Palpress Website referendum response: 64%:36% oppose long-term
truce
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 22 November 2012
Palpress Website referendum response: 64%:36% oppose long-term
truce
http://www.palpress.co.uk/arabic/?Action=MAIN#
Referendum
Do you support the long-term truce with Israel in the Gaza Strip?
Yes (36%) - 834
No (64%) - 1451
[This is not a "poll" - it is an internet referendum - and as an internet
referendum the results are not associated with a particular physical
location]
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
truce
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 22 November 2012
Palpress Website referendum response: 64%:36% oppose long-term
truce
http://www.palpress.co.uk/arabic/?Action=MAIN#
Referendum
Do you support the long-term truce with Israel in the Gaza Strip?
Yes (36%) - 834
No (64%) - 1451
[This is not a "poll" - it is an internet referendum - and as an internet
referendum the results are not associated with a particular physical
location]
--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Weekly Commentary Looking At The Text Of The Ceasefire Understanding – Just
The Facts
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 22 November 2012
I want to take this opportunity to review the actual text of the Ceasefire
Understanding announced yesterday in Cairo and leave speculation as to the
efficacy of alternatives to PM Netanyahu's decision to accept this
understanding to other commentators for today.
I do this because it is vitally important to understand what is in fact
written and not written in the text.
[The text follows this commentary]
#1. The obligation of each party not to engage in "hostilities" is not
linked to the compliance of the other party.
#2. In point of fact, the agreement explicitly and specifically prohibits
Israel from the "targeting of individuals" - so that Israel cannot dispatch
to Paradise a specific terrorist either before, during or after they have
engaged in an activity against Israel.
#3. The only relief available to a party in the event that the other party
violates the understanding is to inform Egypt of the violation, with Egypt
following up on the violation.
#4. While the understanding places no restriction on the importation or
local manufacture of weapons in the Gaza Strip, it prohibits any Israeli
activity inside the Gaza Strip against this activity. (Take note: Prime
Minister Netanyahu said last night that "the United States and Israel would
work together to fight the smuggling of weapons to the terror
organizations". Mr. Netanyahu did not mention Egypt and in the case of the
Americans, this relates only to the smuggling of weapons – not their
manufacture in the Gaza Strip).
I want to make it clear that I am not speculating if Israel will opt to
violate the understanding and return fire. I am also not going to
speculate if Israel will opt to violate the understanding and demolish
weapons manufacturing and storage facilities. My point is only that such
activities are not sanctioned by the understanding.
Which brings us to a disturbing element of the entire concept:
Israel's peace treaty with Egypt is one of the most critical strategic
assets that Israel has.
Egypt is both the official sponsor of this understanding and, as already
mentioned above, the party assigned the responsibility to follow up on
violations of the understanding.
From this point onwards, every decision Israel makes regarding the Gaza
Strip will have to give considerable weight to the possible impact of that
decision on the future of the Jewish State's relations with Egypt.
I will leave for others to speculate if Hamas has been deterred or if,
instead, they will exploit this understanding to prepare in earnest for the
next round of conflict.
I will also leave for others to speculate if Israel will opt to exercise its
fundamental sovereign right to defend itself.
I will only reiterate that the text of the understanding that Israel
accepted last night has no provision for Israel to do anything beyond
informing Egypt in the event of Palestinian violations and that there is
absolutely no restriction of any kind on Palestinian military preparations.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
The Facts
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 22 November 2012
I want to take this opportunity to review the actual text of the Ceasefire
Understanding announced yesterday in Cairo and leave speculation as to the
efficacy of alternatives to PM Netanyahu's decision to accept this
understanding to other commentators for today.
I do this because it is vitally important to understand what is in fact
written and not written in the text.
[The text follows this commentary]
#1. The obligation of each party not to engage in "hostilities" is not
linked to the compliance of the other party.
#2. In point of fact, the agreement explicitly and specifically prohibits
Israel from the "targeting of individuals" - so that Israel cannot dispatch
to Paradise a specific terrorist either before, during or after they have
engaged in an activity against Israel.
#3. The only relief available to a party in the event that the other party
violates the understanding is to inform Egypt of the violation, with Egypt
following up on the violation.
#4. While the understanding places no restriction on the importation or
local manufacture of weapons in the Gaza Strip, it prohibits any Israeli
activity inside the Gaza Strip against this activity. (Take note: Prime
Minister Netanyahu said last night that "the United States and Israel would
work together to fight the smuggling of weapons to the terror
organizations". Mr. Netanyahu did not mention Egypt and in the case of the
Americans, this relates only to the smuggling of weapons – not their
manufacture in the Gaza Strip).
I want to make it clear that I am not speculating if Israel will opt to
violate the understanding and return fire. I am also not going to
speculate if Israel will opt to violate the understanding and demolish
weapons manufacturing and storage facilities. My point is only that such
activities are not sanctioned by the understanding.
Which brings us to a disturbing element of the entire concept:
Israel's peace treaty with Egypt is one of the most critical strategic
assets that Israel has.
Egypt is both the official sponsor of this understanding and, as already
mentioned above, the party assigned the responsibility to follow up on
violations of the understanding.
From this point onwards, every decision Israel makes regarding the Gaza
Strip will have to give considerable weight to the possible impact of that
decision on the future of the Jewish State's relations with Egypt.
I will leave for others to speculate if Hamas has been deterred or if,
instead, they will exploit this understanding to prepare in earnest for the
next round of conflict.
I will also leave for others to speculate if Israel will opt to exercise its
fundamental sovereign right to defend itself.
I will only reiterate that the text of the understanding that Israel
accepted last night has no provision for Israel to do anything beyond
informing Egypt in the event of Palestinian violations and that there is
absolutely no restriction of any kind on Palestinian military preparations.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
No comments:
Post a Comment