Reply to What should Israel do with Gaza?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What should Israel do with Gaza?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage?  I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests.  But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?[/quote]

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.
[/quote]

None of us are Hamas or Israeli negotiators, but that doesn't seem to be stopping us.  Do you think Hamas should offer to destroy its tunnels into Israel/dismantle its rockets, subject to international inspection?  Hamas has given assurances before - I think Israel has good reason to doubt the sincerity of those assurances.  I'm not saying either side is blameless, but I am wondering, at this point, what could Hamas offer in exchange for the concessions you lay out?  And if it can't/won't offer anything meaningful, how do you think Israel should proceed?  Do you think Israel should just hope that Hamas eventually stops shooting rockets at it?[/quote]

I feel like I have already answered this twice. If Israel will not trust Hamas to not fires its weapons, why would it trust it to dismantle them and/or not acquire new ones? The entire basis of an agreement has to be both sides trusting each other at least to an extent. The tunnel issue is being way overblown. Most of Hamas' tunnels don't go to Israel. They were built for defensive purposes and they are one reason Israel is having such a difficult time militarily. If the "tunnels" were called "bunkers" this would be more easily understood, but not as helpful to Israeli propaganda. Israel has only found three tunnels going into Israel and those have been destroyed.

A cease fire would require Israel "hoping" that Hamas stopped firing. Similarly, a ceasefire would require Hamas "hoping" that Israel stops drone and rocket attacks on it. That is the nature of cease fires.
[/quote]

But the terms you set forth aren't just each side "hoping" the other stops shooting.  They would also make it much easier for Hamas to build stronger weapons against Israel, something Hamas has repeatedly expressed interest in doing (understandably).  If Israel is going to take concrete action (opening borders/ports, etc.) that could potentially endanger its citizens, how can it mitigate that risk?  If Hamas truly wants a cease fire encompassing these types of terms, I think they need to come up with something meaningful to exchange.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics