Palestinians must remain wary of Israeli intentions, writes Abdallah El-Ashaal* To many, Israel's acceptance of a truce with the Palestinians came as a bit of a surprise. The announcement came after a period of bloodshed in which Israel liquidated a large number of Palestinian field commanders from across all factions and conducted brutal incursions in Palestinian areas, the most notorious of which was in Beit Hanoun. Has Israel really changed its mind? Has it reversed its long-standing policy of genocide against the Palestinians? For the past few weeks, the Palestinians have been discussing a new national unity government, which is a euphemism for Hamas stepping down from government. The Palestinians are desperate to end the stifling embargo against them, and for a change even Israel and the US seem to agree that the time is right for a bit of calm. Only recently, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled strongman of Hamas, warned that unless the Palestinians have their own state within six months, a third Intifada is likely to take place. No one expects the Palestinians to have their state within six months, and yet Meshaal's warning was taken seriously. The Palestinian offer of a truce came after a period of escalation in which Palestinians stepped up their missile attacks on Israel and Israel retaliated with incursions and target killings. Initially, Israel was dismissive. It said that it couldn't possibly stop its military operations against the Palestinians until all rocket launchers were destroyed. Then the Israeli prime minister had a change of heart. Olmert told Mahmoud Abbas that Israel would exercise self-restraint so as to allow a truce to take root, was willing to release several Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one captured Israeli soldier, and that he wanted to see progress towards peace. The Israeli premier even promised to reduce restrictions on Palestinian travel and release frozen tax funds owed to the Palestinian Authority once violence comes to an end. Israel was also prepared to abandon some occupied territories in the framework of a final peace agreement, Olmert said. Why has Israel accepted a truce? Hamas, as you may expect, hailed the Israeli acceptance of a truce as a victory for Palestinian resistance. Some analysts pointed out that Israel needed some calm following its disastrous adventures in Lebanon and Gaza. The truce, which applies only to Gaza, would allow Israel to pull out from Gaza and get its captured soldier back. One cannot exclude the possibility of some US prodding going on. President Bush, who was about to visit the region for talks with the Iraqi prime minister, may have told Olmert that he needed a period of calm in Palestine. Israel has not changed, if you ask me. Israel is still determined to seize the entire land of Palestine. It is simply changing tack to deflect international criticism. Israel is waiting for the international wave of resentment to recede and for its captured soldier, Gilad Shalit, to be released. Israel is also waiting for the Iranian problem to be resolved, perhaps through military means. It knows that the region has enough trouble for now. Hamas, therefore, would be mistaken to think that Israel is backing off because of missile attacks. True, missile attacks have embarrassed Olmert, but then again they give Israel a fine pretext to continue its attacks against the Palestinians (not that the Israelis ever cared for pretexts). It would be premature to think that the resistance has won. For now, there is no evidence that Israel's acceptance of the truce is more than but a tactical move. * The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
