While the battle of words goes on here and in other places, at least one conference nice to hear about has been reported here in Ha'aretz tonight, and here somewhat differently in JP. and a related one here, also from Ha'aretz.
Without spoiling what I regard as some reading pleasure for all sides, the gist of these is that the Israeli ministers have voted against escalation of the current Gaza dispute, over some military objections, as you will see from the quotes below, and Hamas has undertaken, either unilaterally or not, a cease fire under which it will do its best to restrain the smaller groups whom the Israeli ministers now say are doing the shooting rather than Hamas.
The accounts of the Israeli ministers' meeting noted that a principal reason for not taking further action now, unless something else awful happens, is the position of international opinion which would not support their position. It didn't say which opinion, but that indicates to me that the many words heard outside of the Holy Land have had some good effect.
It's one thing for us to talk about it and another for the personalities actually invovled to do so, for public attribution. Ha'aretz' version of the meeting included the following:
Defense officials told the cabinet that so far, Hamas had not participated in the rocket fire; it had all come from smaller terrorist groups like the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad, the officials noted.
Netanyahu, who has refrained from blaming Hamas for either last Thursday's cross-border attack from Sinai or the subsequent rocket fire from Gaza, insisted that Israel did not negotiate with Hamas over a cease-fire. The truce, he said, was a unilateral decision by Hamas.
and
"We won't fire first in Gaza; we won't strike the [smuggling] tunnels," explained an aide. "On the other hand, if we locate a terrorist cell en route to launching rockets or carrying out an attack on the [border] fence, we won't hesitate to strike at them."
Copyright forbids my giving more than three paragraphs of the good stuff, and there are others there.
I also contribute this interesting article from a day or so ago which also appeared here in JPost.concerning a cessation of some financing by Iran of Hamas because Hamas would not do what it wanted. Suggesting an interesting position or change in position, not usually reported in these posts, as to the relationship of Hamas and Iran. Whether it's a big deal or a small one, a gap between the two is probably good news for all those here and may if not an anomaly make further dealings with Hamas a bit more interesting from my point of view. Perhaps the beginning of or first public display of a material gap there.
And this article concerning the inability of the Security Council to issue a condemnation on the Bus Massacre because one member, Lebanon, also demanded a reference to the Israeli shelling of Gaza. For those for whom balance in international matters is important, especially considering the article quotes above noting that the Israeli government is not now charging Hamas with the Bus Massacre.
I use happy with the first three articles, not just the fact money quotes but the whole thing, because for once we are seeing people sitting down where they can be seen doing what they are, and trying to be rational and not merely partisanly political, since neither the Hamas enforcement against small groups of the ceasefire or the Israeli holdup of further activity as noted is easy for the doer or popular with its base, but is pragmatic in a way many here on all sides have often hoped for and not so often seen.
I encourage readers to comment reasonably without flame wars,and with links where factual assertions are made.
I also note that this is written Monday evening too later for readers to see it before midnight on the East Coast, and so it will be appearing early Tuesday there, which means before sunrise where I am, so I will be watching it when I am up and around, about morning coffee break time or a bit later in the East Coast area.