while it lasts, the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas creates further incentives to negotiate, said Britain’s Guardian in an editorial yesterday. Excerpts:
The cease-fire between Israel and Hamas also demonstrates the ability of two sides dedicated to each other’s destruction to compromise. Hamas backed off its initial demand that a cease-fire should include the West Bank. It also appears to have got other militant groups in Gaza to agree to stop firing rockets at southern Israel. Israel too has made concessions. It has dropped its demand that a deal be tied to the release of the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and it will rely on Egypt to monitor the Rafah crossing, once it reopens, and to stop arms smuggling through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egyptian border.
With domestic pressure mounting over the shower of rockets falling on Sderot and Ashkelon, Israel had two options: Invasion or cease-fire. Invasion would be bloody, involve long-term reoccupation, and the exit strategy would be unclear. A cease-fire, on the other hand, could allow Hamas to rearm. If it fails, Israel calculates that the military option is still on the table.
There are, however, incentives for Hamas to stop firing rockets over the border. The opening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt, and the graduated lifting of the siege of basic supplies through Israel, are just two of them. Politically, it puts Hamas in a stronger position in its talks with the Palestinian Authority, particularly if Hamas uses the truce to create an internal political front with other militant groups. But there is still a long way to go before the Palestinian schism, which began a year ago, can be healed in a national unity government.
It would be premature to think that a general peace offensive is under way, as Israel conducts indirect talks with Syria and offers talks with Lebanon. Both Israel and Hamas are performing delicate balancing acts, and can easily be toppled from their current course.
