BBC (Friday): Sharon welcomes Palestinian truce

From the BBC Online
Dated Thursday March 17

Sharon welcomes Palestinian truce

Israel's prime minister has welcomed a pledge by Palestinian militants to continue to observe a conditional halt in attacks until the end of the year.

"The arrangement reached in Cairo is a positive first step," Ariel Sharon told Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak by phone a statement by his office said.

But Israel still believes armed groups "cannot continue to exist", it added.

The militant groups' gesture was tied to Israel's commitment to end its attacks and to release prisoners.

Read more.

I wonder if part of it is to weaken Hamas' position and indirectly weaken the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

One could speculate a good deal about the reasons,
there are so many to choose from.

the obvious...its not really difficult to do if you look who hes fighting and how pissed they are getting

hes getting israel out of gaza becuase its a losing situation...its also an easy test case for the palestenians. If they can make a go of it there, then the whole palestenian/israeli conflict changes character..if they cant, the loss to israel is kept to a minimum as gaza is a distinct geographical area that can be contained.

hard to let go of cherish beliefs?....kind of like a religion, where changing political/geographical landscapes do nothing to change ones beliefs....

except those of us involved have seen many changes within both our politicians as well as ourselves over the years....the obvouse ones are sadat/begin/rabin, but the're have been hundreds of others of lesser fame.....sharon is just one more who has opened his eyes to a new reality....and is now attemting to do something about it.

(somethings to look at: changes in the IDF structure, changes in the police forces (they'll be doing the evacuations), changes in the border patrol units. IDF units being moved, settler statements and their actions....theres a lot more to mention but then hardcore beliefs, like religious fundementalism, are never really affected by a changing environment.

I suppose that's why I keep losing track of your argument.

Namely a well-honed sense of political tact. The most obvious concerns the very intimate relationship between Israel/Egypt and the Gaza from 1947 onward. It was Egypt who destroyed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early days of Nasser. It was also Egypt who propped and essentially established the PLO as another counterweight to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood (and other similar groups) are they main opposition to Mubarak. It was they who killed Sadat.

I currently see that with any nominal withdrawal of Israel from Gaza will be seen as an opportunity by Hamas to step in and take over the vacuum. Israel and the rest of the world would not suffer an Egyptian occupation of Gaza. So this leaves Egypt with two options, either create a stronger PA capable of stopping Hamas, or suffer the embarassment of asking Israel back into the territories.

L-

if we leave...we will be hard pressed to "go back"...that would cause internal chaos with the israeli society. More likly would be increased vigilance on the border, making Gaza more of a large semi autonomous prison camp (more so than it is now), with retalitory strikes being via artilary and tank fire.

I consider that a very low chance, at least initially.

You forgot aircraft/missiles/snipers as being other retaliatory tools. I'm sure that the IDF or Shin Bet would not be above putting in someone long enough to paint a laser signal on a car or building or even using an old fashioned sniper rifle.

However, there would be the economic and humanitarian failure should even the event you described occur. Egypt would bear a good portion of this and would create a political situation that I think would be unacceptable.

Note though that what is acceptable to Israel and Egypt is not necessarily the most constructive form of government for the PA. It just needs to be able to keep the regions under enough control as to prevent the rise of any political threat/emergency to either country.


L-

if it fails.....that would give plenty of political points and support to the israeli "right" which says the palestenains cant be trusted...more than the "points" the failure of a "semi-state" in gaza would obviously give the rest of us something to reconsider. If they cant do it there, where they have complete control and a contigous land mass, the west bank would seem impossible. A failure in our eyes would be continued attacks on israel. The occasional attempts wouldnt make an impression, nor would the occasional mortor as long as we saw the PA trying (no one is claiming 100% is possible, nor do we expect it)

the palestenians need our support to isolate our right wing extremists..and the only way that will happen is if gaza succeeds. Its not so much that we care about their GNP etc, but obviously if they stop attacking us from gaza, and concentrate on their own living conditions, their economy will improve.

The most sensitive points will be (as they are now) the importing and exporting of goods to and from israel.....

i just pray to god (any god, i'm easy) that they succeed.

There certainly is a measure of common interest in having
Gaza be a "responsible" political entity. It's clear enough
that a decision was made among a number of interested parties
to shore up Abbas position, with what success we will see.
One can only hope, as there is little to offer in continued
violence. I am busy today, but I'll see if I have anything
further to add later on. Regards.

1.) That there is probably pressure to support or conform to
the Bushites Middle Eastern peace and democracy PR initiative, as
evidenced by the statements about allowing opposition parties,
etc. This can in a way tie with the point you make about the
Brotherhood, since he has his hands full with them using the old
"un-democratic" methods, as it is. But anyway, part of that would
be supporting the Gaza initiative and related moves.

2.) He would be better able to deal with the internal political
pressure in Egypt, as well as better able to forward his long-term
goals WRT who follows him, by a settlement of the I/P issue, or at
least a large reduction of the level of hostilities.

That last is probably a touchy subject, since the absence of any
external threat is likely to have political consequences of it's
own, so a certain balancing act is required. In fact another point
of view on these changes is that the destabilizing effects of the
US-Iraq boondoggle have made attempts to stabilize things elsewhere,
i.e. Gaza, more urgent than they might have been otherwise, and one
can see the Saudi's, for example, considering their options. There are
major shifts under way and that makes it a good time to take care
of business where one can.

There is probably some pressure from the Bush's to do something. The $2 billion a year monetary support is probably being played here. The Bush regime has already leaned on Hosni over another Egyptian political figure not too long ago.

However, I think the main over-riding concern is that should Hamas gain control (defacto or officially) in Gaza, then it will increase his internal political pressure by providing a neighboring safe haven for a group very friendly with religious extremists groups in his own country.

L-

Egypt rally demands political reforms
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5312AE33-1F5A-44DE-9FA6-E6E50F393F1F.htm

I put a piece up in F/A today where his son disclaims any political
ambition, too.