Featured this week

Brandeis

Colorado State

Duke

George Washington

Harvard

Rutgers

Texas

Point-Counterpoint - Should Israel Negotiate with Hamas or Attempt to Destroy It?

With Abu Ala, Abu Mazen and the legitimate government, I'm willing to continue the negotiations simultaneously. You also need to understand that the moment I enter the room with Hamas members to negotiate any kind of treaty, it means killing the other channel. And in the Palestinian streets, maybe this also means really killing somebody there.
But the idea is that terror cannot bring political gains, and it is the others who can bring the Palestinians political gains.
We live in a world in which images and perceptions mean something, and if they sense anything they perceive as weakness, even though Israel is not weak, it will be used.
Hamas doesn't represent the national aspirations of the Palestinians. According to their own ideology, I don't have the right to live as a human being. Israel doesn't have the right to exist. So, when talking about these kinds of negotiations, this ideology is not an option. (Israel Foreign Ministry)

Arab governments and a growing number of Israelis argue that a truce with Hamas is the only way forward. Hamas has repeatedly hinted that it is open to one; Egypt has been trying to play broker, and Mr. Abbas suggested yesterday that he might be willing to serve as an intermediary between Hamas and Israel.
Predictably, the Bush administration and the Israeli military establishment oppose any such deal, both for ideological reasons and because it could allow Hamas to rest and rearm. But if there is no truce, the war in Gaza will continue -- and the peace process will not move forward. (Washington Post)

The Palestinian radicals who are firing rockets into Israeli towns measure success by the number of civilians who die. Here's the weird part - they don't care whether it's Jewish Israelis who die or their own Palestinian brothers. More significantly, Palestinian groups such as Hamas view the death of each Arab woman or child as a propaganda victory in the religious war against Israel.
This is, sadly, old news. In the 1980s, before the Palestinians had rockets, they would arrange for children to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, then they - the Palestinian fighters - would fire bullets at the Israelis from inside the crowds. Hamas' real objective was not to kill Israeli soldiers but to ensure Arab children got killed in the crossfire. Was this depraved? You bet. But it was effective.
Israel is a liberal democracy and it didn't like being blamed for the deaths of civilians, so gradually it disengaged from the disputed Palestinian territories. In the case of Gaza, Israel withdrew completely. No matter, Hamas wanted to continue the fight, which brings us to today. (Ottawa Citizen-Canada)

A moment before the conflagration breaks out, standing on the edge of an abyss from which those who fall do not return, the call comes: Stop!
Will the government have the courage to stop before calamity hits? It is uncomfortable and even ostensibly unreasonable to negotiate with those who do not recognize your existence. But the act of negotiating itself is a kind of recognition, and only it will lead the parties to a temporary calm. Lacking a cure, time is also a palliative. Meanwhile, the living will remain alive, because we cannot bring back the dead.
Hamas will take advantage of the break in hostilities to grow stronger, arm and train - that is the usual, eternal argument against a cease-fire. History shows that Israel has more than once agreed on temporary cease-fires that have held.
Moreover, who says Hamas uses time more efficiently than we do? Why does time have to work against us? Are we so poor in ideas and initiatives that our enemies will necessarily have the upper hand as time passes?
And perhaps, with a hiatus in the hostilities, we may finally learn to develop the defense system against rockets and missiles - at least this.

Israel's war against Hamas is hardly over. As Hamas attacks continue, Israel will have to take further measures to suppress Hamas rocket fire. Presently, the Hamas leadership understands that repeated Katyusha attacks against Ashkelon will result in an Israeli ground incursion that can cost them nearly one hundred of their personnel. But without addressing the Philadelphi route or the northern Gaza launch sites, it is doubtful that these kinds of deterrence calculations alone will bring the Hamas rockets to a halt and alleviate the misery of the Israeli residents of Sderot.
In parallel to its military response, however, Israel will need to wage a strong diplomatic effort to safeguard its right of self-defense, which many in the international community seek to erode.
Even in this latest round of conflict, as Israel sought to defend itself from Palestinian rocket attacks, it has already faced harsh criticism, which will only foster new international pressures when struggle with Hamas is resumed. (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

No state can tolerate a situation where a large part of its population is being terrorized by continuous rocket and mortar fire. The first obligation of any state is to provide security to its citizens. Therefore, Israeli military operations in Gaza are an imperative designed to prevent the launching of rockets into Israeli population centers and are clearly an act of self-defense sanctioned by international law.
A large-scale Israeli military operation to destroy the Hamas terrorist infrastructure is inevitable. The moral responsibility for these losses clearly falls on the Islamists of Hamas. A military operation will in all probability not bring about a durable solution, however, it will drastically limit the harm Hamas can cause to Israel in the short term. (Jerusalem Post)