At the beginning of the month, I laid out the many times in the past that Hamas had broken cease-fire agreements with Israel.
Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules the nearby Gaza Strip, later claimed responsibility for the deadly shooting in Jerusalem, saying in a statement that the attack was in response to Israel’s “unprecedented crimes” including “brutal massacres” in Gaza and the killing of children in Jenin in the occupied West Bank.
I suppose the argument of Hamas will be that shooting innocent civilians at a bus stop doesn’t count as a violation of the cease-fire. I don’t know about you, but I think the definition of what is involved in a cease-fire can be found right there in the word. You’re required to . . . you know, cease firing weapons.
As Pradheep Shanker and others observed, very few if any of those who have spent the past seven weeks or so calling for a cease-fire will pause to denounce Hamas for breaking the cease-fire. They will continue to call for a cease-fire, even though Hamas just made it clear that they do not intend to honor any cease-fire.
Thus, the international calls for a cease-fire are, functionally, calls for a unilateral cease-fire on the part of Israel. Everybody knows Hamas will kill Israelis and anyone else in their way at any opportunity, so there’s no point in expecting Hamas to honor any promises it makes.
Many people who insist they want “peace” are instead calling for a circumstance where Hamas is able to continue killing Israelis but Israel is not able to retaliate and kill members of Hamas. This is not actually a formula for “peace.”