(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Should There Be a Ceasefire in Gaza? A few questions... [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-10-27 The purpose of this post is to ask a sincere question. In the Israel vs. Hamas conflict, what is the goal of a ceasefire? Today the Israeli effort to eliminate Hamas from Gaza after their inhuman attack on civilians continues well into its third week. As the death toll continues to mount, calls are growing, particularly on my side of the political spectrum (Left. Or, as Marjorie Taylor Greene would say “Communist Fascist Vegetable lover”) for a ceasefire. A ceasefire surely has some surface appeal. The human suffering filling our screens every hour of every day is brutal to watch. But I find that things in life, and particularly regarding decades-long international conflicts are never simple. So with regards to a cease fire, I have a few questions. Let’s see if we can start with some basic principles that we can all agree on. First Principle: War is just God awful. What the actual fuck is wrong with us as a species that we’ve chosen the mass destruction of each other was a way to resolve disputes? Surely, there must be a better way to settle our differences. Some fair international tribunal, rock, paper, scissors. Anything would be better. Second Principle: Despite how utterly stupid and destructive war is, sometimes there are reasons why it is necessary for nations to fight. Self-defense is one such reason. If someone is coming to kill you and your citizens, you have the right, even the obligation to do whatever is necessary to stop them. This should not be controversial. Every single nation in the world has an army, whether they are democracies, dictatorships, or my personal favorite, military juntas. Third Principle: If armed conflict does break out the nature of war dictates that some civilians will be harmed. This has always been true but is particularly true now that we have evolved from fighting with rocks and swords to bombs and missiles. There are steps you can take to mitigate the harm to civilians (not using them as human shields comes to mind), but at the end of the day, lots of innocent people are going to die in any war, which brings us back to our First Principle. Fourth Principle: When there is a war, a ceasefire, if adhered to by both sides, or hell, even adhered to by only one side, will save lives. Fewer people will die if fewer rockets are flying. Fifth Principle: The fact that innocent people will die does not, in itself, require a ceasefire in all circumstances. Sometimes, circumstances require that at least one side continue fighting despite the indisputable inevitability of civilian deaths. For example, nobody was seriously suggesting that the allied forces in World War 2 enter into a cease fire with Germany after Normandy. A cease fire would have only served to allow Hitler time to regroup and dig in. Ultimately, it may have resulted in the Nazis remaining in power in Germany and beyond. That was unacceptable and thus, America and its allies had to continue to prosecute the war to its conclusion. Applying these principles to the situation in the Middle East it is clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against the sort of inhuman, animalistic attack on its civilians perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. Any nation would have that right, and any nation that could would exercise it. It is also clear that this war is extracting a terrible toll on civilians. This toll is worsened by Hamas’s propensity to use its own civilians as human shields, but let’s be honest, even if this were not the case, the toll on non-combatants, including children and the elderly, would be horrific. It is also true that a ceasefire would, for a time, save both Israeli and Palestinian lives. The big question then becomes whether such a ceasefire is the correct course of action. In answering that big question, there is a threshold question that has to be answered, and that is, what does the ceasefire lead to? In other words, what’s the plan? If it is a short-term ceasefire to allow in humanitarian aid, then the answer is that the combat resumes after a few days, which lowers the stakes as well as the benefits of a ceasefire. But I don’t sense that’s what the protesters and politicians demanding a ceasefire are after, I think they are calling for a permanent, or at least long-term ceasefire with the hope that the conflict can be resolved without the necessity of resuming combat, ever. Sometimes cease fires lead to permanent peace accords, such as the one that ended the 1973 Arab invasion of Israel. Others just lead to an endless, permanent-ish freezing of the status quo, such as the armistice that ended the Korean war. Bonus points if you remembered that technically, the Korean war never ended and is ongoing. But it seems that any similar such result is not realistic here. Israel and Hamas are not two nations with a border dispute. Hamas is not demanding that Israel grant the Palestinians any rights, or really do anything. Hamas, in their charter, in their actions and in their public statements are very clear about their goals. They wish to wipe Israel completely and permanently off the map, and to kill Jews “wherever they might be found”. Thus, the historically normal resolutions of conflict are not available. There are no concessions Israel can make, no peace proposal Israel can offer in which Hamas has the slightest interest. There is no set of negotiations that can result in the two parties shaking hands and signing some piece of paper allowing everyone to move on with their lives. Given that, it seems to me that a long-term ceasefire really means that Israel unilaterally stops its military actions. It’s not even clear from the protests I’ve seen that Hamas, who is still launching hundreds of missiles into Israel per day, would be expected to comply. Hamas would then remain in power where they would begin (or continue) planning their next major attack on Israelis civilians a year from now, or maybe two, but eventually. And assuming that Israel is supposed to stop fighting and accept a rabidly violent entity, irredeemably committed to its destruction on its borders, the question begs as to what Israel is supposed to do the NEXT time Hamas slaughters a bunch of its citizens. Are they permitted to remove Hamas THEN? How about the time after that? Will there be more demands for a ceasefire? Is Israel expected to just keep accepting violence that they can’t legitimately respond to forever? Or at least until Hamas imports a weapon so destructive that perhaps Israel is finally wiped off the map? It seems to me that many of those calling for a ceasefire haven’t thought this through. What happens the day after the ceasefire? What finally ends this conflict if not the destruction of Hamas? What prevents the civilians of Gaza from having to endure more of these wars, year-after-year? Maybe militarily removing Hamas at a high cost in civilian lives isn’t the answer. Maybe there’s a better alternative. I’m certainly open to, even desperate for that. But any proposed course of action has to answer the questions that I’ve raised herein. Otherwise, a ceasefire will be nothing more than a short-term, meaningless, and perhaps even counter-productive pause in this horrific cycle of violence. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/10/27/2201960/-Should-There-Be-a-Ceasefire-in-Gaza-A-few-questions?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/