On the other hand, Olmert personally has a lot to lose if this all goes wrong. He has already been attacked by right-wing MKs who argue that all the ceasefire will do is give the Palestinians time to rearm. Sections of the military agree. If the ceasefire fails to stop the Qassams, it is likely to be the final nail in the Olmert coffin and would probably signal a Likud victory in the next elections. Olmert, as the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman illustrated, is absolutely desperate to hold on to power. It therefore makes no sense for him to deliberately torpedo the ceasefire and with it his political career.
I don’t know whether Olmert is being sincere or not. If he isn’t, the truce may well end up damaging the Palestinian cause severely. If he is, there is great potential to move forward to serious peace negotiations, but he must first extend the ceasefire to the West Bank and agree to talk with Hamas, before the momentum is lost. Either way, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades must stop firing rockets into Israel. The biggest victims of the Qassam rockets are the Palestinian people.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
There is no ceasefire. There was one - for all of 57 minutes on Sunday. Then it ended. This morning, I asked my neighbor for news of the cease fire, called "hafsakát esh" in Hebrew. He chuckled and answered me this way. "Yesh hafsaká b'hafsakát esh." (there is a ceasing of the cease fire).
This is all a media stunt to get Olmert out of doing what a leader of a Jewish state needs to do - exterminate the terrorist leadership that has vowed to destroy Israel, and ensure the security of the country he allegedly leads.
The concept here is simple. If you have a scandal that can brew and you do not want it on page one, change the topic. This is a tried and true strategy used here that, if you weren't so busy powdering the pig's noses of murdering terrorists from the pancake make-up of the Arab agit-prop machine, you'd notice its consistent use here.
There are a whole pack of scandals that this government wishes to hide by changing the topic.
If you change the topic from "when are the soldiers going to kill those who launch the Qassams and execute those who plan the launchings (like the putz Mashal who hides in Syria)?" to "who broke the ceasefire first and why?" and "is the current ceasefire going to hold?" you keep the discussion away from the more important topics of, "why hasn't Ehud Olmert been indicted for a host of crimes that he should be tried for?", "why haven't Dan Halutz, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni been forced to step down for incompetence?", why isn't Israel pre-emptively attacking the most dangerous OPEN threat it faces, the missile bases in Iran, Syria and Lebanon?", and the most interesting question of all, forgotten by all except those who have studied law (like me), "why, when Sharon was felled by a stroke, did not the leader of the political party that Sharon headed when he became prime minister, the Likud, Benyamin Netanyahu, become prime minister, as is provided by the basic law governing the succession to the prime minister's post?", and the more interesting questions under that. "Why didn't Netanyahu, who was cheated out of the top spot of the Zionist state, raise a stink?", and "why did Menny Mazuz get away with breaking the basic law he is sworn to uphold as attorney general?"
The pattern of the "news" emanating out of the sewer known as the government in Jerusalem has been a whole series of attempts to change the topic away from its failures in Lebanon and its treasonous behavior before and since.
2 - STM
Just about every time there's a "ceasefire" agreed to by radical elements on the Palestinian side, someone gets a bright idea and walks on a bus or a into a cafe in Israel and sets off a suicide bomb. How long will this one last Jamie?
My tip is: it won't, period.
Here's the truth: no one's going to find a pot of gold at the end of the pile of poop.
That might also apply to some views expressed on this site.
3 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Ruvy: "There is no ceasefire. There was one - for all of 57 minutes on Sunday. Then it ended."
No; it was violated, but it was not ended (thankfully). Today there have been no Israeli strikes and no Qassams launched.
"This is all a media stunt to get Olmert out of doing what a leader of a Jewish state needs to do - exterminate the terrorist leadership that has vowed to destroy Israel, and ensure the security of the country he allegedly leads."
I did raise the possibility that it was a media stunt, albeit for different reasons. The one thing that makes me think otherwise is that if Olmert's acceptance of the ceasefire was not sincere and Israel's refusal to extend in to the West Bank does lead to its failure, it could well be the final nail in his political coffin. But I cannot believe that Olmert, who just a few days ago was ordering expanded offensives and has been blocking peace ever since he got into office, has suddenly had a revelation. It doesn't make sense.
"The concept here is simple. If you have a scandal that can brew and you do not want it on page one, change the topic. This is a tried and true strategy used here that, if you weren't so busy powdering the pig's noses of murdering terrorists from the pancake make-up of the Arab agit-prop machine, you'd notice its consistent use here."
Nice imagery there :)
Perhaps it is Olmert's attempt to bury scandals, although if it is I very much doubt it will work. But even if that is the reason for the ceasefire, it is less important than this question: is Olmert's acceptance of the ceasefire sincere - ie. does he truly want to make it work and then take it forward to a political settlement - or is i a media stunt designed to renew the old myth about a lack of a 'partner for peace'. If he is being sincere, then I couldn't care less about his motives for being so.
"Just about every time there's a "ceasefire" agreed to by radical elements on the Palestinian side, someone gets a bright idea and walks on a bus or a into a cafe in Israel and sets off a suicide bomb. How long will this one last Jamie?"
A couple of Palestinian violations means nothing. Of course it will happen; there are some real fanatics in the Gaza Strip and, unlike in Israel, they are to a certain extent beyond government control. But the point is that if the ceasefire holds and if political progress is made in parallel they will diminish and eventually disappear.
Incidentally, what ceasefires are you referring to? The only long-term ceasefire I can think of in recent years was the one self-imposed by Hamas. That was unilateral.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It's nice that the cease fire is "holding."
As I said, this is just another media stunt to change the subject from all the questions that I raised and which you ignored.
The key point that you are missing is that Olmert is not legitimately sitting in his chair. His actions have been violative of Israeli law. For someone so insistent on abiding to law, this seems to mean little to you.
But the media stunt is designed to bring back to the table the subject that the Lebanon War took off - the razing of the towns and villages that we Jews have established in our land. Thus, by creating the threat of making thousands of residents of Judea and Samaria homeless, he hopes can effectively bury his own law breaking and get temporary protection from the attorney general and the press. He is driving the country towards a civil war just when it needs to prepare for an attack from the north, the east and the south.
I realize this means little to you.
But as I have pointed out numerous times to you, the solution that you are willing to shove down OUR throats from the relative safety of England only creates one more Arab dictatorship in a region chock-a-block with Arab dictatorships, and provides no option of improvement for the Arabs who will have to suffer under a kleptocracy.
Your Chomskyesque solutions would result in a situation for the Arabs resembling that of the African residents of the former Rhodesian state that became Zimbabwe under the dictator, Robert Mugabe. All that would result is that the standard of living would fall, the country's productivity would fall, and the possibility of anything resembling a democracy will vanish.
It would be all legal and according to your beloved Geneva Convention, but millions of lives would be ruined in the process. In your version of "Palestine" the chief export would be Palestinians.
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Posted at 18:48
‘Color Red’ Kassam Rocket Alert Sounds in Sderot
18:10 Nov 28, '06 / 7 Kislev 5767
(IsraelNN.com) The “Color Red” rocket attack alert system sounded in the western Negev city of Sderot a short time ago.
Security forces are searching the area.
So much for the ceasefire holding...
6 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Ruvy: "As I said, this is just another media stunt to change the subject from all the questions that I raised and which you ignored."
I didn't ignore them. I said that while it is possible that all this is an attempt by Olmert at a smokescreen, I didn't think it was likely and that anyway, all that matters to me for now is his sincerity (or lack of it) regarding the ceasefire (as opposed to the reason for his sincerity).
"The key point that you are missing is that Olmert is not legitimately sitting in his chair. His actions have been violative of Israeli law. For someone so insistent on abiding to law, this seems to mean little to you."
That might be a key point for you. In fact, if true, of course it is. For me, finding an end to the conflict is more important. Obviously I don't want Olmert to be in power - I think he should be tried for war crimes. Having Netanyahu in power would make little difference, except that Israel's policies would become less concealed in rhetoric.
"the razing of the towns and villages that we Jews have established in our land. Thus, by creating the threat of making thousands of residents of Judea and Samaria homeless, he hopes can effectively bury his own law breaking and get temporary protection from the attorney general and the press."
Surely you are joking? Under Olmert's government expansion in the West Bank has continued, as it has done under every government since Oslo. His government has issued nearly a thousand tenders for new homes to be built in the West Bank this year alone. Meanwhile, a few small outposts have been dismantled as a gesture, but even that has stopped since Lieberman was given a job. Meanwhile, the "de-Palestinization" of E. Jerusalem has continued as has the construction of the annexation wall.
Even if we pretend that Olmert is making Jews in the West Bank homeless - that is a good thing! He should be praised for it (if it were really happening). All the settlements, every single last one, are illegal and must be dismantled. They are built on stolen land. The settlers are thieves and the stolen property must be returned.
"But as I have pointed out numerous times to you, the solution that you are willing to shove down OUR throats from the relative safety of England only creates one more Arab dictatorship in a region chock-a-block with Arab dictatorships, and provides no option of improvement for the Arabs who will have to suffer under a kleptocracy."
The PA is a democracy. Along with Lebanon and Israel, it is one of the only three democracies in the region. Like Lebanon, it has been the subject of Israeli and U.S. aggression.
It is not up to Israel or the U.S. or Saudi Arabia or anyone apart from the Palestinians themselves to decide whether or not to respect their legal rights. The Palestinians have made it clear they want an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. If that is what they want, it is not anyone's right to tell them that they can't have it because it would not be good for them (a nonsense idea anyway - the situation in the Palestinian Territories could hardly get any worse than it is now).
"All that would result is that the standard of living would fall, the country's productivity would fall, and the possibility of anything resembling a democracy will vanish."
That's pure speculation (or wishful thinking, more likely) but in any event - the decision is one for the Palestinian people and them alone. They have chosen and so their legal rights must be respected.
7 - STM
Ruvy is right, Jamie. He lives there for God's sake. I'm sure he knows better than the rest of us pontificating from outside the region about what really goes on. It might even be less coloured by politics than ours.
His is coloured by the need for survival. Palestinian ceasefires ... an oxymoron.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Even if we pretend that Olmert is making Jews in the West Bank homeless - that is a good thing! He should be praised for it (if it were really happening). All the settlements, every single last one, are illegal and must be dismantled. They are built on stolen land. The settlers are thieves and the stolen property must be returned.
Two words for you, Jamie. Shaikh Munis: the stolen Arab land upon which North Tel Aviv is built. North Tel Aviv, the home of the self-hating secularists who ruin this country is built on stolen land. By contrast, Ma'aleh Levona, here in the mountains of Samaria, is not. The hilltop was empty with no occupants and no claimants.
You do not know the difference between theft and robbery, occupation due to victory at war and illegal occupation, or any other of the high flown principles you wave about in the air like a crazed bill collector.
By your breezy misdefinitions, all of this country is stolen land, and thieves deserve to be kicked out of what they have stolen. I hope you have room in the house to put up the Jewish refugees who will come knocking at your door if you get what you seek.
They, like the Arabs robbed by the PA, will not be able to eat the Geneva Convention or sleep on the UN Charter.
If you get what you seem to pray for in your screeds, you will one day rue the day you wrote them. You are just enough of a Jew to be hated by non-Jews, and not enough of one to understand your own heritage. So if, G-d forbid, you get what you seek for the Arabs here, you will discover the sharp whip of Jew-hatred in your own country of residence, and wonder, as did so many in Germany and Poland 65 years ago, "why me?"
Then it will be too late for you.
9 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Two words for you, Jamie. Shaikh Munis: the stolen Arab land upon which North Tel Aviv is built. North Tel Aviv, the home of the self-hating secularists who ruin this country is built on stolen land."
Perhaps. A serious argument can indeed be made that all of Israel is built on stolen land. However, we want to be practical. Our goal should not be to make one people suffer, but to give both peoples an independent state and then move on.
International law has it that the Palestinian state is the West Bank and Gaza (or will be). All the settlements are illegal. Tel Aviv, by contrast, is not.
So, except for "mutual" and "minor" alterationsas allowed for through negotiations, all the Israeli settlements must be dismantled. It's no good complaining that the settlers have lost their homes. Right now, because of them, the Palestinians have had their land cut-up into hundreds of pieces and their property stolen from them. It is against the law for an occupying country to transfer parts of its population into the occupied territories. Israel knew that when it built the settlements and the settlers knew that when they chose to live there. They can have no complaints.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
You know, Jamie, you and I have been going over the same ground on this for several articles already. Neither you nor I have a fresh word to say on the subject. I'm waiting to see if my warnings of imminent war come true and I'm still pursuing my own vision of peace here (the reason I've been so quiet with articles), and you keep trying to castrate us here with the Geneva Convention as you follow the bouncing ball of the headlines. The two of us are sparring here like an unhappy husband and wife screaming across the kitchen...
I have a thought for you.
Why don't you apply the Geneva Convention to Iraq and see what you come up with? Americans don't seem to like to talk about Israel unless some Israeli tells them how they are not really wanted here. Then they get all huffy and puffy and self-righteous. But Iraq really gets them going.
If you apply the Geneva Convention to Iraq, you'll have a fresh corpus (or corpse) of data to feast on and a guaranteed pack of comments from the States. It might make very interesting reading...
Besides, I don't much care about Iraq, so long as all those Americans don't come here. So I can watch the action.
11 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
The American-led invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression, the "supreme international crime". Since the invasion, the U.S. has committed many further war crimes. For example, its 'shock and awe' assault on Fallujah was unquestionably illegal.
That doesn't change naything regarding Israel. You're right that we've been going over similar argument for a while now - one either has to accept the rule of law or not. But I think the argument that international law is irrelevent should be taken as seriously as the argument that domestic law is irrelevent. There really is no difference.