Hudna is here

We warned of the hudna that was declared in Arafatistan yesterday here and here. Is there any reason to believe that the ceasefire is a prelude to peace with Israel rather than a preparation for war from a stronger postion at a later date?
Today’s Jerusalem Post reports on the impending meeting of Daddy Mazen with various terror chiefs of Arafatistan: “Abbas to brief factions on summit.” I find myself in surprising agreement with the Post’s summary of the positon of the ever-popular Islamic Jihad group: “Nafez Azzam, the top Islamic Jihad leader in the Gaza Strip, criticized Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for failing to explain exactly what he is committing himself to.”
The Post’s report on the declaration in Sharm E-Sheikh is available here. The headline reads: “This time it’s for real.” I might believe it’s real hudna, but I would appreciate some evidence supporting the propositon that it’s anything other than that.
UPDATE: IN his National Review Online column, Joel Rosenberg marshals evidence in favor of an affirmative answer to the question “For real?” Caroline Glick looks at markers pointing toward the apparent destination of the “process” here: “Look who’s representing Israel.” The Post elaborates the point I raise above in its editorial: “Abbas’s absent talk of compromise.”

Responses

Books to read from Power Line