I found this article by George JONAS difficult to follow in light of the unilateral cease-fire put in place by Israel last week. (The typically twisted reply's from Hamas remind me of the Monty Python skit with the Black Knight who continues to challenge his opponent to battle even though he has lost his hands and legs, and then calls him a sissy.) This political calculus is complicated by the upcoming Israeli Election (Feb 10, 2009).
If I may summarize:
1) Andrew Higgins in the Jan. 24 issue of The Wall Street Journal describes Hamas as Israel’s creation and that just because they have a mission statement that calls for the eradication of Israel, it should not be taken as a political problem to peace.
2) Efraim Halevy, a former head of the Mossad, doubts that Al-Fatah the Palestinian Authority's leaders who “sat back and did nothing at all, silently applauding Israel’s campaign against their bitter Palestinian political and ideological foes" can hope to gain power in Gaza again.
3) Halevy also says “... the prospect of weaning Hamas from the hands of President Ahmadinejad is worth a try.” What else would Israel, the United States and Egypt have to lose by examining the a peace accord.
So all of these positions make a Peace Accord the most likely outcome?
I don't buy it -at least not in my lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment