I was kind of put off by this headline in the NYT: Rocket endangers Palestinian-Israeli respite.
The rocket doesn’t endanger the respite. It ends the respite. And it’s not the rocket, it’s the people who fired the rocket. Of course if Israel agreed to a “lull,” I suppose that the headline isn’t nearly as bad. Still, if the firing of the rocket on Israeli civilians didn’t end the respite what would? An Israeli response to stop the rocket attacks? The Times reports:
Gazan militants fired a rocket at the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon on Tuesday, fracturing a tenuous lull in fighting between Israelis and Palestinians, which escalated sharply in late February and early this month. The rocket landed in an open area south of the city and caused no casualties, an Israeli police spokesman said. It was the first fired at Ashkelon in a week. Hours earlier, the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, visited the city, telling residents there that the previous rocket assaults were not “a one-time experience†and that there was no way to prevent a recurrence.
So even though later in the article it reports that Olmert denied coming to any agreement with Hamas, apparently he did. (via memeorandum)
In a conversation with French news agency AFP, the security official said that an agreement that would see an end to Israeli military operations in the Strip in exchange for an end to rocket attacks on Israel has been finalized via Egyptian mediation efforts.
(According to this, the ceasefire or “lull” was agreed to over the weekend, so the rocket fired into Ashkelon did indeed end the “respite.” I guess now a new “respite” begins.)
Pardon my French but WTF is a “lull?” If Israel’s agreeing not to target Haniyeh and friends hiding in their rabbit holes, at least demand to a full fledged ceasefire in return! Why just a “lull?” Could this be the explanation?
Now I know why it’s called a lull agreement – we lull Hamas into a false sense of security by making them think we are morons. By the way, the Israeli government know Hamas will be rearming. Yesterday (while Olmert was still denying a ceasefire agreement), I heard Israeli Government spokesperson Mark Regev say that there was relative calm not because of such an agreement but because Hamas wants a timeout to rearm. In other words, even though Israel know Hamas will be rearming and then attacking us ferociously again, we will allow them to do it.
Or put another way:
So effectively, Hamas has shown that they can send rockets all the way into Ashkelon, murder Israeli soldiers and civilians at will, supply other terrorist groups with rockets, commit suicide bomb attacks on Israel, sponsor terrorist shootings, stabbings, stonings, and what-have-you, and Israel will—beg them to stop.
Aside from the silliness of allowing Hamas to re-arm unmolested, Israel is setting itself up for a PR hit. The first time an Israeli soldier fires on a terrorist approaching the border, Israel will be the party that violated the lull ceasefire. (When Israel is blamed, it will take on the more serious term “ceasefire.”)
Finally, I’d just like to get back to the NYT article for a moment. I read the following paragraph in disbelief.
In a meeting with Jordanian newspaper editors, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, criticized the use of rockets by Hamas, a rival, contending that they caused more harm to the Palestinians than to the Israelis. In remarks published in the Jordanian papers on Tuesday, Mr. Abbas said: “What resistance are we talking about? Are rockets and suicide attacks considered as resistance?â€
I was thinking WTF? (Yes, I’ve been thinking that a lot these days.) Doesn’t she realize that Abbas just gave interview in Jordan saying that he supported “armed struggle?” And then I read on.
In late February, Mr. Abbas recalled his own role in the early Palestinian resistance and raised questions about his future commitment to peaceful negotiations. “At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages, things may change,†he was quoted as saying in Al Dustour, a Jordanian daily newspaper, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, a nonprofit organization.
I wouldn’t say that it “raised questions,” as much as it “confirmed doubts” that he was interested in peace. But I’m not looking for miracles from the NY Times. This was more than I expected. A bit late, but better than usual.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
