It's a bit depressing how the Israeli consensus almost without question approved the government's message that Kerry's proposal is a Qatari proposal in disguise, a response to Hamas' demands and other nonsense.
Before that, introductory remarks: 1. Secretary of State Kerry did a sloppy job. Too little respect for Egypt, didn't give enough space to Abbas, didn't closely coordinate every word with both sides before passing the paper, in short, a somewhat amateurish cooking job for someone who is supposed to be the number 1 diplomat in the world. 2. This section was not written from a starting point that a ceasefire is needed, and it's a shame we didn't accept Kerry's proposal. Absolutely not. I personally think it's better to increase military pressure on Hamas. I have doubts whether the IDF is capable of doing that. These doubts, where they came from and where they are going, are better discussed after everything is over. There is no point in it right now. The analysis of Kerry's proposal is, therefore, only at a professional level.
Hamas demanded: immediate opening of crossings with the ceasefire, immediate withdrawal of IDF forces with the ceasefire, release of Shalit prisoners, receipt of salaries for Hamas government officials, cessation of all war activity with the declaration of a ceasefire, including the elimination of the tunnels.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Israel demanded: a ceasefire, failure to release Shalit's prisoners, continued elimination of the tunnels even during the ceasefire period, a regime of supervision over goods entering Gaza so that they are not used to build rockets and tunnels, and some kind of statement on the demilitarization of the Strip.
This is just a cosmetic suggestion.
Kerry has merely formulated a proposal to begin negotiations, not a final agreement. The proposal is cosmetically worded in favor of Hamas. It cites their demands and not Israel's, but let's look at it practically: Hamas has received nothing. At the time of the ceasefire, no crossing will open and Hamas people will not receive money. Instead, they have received a commitment to discuss it. Walla.
Regarding the release of Shalit prisoners, they did not even receive a commitment to discuss it. Hamas did receive a statement about the IDF's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip during the ceasefire, but it is not detailed, there is no timetable, and it is not clear exactly when it will happen.
Israel, on the other hand, got what it wanted most and it seemed impossible to give it. The document did not prohibit it from continuing to work on the tunnels during the ceasefire. This is very unusual. One of the sides continues to carry out combat activities during a ceasefire. This also gave the IDF a huge advantage. Instead of facing this challenge while Hamas militants are trying to tail the forces and surprise them, to do it calmly without any threat. It is no wonder that Hamas intended to say 'no' to Kerry. It understood exactly what this document said.
True, the document does not contain any statement about disarmament, not even in general terms. Kerry made do with three vague words about the need to discuss the security concerns of the parties, but does anyone really expect Hamas to disarm by agreement? There is no such thing. As for the regime of control over the transfer of goods, there is indeed no such thing, and this is something that Israel rightly insists on. On the other hand, this is not something that could not have been fixed in the negotiations themselves as part of the discussion on opening the crossings.
Bottom line – Kerry’s proposal was far from shocking. The fact that it was rejected with contempt by all the ministers in Netanyahu’s government shows less about the content of the proposal and more about the politicization of the process. All the ministers see that the vast majority of the Israeli public does not want a ceasefire and align themselves with it. Along the way, they also give the American Secretary of State a ringing and unjustified slap in the face with all sorts of malicious leaks about the content of his proposal.
From Raviv Drucker's website:
http://drucker10.net/?p=2315
