Should Hamas unilaterally declare an indefinite ceasefire?

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 12:35am #1

I've been thinking about it, and thinking about it and thinking about it. And despite my support for the plight of the palestinian people, I see no other way to lasting peace or prosperity.

Call it unconditional surrender if you will. Here is my thought process.

1) Israel is too powerful with US backing and there is no sign this is ever going to change. It is impossible to defeat Israel in any form of armed conflict, not without triggering a war across the entire middle east which would probably start a world war.

2) Israel can act with impunity. The US will always veto any meaningful sanctions against Israel. Even when they kill peaceful aid workers, they manage to spin it so that their soldiers come out looking like heros to their supporters. (I watched question time tonight and this guy from the Sun parroted every single discredited cliche of the Israeli PR machine and no one really challenged him on it. I just kept screaming internally, if only I'd been on that panel, I'd have owned him so bad he wouldn't have been able to sit down for months without an arse cushion)

3) Any attacks by Hamas or any other militant group only serve to further entrench opinion in Israel and bolster support for the right wing extremists like NetinYahoo. And they should face it, their attacks are pretty pathetic and ineffectual.

4) They've tried fighting, for decades now, and all they've achieved is to lose more and more land and create more and more misery for their people.

So the solution? Stop fighting.

Hamas declares an unconditional ceasefire. No more attacks of any kind. If someone does make an attack, Hamas should search them out and hand them over to Israel.

I realise this is a painful pill to swallow and Hamas want pre-conditions for ending the violence, but it's pointless. They have nothing to offer in exchange.

I also accept that the Israelis have built settlements in the West Bank, despite the peace and the lack of Hamas there, but it's not like Hamas can really stop them.

This is the only option left. Unconditional, unilateral cessation of hostilities, and then plead their case with the world.

karma_ · 04-06-2010 12:39am

Absolutely.

If that happened, and Israel then removed all the settlers I think peace could be a realistic possibility. That would be a fantastic foundation to build from.

04-06-2010 12:40am

yeah, you could be right..but there is a possibility it could spell the end of the palestinian people..

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 12:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah, you could be right..but there is a possibility it could spell the end of the palestinian people..

They're ****ed anyway. At least this way the right wing psychos in the Israeli government won't be able to keep screaming "their trying to kill us all" every two minutes.

glaston · 04-06-2010 12:55am

Memnoch wrote: »

They're ****ed anyway. At least this way the right wing psychos in the Israeli government won't be able to keep screaming "their trying to kill us all" every two minutes.

About 5000 Hamas rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel from 2006-2008.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 12:59am

glaston wrote: »

About 5000 Hamas rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel from 2006-2008.

Yes I know. But Israel still managed to kill more civilians and soldiers than Hamas.

Anyway the point of this thread isn't about who's right or wrong. But whether this is the best way forward.

glaston · 04-06-2010 1:31am

Memnoch wrote: »

They're ****ed anyway. At least this way the right wing psychos in the Israeli government won't be able to keep screaming "their trying to kill us all" every two minutes.

But they are trying to kill them, the covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) states:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,
just as it obliterated others before it.

It goes on to say:

Peace initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and
international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of
the Islamic Resistance Movement. Those conferences are no more than
a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of
Islam. There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a
waste of time, an exercise in futility.

I dont think they are too interested in peace.

Even if they were to create peace with Israel they would probably continue to murder members of Fatah and restrict freedom of speech among their own people.

wes · 04-06-2010 1:40am

Yeah, its worth a try, but looking at Israel actions in the West Bank, where they continue there own theft of land, murder, and mistreatment of Palestinian, I see little hope of Israel changing its attitude, but maybe, just maybe the International community, will finally come down on Israel.

sceptre · 04-06-2010 1:46am

It would be a good step. And a PR win if they played it right. They're not going to do it though, they view the PLO/Fatah as sellouts. And the 2006 manifesto they were elected on explicitly pledged them to continuing the armed struggle thing.

wes · 04-06-2010 2:06am

glaston wrote: »

But they are trying to kill them, the covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) states:

Just to mention the Hamas election manifesto from 2006 (sceptre's post above jogged my memory about this):
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto

So, I think Hamas are capable of change, and even making peace.

PeterIanStaker · 04-06-2010 2:44am

What if both sides declared a ceasefire, and drew up a demilitarised zone?

Nodin · 04-06-2010 6:41am

It's been offered before, on at least 3 occassions....

DAMASCUS, Syria - The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665

Ehud Olmert rejects Hamas' offer of cease-fire in Gaza Strip

Barak: Hamas wants truce because IDF action is effective; two Qassam rockets strike western Negev.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ehud-olmert-rejects-hamas-offer-of-cease-fire-in-gaza-strip-1.235737

WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/israel-rejected-hamas-cea_n_156639.html

Etc, etc.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 7:28am

Yeah the problem is that the offer of a conditional truce is not going to work. Because the Israeli government have no need for a truce.

It's filled with extremist right wing hawks who are very happy to keep the conflict going and get the populace to vote them in under the guise of protecting them from the evil palestinians.

Hamas have to take the first step. There's no other realistic option available to them. Of course the Israeli government will continue to act like dick heads but it will be much harder for them to maintain the rhethoric.

I mean last year alone 27 people died in Gaza because the Israelis took too long to allow them to get to a hospital.

Yet all you hear about is the "3000 rocket attacks." that killed 5 people. I guess as long as you starve people to death or let them die from a lack of clean water or medical aid, it's not exciting enough to be used as a tag line in the news.

I mean, Hamas are terrible, the absolutely are. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But the supporters of israel act like they are somehow better.

syklops · 04-06-2010 7:35am

Israel is too powerful with US backing and there is no sign this is ever going to change. It is impossible to defeat Israel in any form of armed conflict, not without triggering a war across the entire middle east which would probably start a world war.

Surely the same could have been said about Britain at the start of the 20th Century. We were a small Island, Britain commanded a global Empire. They had artillery, crack commando units, Navy, Air support. How could a small group of irish Bandits ever make a dent to the British? Well they did. It took a long time, and a lot of lives were lost, but in the end the British gave up and we sign a Treaty.

Just like in those days, large scale engagements between Hamas and Israel are pretty much out of the question, but guerrilla warfare coupled with rocket and mortar attacks suit Hamas down to the ground. Their thinking, if we keep chipping away at this boulder it might turn into rocks.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 7:53am

syklops wrote: »

Surely the same could have been said about Britain at the start of the 20th Century. We were a small Island, Britain commanded a global Empire. They had artillery, crack commando units, Navy, Air support. How could a small group of irish Bandits ever make a dent to the British? Well they did. It took a long time, and a lot of lives were lost, but in the end the British gave up and we sign a Treaty.

Just like in those days, large scale engagements between Hamas and Israel are pretty much out of the question, but guerrilla warfare coupled with rocket and mortar attacks suit Hamas down to the ground. Their thinking, if we keep chipping away at this boulder it might turn into rocks.

But it won't. It's been over 50 years. Ireland was an entire occupied Island with a majority population that wanted the Brits out.

Compare the size of Ireland to the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The palestinians just cannot maintain an effective armed struggle. It's not logistically possible. Also PR has changed a lot since then.

Also the Brits had enough land of their own, they didn't need Ireland that much. The Israelis don't have that much land, and they'll take all they can get.

The Saint · 04-06-2010 8:56am

I agree that Hamas should declare an indefinite unilateral ceasefire. I also think it would be a good move if they stated that they would recognise Israel on the pre-June 67 borders in turn Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state based on the same borders.

conorhal · 04-06-2010 9:09am

It would be great.

Sadly, it would never work. Hamas would splinter like the IRA into a multitude of factions, and Hamas are hardly the only paramilitary organization in Palestine. As soon as ceasefires are declared (and several have been under Fatah rule) some or other organization, factions that are usually in competition with each other will break it, making any ceasefire meaningless.

It might work if the ceasefire was accompanied with an external UN policing mission, but given how little faith I have in the abilities of the UN, that would probably be doomed to failure after a very short while.

marius · 04-06-2010 9:21am

The sad reality is that Israel is not interested in Peace. They want the land, it really is that simple. They have managed to created settlements for 200,000 people while in an armed conflict...what do you think would happen if the conflict stopped? Why do you think Israel would suddenly stop the settlements?

Laminations · 04-06-2010 10:28am

A unilateral unconditional cease fire is an excellent idea. It would show that the Palestinians valued peace more than retribution and retaliation and put amazing pressure on Israel. The only weakness in the plan is faith, putting faith in Israel not to take advantage and putting faith in the international community to respond sternly if Israel did. So mediation peace talks would be needed. However it'd make it easier to be pro Palestinian if they placed peace as the number one objective, Israel wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The blockade would have no reason to exist and it would open talks on the return of the occupied lands. Actually a second weakness would be the people who don't want a two state solution and don't think Israel has a right to exist, some of whom I've encountered here

Fuhrer · 04-06-2010 12:04pm

Even if Hamas disbanded overnight, individuals would probably still keep firing homemade rockets.

Without any Standing Army or proper Police force, Gaza cannot be run properly.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 12:07pm

Fuhrer wrote: »

Even if Hamas disbanded overnight, individuals would probably still keep firing homemade rockets.

Without any Standing Army or proper Police force, Gaza cannot be run properly.

That's why Hamas should stay in power and enforce the ceasefire on their side by capturing and punishing severely anyone trying to break it.

prinz · 04-06-2010 12:15pm

karma_ wrote: »

Absolutely.
If that happened, and Israel then removed all the settlers I think peace could be a realistic possibility. That would be a fantastic foundation to build from.

+1. It would represent a massive PR coup for Hamas, not to mention huge international support IMO. Somebody has to take the first step and whoever does will win international backing and admiration for the courage needed to do it. That's the kind of support Israel feels it doesn't need and Hamas undermine. The high moral ground is up for grabs, IMO Hamas need to take it ASAP. It is of more use to them.

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah, you could be right..but there is a possibility it could spell the end of the palestinian people..

The very reasoning that keeps the Israeli war machine fueled. :rolleyes:

BluePlanet · 04-06-2010 12:19pm

TBH i think it's highly optimistic.

It was difficult for the IRA to keep their members onboard all the time and there were still acts that the Unionists would throw hissy fits about.

I just can't imagine Hamas being similarly disiplined and Israel would find ways to provoke - like the unruly settlers.

gandalf · 04-06-2010 12:26pm

Of course Hamas should declare a ceasefire. No people should be terrorised like the Israelis have been on the borders with Gaza due to rocket fire.

prinz wrote: »

+1. It would represent a massive PR coup for Hamas, not to mention huge international support IMO. Somebody has to take the first step and whoever does will win international backing and admiration for the courage needed to do it. That's the kind of support Israel feels it doesn't need and Hamas undermine. The high moral ground is up for grabs, IMO Hamas need to take it ASAP. It is of more use to them.

+1 on that opinion as well.

Israel should of course then halt all illegal settlement and in some cases reverse it.

We know from our experience in Northern Ireland that both sides to the conflict are going to have to swallow some bitter pills and make sacrifices. It certainly doesn't sit well with me that men who blew up others or shot people down in cold blood got released from prison early as part of the Good Friday agreement but I did see the reasoning behind it.

glaston · 04-06-2010 12:27pm

That's why Hamas should stay in power and enforce the ceasefire on their side by capturing and punishing severely anyone trying to break it.

You really think Hamas should be responsible for law, order and justice in Gaza?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1127653652241016730#docid=-6041204945834291260

conorhal · 04-06-2010 12:54pm

gandalf wrote: »

Of course Hamas should declare a ceasefire. No people should be terrorised like the Israelis have been on the borders with Gaza due to rocket fire.

+1 on that opinion as well.

Israel should of course then halt all illegal settlement and in some cases reverse it.

We know from our experience in Northern Ireland that both sides to the conflict are going to have to swallow some bitter pills and make sacrifices. It certainly doesn't sit well with me that men who blew up others or shot people down in cold blood got released from prison early as part of the Good Friday agreement but I did see the reasoning behind it.

A requirement to make those sacrifices is a leader willing to sell them to their people. It would require an 'Israeli Barak Obama' and a 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela' to achieve high office, and I really don't think either likelihood is going to happen any time soon.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 1:01pm

glaston wrote: »

You really think Hamas should be responsible for law, order and justice in Gaza?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1127653652241016730#docid=-6041204945834291260

Until there can be peace and stability and a newly elected government can be put in place and a proper police force created, as much as I despise them, they are the only ones in the area with the kind of power and influence to enforce the kind of ceasefire that will be needed if there is to be any legitimate progress towards peace.

Memnoch · 04-06-2010 1:05pm

conorhal wrote: »

A requirement to make those sacrifices is a leader willing to sell them to their people. It would require an 'Israeli Barak Obama' and a 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela' to achieve high office, and I really don't think either likelihood is going to happen any time soon.

Bah, put me in charge. I'll do it

fontanalis · 04-06-2010 2:19pm

That's too sensible. Palestinian civilians are only pawns for these psychos.

fontanalis · 04-06-2010 2:19pm

conorhal wrote: »

A requirement to make those sacrifices is a leader willing to sell them to their people. It would require an 'Israeli Barak Obama' and a 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela' to achieve high office, and I really don't think either likelihood is going to happen any time soon.

You want an underwhelming leader to sort it out?

irishh_bob · 04-06-2010 3:04pm

Memnoch wrote: »

I've been thinking about it, and thinking about it and thinking about it. And despite my support for the plight of the palestinian people, I see no other way to lasting peace or prosperity.

Call it unconditional surrender if you will. Here is my thought process.

1) Israel is too powerful with US backing and there is no sign this is ever going to change. It is impossible to defeat Israel in any form of armed conflict, not without triggering a war across the entire middle east which would probably start a world war.

2) Israel can act with impunity. The US will always veto any meaningful sanctions against Israel. Even when they kill peaceful aid workers, they manage to spin it so that their soldiers come out looking like heros to their supporters. (I watched question time tonight and this guy from the Sun parroted every single discredited cliche of the Israeli PR machine and no one really challenged him on it. I just kept screaming internally, if only I'd been on that panel, I'd have owned him so bad he wouldn't have been able to sit down for months without an arse cushion)

3) Any attacks by Hamas or any other militant group only serve to further entrench opinion in Israel and bolster support for the right wing extremists like NetinYahoo. And they should face it, their attacks are pretty pathetic and ineffectual.

4) They've tried fighting, for decades now, and all they've achieved is to lose more and more land and create more and more misery for their people.

So the solution? Stop fighting.

Hamas declares an unconditional ceasefire. No more attacks of any kind. If someone does make an attack, Hamas should search them out and hand them over to Israel.

I realise this is a painful pill to swallow and Hamas want pre-conditions for ending the violence, but it's pointless. They have nothing to offer in exchange.

I also accept that the Israelis have built settlements in the West Bank, despite the peace and the lack of Hamas there, but it's not like Hamas can really stop them.

This is the only option left. Unconditional, unilateral cessation of hostilities, and then plead their case with the world.

what would be in it for them , israel ( under netenyahou ) believe in a greater israel , this means removing the pallestinians off thier land , the pallestinians ( each and everyone of them ) might aswell blow their own brains out as stop fighting and while attacking israel with suicide bombers is grotesque , when you are facing an enemy which has the support of the strongest nation on earth , you left with few options

conorhal · 04-06-2010 3:15pm

fontanalis wrote: »

You want an underwhelming leader to sort it out?

I think well intentioned would be enough on the Israeli side. An 'Israeli Gandhi' then? But even that poor fecker couldn't stop a civil war and partition, and then got shot for his troubles. Like I said, given that you have two sides, both with an Old Testament mindset, I wouldn't hold out much hope.

fontanalis · 04-06-2010 3:20pm

conorhal wrote: »

I think well intentioned would be enough on the Israeli side. An 'Israeli Gandhi' then? But even that poor fecker couldn't stop a civil war and partition, and then got shot for his troubles. Like I said, given that you have two sides, both with an Old Testament mindset, I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Unfortunately I agree with your last sentence.

gandalf · 04-06-2010 3:39pm

conorhal wrote: »

A requirement to make those sacrifices is a leader willing to sell them to their people. It would require an 'Israeli Barak Obama' and a 'Palestinian Nelson Mandela' to achieve high office, and I really don't think either likelihood is going to happen any time soon.

Unfortunately I agree with you on this as well.

The only hope is the US and International Community work together and start to seriously smack some heads together from both sides but given the strength of the Zionist lobby in Washington I cannot see that happening either.

conorhal · 04-06-2010 3:53pm

gandalf wrote: »

Unfortunately I agree with you on this as well.

The only hope is the US and International Community work together and start to seriously smack some heads together from both sides but given the strength of the Zionist lobby in Washington I cannot see that happening either.

It's more complex than that. Anybody can see that base interventionism never works, you'll never impose democracy in Iraq, or eh... a civil society on Somalia.
Sanctions only work as a means of containment but they never effect change and you can't just impose political leadership on a people. Regime change rarely ever works, just look at the former USSR or any American military intervention of the pst 50 years (It can work for a while if you are brutal enough, like the Russians were, but as soon as you remove the boot it will quickly revert).
You can't create an Israeli Obama or a Palestinian Mandela either, that is the fallacy of western political thought, that with enough aid, intervention, chiding and preaching we can sort out the worlds problems, often we just make them more drawn out and intractable. You will either see such figures organically evolve out of a conflict or you won’t. But anybody that believes that the West can manufacture a solution, the way the manufactured a state, be it Israel or Northern Ireland is a fool. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. There has to be willing participants prepared to take up the cup, able to lead and posessed of the courage and charisma to sell the deal. My gut feeling is that we'll be waiting a long time before we see them.

BlaasForRafa · 04-06-2010 3:58pm

marius wrote: »

The sad reality is that Israel is not interested in Peace. They want the land, it really is that simple. They have managed to created settlements for 200,000 people while in an armed conflict...what do you think would happen if the conflict stopped? Why do you think Israel would suddenly stop the settlements?

It really ISN'T that simple.

You presuppose that all Israeli people support the current administration, that isn't the case. That also presupposes that all Israelis support the settlements in the West Bank and that most definitely is NOT the case.

An unconditional ceasefire by Hamas would put severe pressure on the Israeli government to pull back from its current hardline stance. Releasing Gilad Shalit would also remove another stumbling block to the governments attitude towards Hamas.

It needs for someone to make a radical move as currently the Israelis deeply distrust the palestinians and the palestinians deeply distrust the Israels, both probably with good cause. Hamas pulling that type of move (if it was sincere) would really put the microscope on Netanyahu and deeply disrupt him.

Should Hamas unilaterally declare an indefinite ceasefire?

Comments