It has been about three months of fighting in Gaza since Hamas attacked Israeli civilians on October 7. Needless to say, there has been a growing voice of disapproval towards the Israeli counteroffensive in response to Hamas' carnage from October 7, 2023. Last month, a large majority in the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a ceasefire. A month later, there is still no ceasefire. That would explain why King Abdullah II of Jordan is pressing U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken for a ceasefire, even in spite of the fact that this is very same King has refused to accept Gazan refugees.
The premise of the call for a ceasefire is to stop the rising death toll, the continued displacement of Gazans, and to allow for humanitarian aid in Gaza. While that sounds all well and good, there are a number of reasons to be against the idea of a ceasefire.
1) Past history tells us that ceasefires do not work. Ceasefires have been attempted multiple times between Hamas and Israel. If a ceasefire were a lasting mechanism to bring peace, we would have seen positive results by now. At best, a ceasefire has been an exceptionally temporary concession. At worst, it does nothing to induce peace talks, which is true given the number of ceasefires since the last attempted peace talks took place in 2013. During the last Gaza War in 2014, what did Hamas do? Violate the ceasefire. The same with 2008. What about April 2007? It broke the truce by firing rockets. Hamas' October 7 attack was a violation of a ceasefire.
Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Shortly after agreeing to a ceasefire, Hamas breaks the ceasefire. And when Israel decides to retaliate, the Palestinian side blames Israel. Blaming Israel only makes sense if you erroneously view Palestine as the personification of being oppressed and as such a blameless victim that kidnapping, raping, torturing, murdering, and decapitating Israeli civilians is acceptable. This also forgets the inconvenient fact that the Israeli Defense Forces unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, which is to say that the real oppressor in Gaza is Hamas, not Israel.
2) If Hamas were given a ceasefire, what would Hamas most likely do? Regroup and rearm. That has been the modus operandi of Hamas, as is illustrated by Hamas doing so in 2009, 2012, 2014, 2019, and 2021. A ceasefire would only be an opportunity for Hamas to replenish its arsenal, rebuild its tunnels, and reorganize its troops. A ceasefire would not bring lasting peace to the Middle East. A ceasefire would serve to lengthen the fighting. If anything, emboldening Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran with a ceasefire would help ensure a more violent future in that region of the world.
3) A ceasefire ignores that Hamas only wants one thing: the destruction of Israel. Hamas has made its genocidal intents clear. The fact that Palestinian survey data show that most Gazans do not have moral qualms with Hamas' raison d'être or with killing Jews is indeed problematic for those calling for a ceasefire. Plus, Hamas is so hellbent on destroying Israel that it does not care about the wellbeing of Gazans. Otherwise, why would Hamas use its citizens as human shields and launch military operations from civilian sites, thereby maximizing civilian casualties? Hamas has an established history of brutality. If the events on October 7 demonstrate anything, it is that they are more resolute on wiping out the Jewish state than they have been before. Israel is under no obligation to stop firing at an enemy that has made it abundantly clear of its intent.
4) Why this war is not like the others. In previous conflicts, the goals were to contain Hamas and maximize Israel's regional deterrence. That is because prior to October 7, Hamas was viewed as a second-tier threat. The October 7 attack has shaken Israelis' sense of security to its core. Israelis are still reeling from the horrid attack. To call the October 7 attacks "another 9-11" is a woeful understatement. While Israeli citizens are dealing with political polarization, they are united on at least one topic: the destruction of Hamas. In this war, Israel's goals are to eradicate Hamas, bring the remaining hostages home, and defend its land. Since these goals will take more effort, a ceasefire will squander the military advantages that the IDF has, which the Israeli government cannot tolerate.
5) Pressuring Israel with a ceasefire could backfire. This point cannot be stated enough. International calls for a ceasefire go beyond being tone-deaf given the context of the region. Calls for ceasefire increase the pressure to destroy Hamas "while it still can." This increased pressure means that the IDF will not be able to complete a slower, more thorough campaign. When a country faces an increasingly existential threat, it is less likely to use restraint. Rather than end the fighting, a ceasefire would very likely increase the magnitude of civilian deaths. Even if the ceasefire were successful, it would probably result in greater fortification of Israel's border with Gaza, as well as restricting humanitarian aid to Gaza. In either case, the calls for a ceasefire do not serve the citizens of Gaza well.
Postscript. The premise behind a ceasefire is a political framework to secure a more peaceful future. A ceasefire implies that fighting will end and that postwar planning and reconstruction could take place. There are times in history where Muslims co-existed with Jews. Even in 2024, Israel is a nation with 1.7 million Muslims. As already pointed out, most Palestinians are unwilling to live side-by-side with an Israeli neighbor. It is not only Palestinian reluctance that is an issue with regards to a ceasefire.
Since October 7, eradicating Hamas has become a more essential goal for Israeli national security that has broad support across the Israeli political spectrum, which says something given how much Israelis and Jews disagree on a multitude of other topics. The purpose of a ceasefire is to cease firing of weapons. It is literally in the name of the peace mechanism. Until the threat to Israeli civilians no longer exists, how do you expect Israel to agree to a ceasefire?
Implementing a ceasefire would be one-sided. The "Ceasefire Now" crowd is not calling for Hamas to lay down its weapons or to release hostages. Nor is this same crowd calling for Hamas to stop withholding humanitarian aid or to stop oppressing its citizens in a totalitarian fashion. It is a call for Israel to lay down its arms and subject itself to other attacks akin to October 7. Israel cannot and will not abide by total capitulation. It would only be a short pause that would only buy time for Hamas to rearm and carry out the fighting. While the ceasefire comes with good intentions from many calling for a ceasefire, the current conditions between Gaza and Israel cannot precipitate a viable ceasefire. While it would not solve everything, destroying Hamas would be a first necessary step to help ensure peace in the long-run.
No comments:
Post a Comment