The Gaza ceasefire ended last week, fulfilling its six-month mandate. Hamas and the other Palestinian factions fighting the Israeli occupation from Gaza announced that in its present form, the truce would not be extended.
Many took that to mean that the Palestinian factions had decided to ‘end’ the truce. There is a difference between deciding to end a ceasefire, and deciding to not renew it, which is the accurate characterization of what happened. However, the point missed (or ignored) by so many is that Israel destroyed any chance of continuing the ceasefire when it used the spectacle of the US Presidential election on November 3rd as a cover to carry out a series of attacks within the Gaza Strip, and then completely seal the territory’s borders ever since. Even food as been banned from entering for the last month and a half, save for 8 occasions when meager amounts were allowed through.
The ceasefire agreement stipulated that, in return for an end to home-made Palestinian ‘rocket’ attacks, Israel and Egypt would completely reopen their borders. The borders were never reopened: for the duration of the ceasefire there was a continuous shortage of fuel, medicine, and building materials. Gaza remained the biggest prison on earth. There is an extremely interesting criticism of Israel’s policy during the ceasefire by the former commander of the Israeli army’s Gaza division, in which he contends that Israel worsened the plight of Gaza’s population when it had the chance to improve it, and therefore extend and build upon any truce.
In the meantime, Israel’s attacks on the West Bank (where there are no rocket attacks and Hamas is not in power) continued, as did the confiscation of West Bank land and construction of settlements.
Over 20 Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza in the last month of the ‘ceasefire’. Tens more died as a result of being unable to travel for urgent medical care either through Israel or Egypt.
This week, Israel began a global PR campaign to recruit support for a widescale attack on Gaza, one that would cause huge losses in Palestinian civilian lives. That an occupying power needs a pubic relations campaign to make the murder of civilians acceptable points to a serious policy failure (and the moral bankruptcy of Israel’s actions towards the people it made refugees 60 years ago). The thing is, it won’t work. If Israel had the military ability to destroy Hamas as a political and military faction, it would have done so years ago.
Led by Hamas, the Palestinian factions have said they are willing to abide by another ceasefire immediately in Gaza if the borders are reopened. That would be a free PR win for Israel right there, with no need to spin the needless killing of hundreds of civilians.
Related posts:
- One Day In
- Ceasefire? Fuck No.
- Breaking: Israeli incursion into Gaza
- Israel kills in Gaza again
- Back to Black
Again, I think Israel’s policy in Gaza has been a total failure, too.
That said, what should Israel’s response be if the blockade is ended, the people of Gaza can trade freely… and the rocket attacks on Sderot don’t stop? How should inaction be sold to the democratic public?
Posted by Joe | December 24, 2008, 3:27 pmHamas has promised an end to rocket fire if the blockade is completely lifted.
What does Israel have to lose if they lift the blockade? If Hamas does not keep its word it will have the “real proof” that Hamas is not interested in peace.
Its true that the rocket attacks are terrible but less than 10 people have died to Qassam rocketfire from Gaza in the 7 years that Hamas has employed the Qassam rocket. If the blockade is lifted and Hamas does not abide by its side of the agreement Israel really wont lose much at all.
The blockade only got tighter during the truce just like the settlements got bigger during the aftermath of the Oslo Accords.
Besides, Israelis would benefit from cheap Gazan produce.
Posted by Arayus | December 24, 2008, 11:11 pm“”Hamas has promised an end to rocket fire if the blockade is completely lifted.
What does Israel have to lose if they lift the blockade? If Hamas does not keep its word it will have the “real proof” that Hamas is not interested in peace.”"
Again, we agree on this.
That doesn’t answer the thought experiment, though. If that happens — if Hamas doesn’t keep its word — what would be a legitimate course of action for Israel to take?
What I’m wondering, basically, is *if that were to happen*, not saying it will, but *if it did*, what course of action could Israel take that the writers/posters here wouldn’t see fit to condemn?
“”Its true that the rocket attacks are terrible but less than 10 people have died to Qassam rocketfire from Gaza in the 7 years that Hamas has employed the Qassam rocket.”"
A couple of points:
1) This is because the rockets are ineffective, not because Hamas’ intentions are somehow better. A military action doesn’t become ‘more moral’ simply because it’s ineffective.
Being less powerful does not give you greater moral authority, just as being more powerful does not give you greater moral authority.
2) Not all that many people died in suicide bombings, either, relative to the total size of Israel, but that doesn’t begin to calculate the damage it did; life in Israel before the wall, and after the wall, is night and day.
(Side note: Can we agree that the general idea of *having* a wall between Israel and the West Bank is very good, even if we’re both displeased with the specific route?)
The number of people killed isn’t the primary way of calculating the damage of a form of attack; the rockets are designed to make normal life impossible in southern Israel. For instance, if you were calculating 9/11′s overall damage to America, the 3,000 lives lost would certainly be a significant part of it, but it’s not the only consideration by a long shot.
Posted by Joe | December 25, 2008, 12:14 pm