Israel was joined last month by the whole of the American administration in insisting that the PA-brokered terrorist cease-fire is a flimsy agreement that would not lead to true peace and security.
US President George W. Bush was emphatic that the truce not act as a substitute for the complete removal of the terrorist infrastructure - in accordance with international demands.
"In order for there to be peace in the Middle East, we must see organizations such as Hamas dismantled," the president said.
"Under the road map, parties have an obligation to dismantle terrorist infrastructures,? White House spokesperson Ashley Snee added.
Nor do the PA?s cease-fire efforts find backing in any of its signed agreements with Israel, including the Road Map. Rather, the PA is contractually obligated to confront Hamas and other terror groups, with force if necessary, and destroy their terrorist capabilities. So why has the PA seemingly ignored these demands and its own agreements with Israel and negotiated a cease-fire deal with the terrorist factions anyway?
Based on political developments over the past decade, the PA knows full well that half-measures tailored to paint Israel as the aggressor will eventually lead to the international community taking their side and demanding additional Israeli concessions.
The present temporary cease-fire is just such a measure. The demands the cease-fire deal makes on Israel are clearly unworkable. Israel will act to defend its citizens the moment a serious terrorist threat arises, leading the terrorist forces to declare the deal null and void due to Israeli noncompliance. The Palestinians also know that mere promises to curb terror are adequate to ease outside pressure on them to actually remove the terrorist threat - a move that would likely lead to violent internal Palestinian clashes and even ?civil war.?
The overall Oslo ?peace? process provides the most complete example of this Palestinian method.
In all of the various agreements signed as part of the process, the Road Map included, the Palestinians have recycled the same promise to put an end to terror and incitement against Israel. Despite this recurring pledge, terrorism has continued not only unabated, but with increased frequency and severity - which has lead to the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis at the hands of Palestinian terrorists since 1993. The PA has systematically failed to keep its word to collect illegal weapons and outlaw terrorist organizations such as Hamas. This failure, however, has not led to widespread international condemnation or a suspension of demands for Israeli concessions.
The PA has known all along that to fully comply with the agreements by confronting terror would lead to bloody internal Palestinian strife, which would threaten to overthrow the dictatorial Palestinian regime. And tacit international approval of its refusal to do so has caused the PA to feel secure in offering semi-solutions and second-hand assurances in place of full implementation.
Which brings us to the current terrorist cease-fire. While it was birthed of increased outside pressure for the Palestinians to finally live up to their commitments, the PA appears to have again found a way around comprehensive compliance. The PA has openly stated that it does not want an armed confrontation with Hamas and the other terror groups, and will make no moves that may lead to such a conflagration. Nor can the Palestinians be ignorant of the fact that the increased terror of the past three years has produced not less, but more international pressure for Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands and facilitate the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.
These points leave little incentive for the Palestinians to act against terrorism. And coupled with the knowledge that mere promises have traditionally served to placate international public opinion, this has generated not conformity, but a newly invented half-measure.
The Palestinians have learned the ropes of international diplomacy well. So why would they now start to actually comply with international demands, when a promise to temporarily suspend attacks will do?
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Jones is News Editor of Jerusalem Newswire, where this article first appeared.
US President George W. Bush was emphatic that the truce not act as a substitute for the complete removal of the terrorist infrastructure - in accordance with international demands.
"In order for there to be peace in the Middle East, we must see organizations such as Hamas dismantled," the president said.
"Under the road map, parties have an obligation to dismantle terrorist infrastructures,? White House spokesperson Ashley Snee added.
Nor do the PA?s cease-fire efforts find backing in any of its signed agreements with Israel, including the Road Map. Rather, the PA is contractually obligated to confront Hamas and other terror groups, with force if necessary, and destroy their terrorist capabilities. So why has the PA seemingly ignored these demands and its own agreements with Israel and negotiated a cease-fire deal with the terrorist factions anyway?
Based on political developments over the past decade, the PA knows full well that half-measures tailored to paint Israel as the aggressor will eventually lead to the international community taking their side and demanding additional Israeli concessions.
The present temporary cease-fire is just such a measure. The demands the cease-fire deal makes on Israel are clearly unworkable. Israel will act to defend its citizens the moment a serious terrorist threat arises, leading the terrorist forces to declare the deal null and void due to Israeli noncompliance. The Palestinians also know that mere promises to curb terror are adequate to ease outside pressure on them to actually remove the terrorist threat - a move that would likely lead to violent internal Palestinian clashes and even ?civil war.?
The overall Oslo ?peace? process provides the most complete example of this Palestinian method.
In all of the various agreements signed as part of the process, the Road Map included, the Palestinians have recycled the same promise to put an end to terror and incitement against Israel. Despite this recurring pledge, terrorism has continued not only unabated, but with increased frequency and severity - which has lead to the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis at the hands of Palestinian terrorists since 1993. The PA has systematically failed to keep its word to collect illegal weapons and outlaw terrorist organizations such as Hamas. This failure, however, has not led to widespread international condemnation or a suspension of demands for Israeli concessions.
The PA has known all along that to fully comply with the agreements by confronting terror would lead to bloody internal Palestinian strife, which would threaten to overthrow the dictatorial Palestinian regime. And tacit international approval of its refusal to do so has caused the PA to feel secure in offering semi-solutions and second-hand assurances in place of full implementation.
Which brings us to the current terrorist cease-fire. While it was birthed of increased outside pressure for the Palestinians to finally live up to their commitments, the PA appears to have again found a way around comprehensive compliance. The PA has openly stated that it does not want an armed confrontation with Hamas and the other terror groups, and will make no moves that may lead to such a conflagration. Nor can the Palestinians be ignorant of the fact that the increased terror of the past three years has produced not less, but more international pressure for Israel to capitulate to Palestinian demands and facilitate the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.
These points leave little incentive for the Palestinians to act against terrorism. And coupled with the knowledge that mere promises have traditionally served to placate international public opinion, this has generated not conformity, but a newly invented half-measure.
The Palestinians have learned the ropes of international diplomacy well. So why would they now start to actually comply with international demands, when a promise to temporarily suspend attacks will do?
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Jones is News Editor of Jerusalem Newswire, where this article first appeared.