Hamas took a step towards peace six month ago and Israel government cracked down hard on Gaza. The Israelis does not want a unified Palestinian government or nor peace. Peace means the west bank will not be Israeli(and the settlements will have to be removed). No way is Israel doing that.

Anonymous wrote:I was reading the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hamas-says-missing-israeli-soldier-in-gaza-hadar-goldin-is-likely-dead/2014/08/02/92562694-56cd-48c0-921b-b851fb2eca09_story.html?hpid=z1.

In it, they highlight how the cease fire broke down. What I find troubling is that Hamas lost communications with the cell that kidnapped the IDF soldier. And using the term Cell rather than military battalion/unit. Is it just a name? Ir does it represent the organizational structure of Hamas militants: are the cells more or less independent cells? If that is the case, how can Hamas claim to be able to negotiate, when it would take only one cell to go rogue, with minimal consequences (I assume)?

Or am I over interpreting the situation?

Losing contact with troops in battle is a very common situation, especially when you don't have the most modern communications equipment, and when entire groups of your soldiers are being killed at one time.

As for what you are saying about security, the answer is that Palestine has provided security before, during the Oslo years. The Palestinian National Security Forces worked with the aid of the CIA and Shin Bet to provide security. During the early Oslo years they did a good enough job that a member of the Knesset claimed that the Palestinians were doing their work for them. This all worked for a while, but Oslo fell apart when the Second Intifada started, and you can read about that to decide for yourself who is at fault. For my part, the continued expansion of settlements over the Oslo years, coupled with Ariel Sharon's political campaign stunt of going to the Temple Mount were the primary cause.

Jeff, it's not a trap. Historically, Israel's position has always been that Palestinians are animals and you cannot negotiate with them. They've only ever done it when they ran out of option. Pragmatically, it's very much to Israel's benefit to pretend that there is no viable partner for peace and continue with the status quo of occupation and oppression.

Terrorists? So? What was Irgun? And the Stern gang? Did anyone mind that they produced two of Israel's prime ministers?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It is common for resistance groups to organize in cells so that if members of one are captured they cannot provide information about other cells. When Hamas previously agreed to a truce, Hamas itself observed the truce fairly well. There were problems with other resistance groups (there are several groups other than Hams in Gaza). Hamas willingness to reign in those other groups was inconsistent. Part of the problem was that there were frequent Israeli provocations. Of course, each side always blames the other and it is nearly impossible to sort out. But, Hamas was less willing to act against other groups when Israel was being belligerent.

The ceasefires have had fatal flaws in them in that they allow Israel to continue searching for tunnels. Israel is not supposed to expand the ground it holds, but if it sees a tunnel running beyond its current territory, will likely follow it. So, clashes are inevitable when Hamas fighters and Israeli military bump into each other. Neither side is simply going to offer the other tea.

No, there will not be tea. I don't believe Hamas can be a partner for peace. But even if I am wrong, consider that there are other actors in Gaza who do not want peace and who could try to sabotage a deal between Hamas and Israel. Islamic Jihad comes to mid, but there are others.

It may seem inconceivable from a western perspective, but fighters who believe in jihad welcome martyrdom; in an interview with moderate Syrian opposition fighters, the had this to say about the Islamic radicals (some of whom joined ISIS):

"They love death."

Such a dedicated opponent is difficult to negotiate with. If Israel can't eliminate Hamas, hopefully they can weaken them enough that the people of Gaza will find other/more moderate leadership finally.

Hamas has shown that it is able to abide by a truce. If Israel would not constantly weaken it, Hamas could better control the radicals. But, as I've said before, if you rule out negotiations, you are only left with war as an option. This is the trap that Netanyahu is currently in. He has promised to "finish" Hamas. But, the only way to do that will be to kill nearly the entire population of Gaza. The world won't let him do that. So, he needs to figure out how he can stop without Hamas being finished, yet be protected from domestic opponents who will knife him in the back at the first opportunity. It's ironic, but Netanyahu is actually more likely to be a victim of this conflict than Hamas.

The hard fact is, you can not ignore Hamas, So there can't be peace without Hamas, the sooner we understand that, the better it will be for all parties involved. Any type of peace process that doesn't include the resistance in its talks will fail. Hamas must be at the negotiating table and considered a legitimate partner for peace. There is no way to broker peace while excluding one party from the negotiating table, they should have learned that by now.

Hamas’ conditions for a cease-fire include provisions about lifting the blockade of Gaza and resuming salaries to the public employees who make up most of the Gazan workforce. These demands are understandable, given Gaza’s dire economic situation. Any potential mediator should take Hamas’ conditions seriously not only because Gaza is in a humanitarian crisis but also because failing to do so upholds a status quo that will likely lead to more conflict in the future. Hamas and the Gazan people must be shown carrots and not only sticks for any cease-fire to hold.

The right mediator can end this conflict and make it harder for others to arise. Such a mediator has to be open to dealing with Hamas and its conditions. Acting otherwise is unlikely to end the current violence, let alone prevent more.

jsteele wrote:It is common for resistance groups to organize in cells so that if members of one are captured they cannot provide information about other cells. When Hamas previously agreed to a truce, Hamas itself observed the truce fairly well. There were problems with other resistance groups (there are several groups other than Hams in Gaza). Hamas willingness to reign in those other groups was inconsistent. Part of the problem was that there were frequent Israeli provocations. Of course, each side always blames the other and it is nearly impossible to sort out. But, Hamas was less willing to act against other groups when Israel was being belligerent.

The ceasefires have had fatal flaws in them in that they allow Israel to continue searching for tunnels. Israel is not supposed to expand the ground it holds, but if it sees a tunnel running beyond its current territory, will likely follow it. So, clashes are inevitable when Hamas fighters and Israeli military bump into each other. Neither side is simply going to offer the other tea.

No, there will not be tea. I don't believe Hamas can be a partner for peace. But even if I am wrong, consider that there are other actors in Gaza who do not want peace and who could try to sabotage a deal between Hamas and Israel. Islamic Jihad comes to mid, but there are others.

It may seem inconceivable from a western perspective, but fighters who believe in jihad welcome martyrdom; in an interview with moderate Syrian opposition fighters, the had this to say about the Islamic radicals (some of whom joined ISIS):

"They love death."

Such a dedicated opponent is difficult to negotiate with. If Israel can't eliminate Hamas, hopefully they can weaken them enough that the people of Gaza will find other/more moderate leadership finally.

Well, for the sake of fairness, the right-wing coalition in Israel would very much like Hamas and Palestinians en masse to just...disappear, too.

Hamas cannot be a partner for peace - they are a terrorist organization - even the son of one of the Hamas leaders indicates this....

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/son-of-hamas-founder-converts-to-christianity-goes-on-cnn-exposes-hamas-for-what-it-is

A high-profile Hamas critic, and son of one the group’s leaders, struck out at the terrorist group for its “worship of death” and its plans to establish a global caliphate, in a recent interview.

Mosab Hassan Yousef, a Hamas defector who worked for 10 years as an informer for the Shin Bet, explained to CNN last week that, for Gaza’s rulers, human life is of no consequence.

“Hamas does not care about the lives of Palestinians, or the lives of Israelis, or Americans; they don’t care about their own lives,” Yousef said. “They consider dying for their ideology a way of worship.

“Hamas is not seeking coexistence and compromise; Hamas is seeking conquest,” he added. “The destruction of the state of Israel is not the Hamas final destination.”

Hamas, Yousef asserted, wants to build an Islamic state “on the rubble of every other civilization.”

That i just a bad strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It is common for resistance groups to organize in cells so that if members of one are captured they cannot provide information about other cells. When Hamas previously agreed to a truce, Hamas itself observed the truce fairly well. There were problems with other resistance groups (there are several groups other than Hams in Gaza). Hamas willingness to reign in those other groups was inconsistent. Part of the problem was that there were frequent Israeli provocations. Of course, each side always blames the other and it is nearly impossible to sort out. But, Hamas was less willing to act against other groups when Israel was being belligerent.

The ceasefires have had fatal flaws in them in that they allow Israel to continue searching for tunnels. Israel is not supposed to expand the ground it holds, but if it sees a tunnel running beyond its current territory, will likely follow it. So, clashes are inevitable when Hamas fighters and Israeli military bump into each other. Neither side is simply going to offer the other tea.

So from the Israeli side, they don't even know who to negotiate with? How to stop this? From Hamas, it makes them look weak...

Israel knows with whom to negotiate. It's is a complex situation and often one that Israel makes worse. Even in the times of lowered hostilities, Israel had a habit of bombing police stations and police facilities in Gaza. They once even bombed the graduation ceremony of new police recruits. That sort of thing weakens the police who are the ones that are supposed to control the radicals (remember, they don't get to have an army). Israel has always had a strategy of killing or trying to weaken anyone who would negotiate with it and then complaining that there was no one with whom to talk. Israel does everything it can to weaken Hamas and then complains that Hamas is not strong enough to control things, etc. It is likely that Israel's strategy can be explained and justified, but it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:No, I cannot see how Hamas could be a partner for peace . Would al aqsa, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, ISIS be a partner for peace? Would the US ever negotiate with that? Why should Israel see Hamas as a peace partner?

Al-Aqsa is the armed wing of Fatah. The US most definitely believes that Fatah can be a partner in peace. The US already negotiates with the Taliban. The US is not at war with Lebanon, but Hezbollah serves in Lebanon's government, so I guess we are already at peace.

jsteele wrote:It is common for resistance groups to organize in cells so that if members of one are captured they cannot provide information about other cells. When Hamas previously agreed to a truce, Hamas itself observed the truce fairly well. There were problems with other resistance groups (there are several groups other than Hams in Gaza). Hamas willingness to reign in those other groups was inconsistent. Part of the problem was that there were frequent Israeli provocations. Of course, each side always blames the other and it is nearly impossible to sort out. But, Hamas was less willing to act against other groups when Israel was being belligerent.

The ceasefires have had fatal flaws in them in that they allow Israel to continue searching for tunnels. Israel is not supposed to expand the ground it holds, but if it sees a tunnel running beyond its current territory, will likely follow it. So, clashes are inevitable when Hamas fighters and Israeli military bump into each other. Neither side is simply going to offer the other tea.

So from the Israeli side, they don't even know who to negotiate with? How to stop this? From Hamas, it makes them look weak...

It is common for resistance groups to organize in cells so that if members of one are captured they cannot provide information about other cells. When Hamas previously agreed to a truce, Hamas itself observed the truce fairly well. There were problems with other resistance groups (there are several groups other than Hams in Gaza). Hamas willingness to reign in those other groups was inconsistent. Part of the problem was that there were frequent Israeli provocations. Of course, each side always blames the other and it is nearly impossible to sort out. But, Hamas was less willing to act against other groups when Israel was being belligerent.

The ceasefires have had fatal flaws in them in that they allow Israel to continue searching for tunnels. Israel is not supposed to expand the ground it holds, but if it sees a tunnel running beyond its current territory, will likely follow it. So, clashes are inevitable when Hamas fighters and Israeli military bump into each other. Neither side is simply going to offer the other tea.

No, I cannot see how Hamas could be a partner for peace . Would al aqsa, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, ISIS be a partner for peace? Would the US ever negotiate with that? Why should Israel see Hamas as a peace partner?

I was reading the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hamas-says-missing-israeli-soldier-in-gaza-hadar-goldin-is-likely-dead/2014/08/02/92562694-56cd-48c0-921b-b851fb2eca09_story.html?hpid=z1.

In it, they highlight how the cease fire broke down. What I find troubling is that Hamas lost communications with the cell that kidnapped the IDF soldier. And using the term Cell rather than military battalion/unit. Is it just a name? Ir does it represent the organizational structure of Hamas militants: are the cells more or less independent cells? If that is the case, how can Hamas claim to be able to negotiate, when it would take only one cell to go rogue, with minimal consequences (I assume)?

Or am I over interpreting the situation?