The Kerry Ceasefire Rewards Hamas for its Aggression


Setting aside the discussion of the individual details of the proposals, the fundamental problem with the Qatar/Kerry ceasefire proposal is that Hamas comes out of it with advantages that it did not have before the war.

A ceasefire that rewards a terrorist group for starting a conflict will only guarantee more of the same.

Rewarding Hamas for its aggression doesn’t mean an end to the violence. It means that every time Hamas wants something, it knows that a war is a good way of getting it.

That’s the message that Obama and Kerry seem determined to send to Hamas.

There’s nothing peaceful about rewarding violence. That’s been the root cause of all this since Oslo. If you give in to terrorism, you get more terrorism. If you reward terrorists with goodies, you’ve trained them to shoot you like a pinata so the goodies come out.

The larger message here goes beyond Hamas. It once again reinforces the message in the Middle East that America is weak and that terrorism works.


  • Marty Burg

    The only reward for aggression against Israel.
    <a href=";

  • DogmaelJones1

    Defending one’s country against initiated force means defending it “violently.” Ergo, “violence” must be ended. Violence is “bad,” because it shovels it right back at the aggressor, the initiator of force. Now, these syllogisms are fairly simple to grasp. So, the question is: Are they above the heads of Kerry and Obama, or is reason an enemy of Kerry and Obama (and Hillary, et al.)? I come down on the latter explanation. They don’t care.

  • Jack Ogden

    Since when did the U.S. start negotiating with, or forcing others to negotiate with terrorist organizations? The moral weakness of the U.S. is mind-boggling. The quickest way for the U.S. or U.N. or E.U. to get Hamas to stop its war is to slam them verbally for violating every aspect of law and civil behavior. They are either civil or barbarians, one or the other.