Editorial: The politics of ceasefires

At another level, they also highlight the awful pointlessness and futility of what transpired earlier. The one that took effect between Israel and Hamas, after 10 days of savagery, claimed more than 200 lives, mainly of Palestinians, including women and children, in the Gaza Strip. In Israel, at least 12 people were killed by Hamas’ rockets, of which more than 4,000 were fired over the border. In retrospect, what has this achieved? Very little. Could it have been avoided? Yes.

At the end of the day, it was diplomats from countries such as Egypt and Qatar, who secured the peace, but it is important to underline that such ceasefires have broken very quickly in the past. Clearly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was under severe pressure to call off the fighting, by an international community that was horrified at the sheer brutality of the aerial and artillery attacks. Although said to target Hamas’ infrastructure, the collateral damage of this operation was shocking and unconscionable. As for Hamas, it has chosen to regard the ceasefire as its victory, but the truth is that the Israeli campaign has severely damaged Gaza’s public infrastructure, destroying schools and hospitals, and compromising the water and sewage systems. It was not clear how long Hamas was willing to go down a path that was causing so much pain to people.

Much has been written about the spark that led to this conflagration, the violent confrontation between worshippers and Israeli riot police at the Al-Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem, the third holiest site for Sunni Muslims. This was preceded by anxieties that Palestinian people in the area were about to be evicted, as a part of a larger plan, by Jewish settlers, an issue that the Israeli government describes as a land dispute.

But there is a larger and underlying reason for the sudden and savage breakout of hostilities. In an Israel that appeared to go towards another election, there are grave questions about whether Netanyahu’s desire to survive played a significant role in shaping his aggressive moves. Hamas, which countries such as Israel and the US regard as a terrorist organisation, intermittently needs to signal that it remains a strong resistance movement. It has found, to its dismay, many changes in the immediate neighbourhood. Last year, four countries – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco – recognised Israel. Hamas’ relations with Saudi Arabia have been in free fall, with the latter worried about the source of funding for much of the former’s activity – Iran.

The problem with the situation is that the larger questions that underlie the conflict remain unresolved. These relate to such things as the status of East Jerusalem, Jewish settlements, the right of Palestinians to return and water rights – issues that are far from easy to resolve. In the interim, both sides need to hold the peace – too much has already happened by way of the bloodshed of innocents over the past fortnight.