at leaning on the old political divide. I wonder if the unity government will survive this.