2) "The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry," A8 (World Briefing), by Marlise Simons
3) "Clinton Seeks a Shift on China," A11, by Mark Landler
*****
1) Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs
Bronner's phrasing in the article and title make it appear that Hamas is abundantly forthcoming when it comes to achieving an equitable ceasefire, while Israel remains intransigent.
It appears that Hamas is only forthcoming for a ceasefire on its own terms:
Hamas officials said Friday that an announcement of an 18-month cease-fire with Israel was days away and would include a substantial opening of Gaza’s borders with Israel in exchange for an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli southern communities.This is not in Israel's interest and no Israeli official is quoted in the article of supporting such a formulation. The Times notes that Israel wants "the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, seized and held by Hamas since the summer of 2006, but Hamas said that would happen only in a separate, if linked, deal that frees hundreds of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons." In this light, it doesn't appear that Hamas is forthcoming.
Additionally, Israel is looking for "guarantees that Hamas is not rearming through smuggling tunnels from Egypt or on the international arms market." It is unclear whether Egypt or Hamas will cooperate on this issue.
In the end, it seems that a ceasefire is not as readily achievable as the article indicates. Yes, Hamas is prepared for a ceasefire - but one that satisfies its wholly satisfies its own objectives. Where's the compromise?
2) The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry
This minuscule briefing informs the reader of continued (Fatah-led) Palestinian efforts to push for a Gaza inquiry on Israeli "war crimes" on Gaza. The article is devoid of content, making the article basically meaningless.
Interesting question: If Fatah is Israel's "peace partner," why is it pushing for a war crimes inquiry that would serve to delegitimize Israel? (Made all the more absurd given Hamas' execution of Fatah "collaborators" during Israel's military operations in Gaza)
3) Clinton Seeks a Shift on China
In an article that deals primarily with Clinton's approach to East Asia, the reporter manages to sneak in some of her upcoming challenges in the Arab-Israeli realm.
The reporter writes that a potential Likud-led coalition "worries some in Washington," but does not provide any quotes to support this assertion.
Even more problematic, the piece includes the views of Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who believes that "the Obama administration should use this transitional period to begin a dialogue with Syria, which has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States and which is viewed as a central player in the effort to broker a peace agreement."
It is far from conclusive that Syria "has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States," particularly given its support of insurgents in Iraq and manipulative hand in Lebanon. The Times also regularly fails to explain why Syria would want peace.
Here are three main reasons why Syria does not want peace:
- Peace with Israel would not allow Syria to continue scapegoating Israel as a means to distract its population from the woes within their country
- Peace would most likely include an opening up to the West, which would threaten the iron-hand of the government. The Syrian government wants peace with the West but does not open itself to outside influence. The primary goal of President Assad is regime survival. Openness would endanger his minority government in which the Alawites (10% of the population) rule over the majority Sunni population (80%).
- Syria has indicated no willingness to distance its relationship from its patron Iran, or its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. A peace agreement would require such a shift, but Syria is still dedicated to manipulating Lebanese politics through its ally Hezbollah.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment