Don't shoot, talk

[Englander]

By Haaretz Editorial

A sovereign state cannot accept the firing of rockets into its territory, and it does not matter whether the target is Gilo, Kiryat Shmona or Sderot. The ongoing fire at Sderot and the northern Negev is not related to any territorial claim over Gaza, where Israel has withdrawn to the international border. It is another stage in the Palestinian-Israeli struggle, which sometimes becomes violent as each side looks for the other's weaknesses in order to try to defeat it.

It also does not matter at all which organization is doing the firing. The Palestinian Authority has an elected government, and it is responsible for preventing attacks on Israel originating from its territory. But before deciding to escalate the conflict, before marking more and more individuals for assassination, it is appropriate to try the alternative: speaking instead of shooting. It doesn't matter who is more right; it doesn't matter who started it, with whom one speaks or whether speaking has a strategic purpose. Even if conditions are not yet ripe for negotiations on ending the conflict, there is no logical reason not to conduct meetings at every possible level to discuss renewing normal life, halting exchanges of fire, instituting a cease-fire and learning the lessons of the latest round of violence in the endless conflict, before it deteriorates further.

It is as clear as day that the continued killing of Palestinian civilians, including children, will not bring security to the residents of Israel, either in the short term or in the long term - just as firing Qassams at Israeli civilians, including children, in Sderot will not bring Gaza residents a better future.

The Palestinians have an elected government and an elected chairman, and they must decide on their own who will conduct a dialogue with Israel and what the dialogue will be about. On Israel's part, there is no need to boycott any of those involved in the talks or to set preconditions, since at this stage the talks would not be on resolving the conflict, but on bringing the sides closer together and minimizing the flames threatening to ignite a new war. Any attempt to talk - about a hudna (cease-fire) of several days or many years, about a halt to the boycott of the PA in exchange for a cease-fire, about a halt to the assassinations in exchange for a halt to the Qassams, or any other temporary compromise, even if it does not involve a vision of the end of days - bears at least the option of pragmatic moderation, and hope (albeit slight) for creeping normalization. Any disappointment over failed talks is less painful than counting the corpses of children.

The disengagement, the convergence, the end of the conflict, the setting of borders: All these are large words in relation to today's reality. On one side prevail hunger and despair that the Israelis know nothing about, and on the other side are fear and a growing desire for revenge. This cycle of fear must be stopped. That is why there are diplomats capable of seeing above and beyond the cannon fire - the kind who do not make do with military officials' suggestions, but rather make their own.

Link;
Haaretz