Gaza Caught in the Crossfire: Why Current Ceasefire Demands Miss the Mark

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has rightly sparked global concern and emotional pleas for a ceasefire. The images of suffering Palestinian civilians are harrowing. However, calls for Israel to unilaterally lay down arms while ignoring Hamas's role in the crisis risk neglecting a crucial aspect of the conflict: the asymmetrical nature of the threats faced by both sides.

On October 7th, Israel faced an unprecedented onslaught. Hamas, operating from a sophisticated network of tunnels beneath Gaza, killed, tortured and kidnapped over a thousand Israeli civilians and unleashed a barrage of rockets targeting civilian populations throughout Israel. This intricate underground system serves as both a weapons cache and a military base, establishing Hamas as an armed force operating from the heart of a densely populated city. It is hard to demand that Israel should allow an army to place its barracks under a populated city, from which it can repeat such attacks. 

Demanding a ceasefire without addressing Hamas's continued aggression and the strategic advantage it derives from its civilian shield is simply unrealistic and illogical.

It's true that both sides bear the responsibility to end the bloodshed. But the call for a ceasefire cannot equate the actions of a UN-recognised state defending its citizens with those of a militant group like Hamas, whose tactics demonstrably endanger both Israelis and Palestinians.

Equating Hamas to ISIS isn't hyperbole. Both groups espouse radical ideologies fueled by hate and a disregard for human life. Hamas's use of civilians as human shields mirrors ISIS's tactics, making them equally culpable for the suffering their actions inflict. It is worth remembering that by far the largest number of victims of ISIS were Muslim. Similarly, Hamas is a threat to Palestinian civilians even more than to Israelis.

Therefore, the international community's priority shouldn't be solely on pressuring Israel to stop its actions. Instead, it should demand a more balanced approach:

  • a step-by-step plan to reduce the hostilities, 

  • disarm Hamas and hold it accountable for the crimes it has committed against Palestinian and Israeli citizens, 

  • build a civilian Palestinian administration, 

  • in return for this, Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state. 

Only by addressing the asymmetry of the conflict and holding both sides accountable for their actions can we move towards a lasting peace that safeguards the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Let's not fall into the trap of simplistic solutions that ignore the complexities of this conflict. A true ceasefire requires demanding responsibility from both sides, not just one.

Comments

  1. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.31 December 2023 at 12:00

    Einstein is often credited with the saying that the definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. The above call for a "step-by-step plan" is what has been tried and tried again for the past 75 years. Besides being toothless, it is a proven futile approach. Putting all the blame on Hamas is also a self-defeating approach to peace making.

    Here is "A Realistic Plan for Lasting Peace between Israel and Palestine,"
    https://www.laprogressive.com/the-middle-east/lasting-peace-between-israel-and-palestine

    William J. Kelleher, PhD

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How times change - The Left’s change of attitude towards NATO

  The Year was 1983 The town was Sigonella, Sicily, Italy. Protests erupted against the deployment of cruise missiles in NATO bases across Europe. I vividly remember the demonstrations, even participating in some. The prevailing sentiment was a fear of being dragged into a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. A Different Worldview The United States represented capitalism, while the Soviet Union embodied communism. For many Europeans, the choice between these systems wasn't clear-cut. Germany passed legislation effectively banning the Communist Party. In Italy, a strong anticommunist elite took various legal and less-than-legal steps to prevent the Communist Party ever entering government. Other European countries experienced similar trends. As a result, for millions of Europe, NATO was thus seen as an instrument of oppression, of stifling democratic processes. In this climate, a significant portion of Europe's left-wing held a favorable or neutral view of th
Read more

Considerations on Russia, Ukraine and Certain Left-Wing Thinking

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a watershed moment in European history. It is a clear attempt to rebuild walls and iron curtains across Europe, reversing the momentous changes that took place in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. That was an epoch-changing event, which ended a 40-year long Cold War between a democratic and capitalist West (Western Europe plus the USA, Canada and Japan) and a Communist world which included dozens of countries on several continents, under the ideological and military leadership of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, communist parties all over the world were left in a state of crisis. Communist regimes collapsed, and in democratic countries, Communist parties had to adapt to the new reality, most of the time disbanding, joining other political movements, or mutating into broader-based progressive political formations. The few that survived have mostly stayed as small, marginal movements largely isolated from the mainstream left. More bro
Read more