I wanted you to read and digest this part:<quoted text>
From the linked CNN story:
Ahmed Ja'abari was long a marked man, considering his involvement in hundreds of deadly attacks on Israel. Nevertheless, he had also shown pragmatism in the protection of, and deal to release, the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to Gerhson Baskin, an Israeli peace activist who was involved in the negotiations to release Shalit, Ja'abari was very seriously considering a permanent ceasefire with Israel. Bearing in mind his prominence within the organisation, this might have led to a significant and critical change in relations between these two sworn enemies.
Permanent ceasefire my eye. What WOULDN'T Ja'abari have told Baskin to curry favor and gain possible concessions from the "Zionist Entity?" This tactician wasn't about to revoke the Hamas Charter, was he?
"Notwithstanding the constant provocation of rockets fired on Israeli towns and villages by Hamas and its allies in Gaza, the proximity of Israel's attack to their impending elections doesn't seem to be a coincidence.
There is almost a long standing political tradition by Israeli governments to avert attention from their social and economic failures.
Launching a military campaign against an obvious, albeit not innocent, enemy will bring short term military and potential electoral success. However, it will only exacerbate the situation.
Bearing in mind his prominence within the organisation, this might have led to a significant and critical change in relations between these two sworn enemies.
In the past, Israeli heavy-handedness with Hamas was met with either half-hearted protestations or even tacit approval from the Arab World. It remains to be seen if there will be a different reaction this time, and what the long term impact on relations between Israel and the newly shaped region will be.
Secular regimes are quickly being replaced by Islamist parties which have both mandates and legitimacy, having been elected in free and fair elections. These governments' immediate instinct is sympathy, not only with the people of Gaza, but also with the Hamas government, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood movement which currently holds the presidency in Egypt."
"Israel's policy of the uncompromising use of force may prove counterproductive, both military and politically. No one questions the right of Israeli citizens to live free of rocket attacks from Gaza, yet time and again it has proven that the army can provide a very limited solution.
Militarily, the first few days of hostilities have proved that the Iron Dome interception system is only partially successful, and Hamas rockets can reach as far as Tel Aviv and its neighboring cities, exposing Israel's vulnerability.
However, even more alarming is the lack of political wisdom in learning from the past that the use of excessive force only leads to further radicalization of Palestinian society, a future of increasing bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, and the deterioration of relations with the Arab world. This is increasingly so as a result of the Arab Spring.
The answer to Israeli security challenges lies around the negotiation table. Unfortunately, the current government in Israel has no political plan that can bring about peace, and believes its ability to regain power at the next elections relies on a show of military force instead of diplomatic efforts and a genuine peace process."
Yossi Mekelberg's assessment is spot on.