A Ceasefire is Not Peace
Making Peace in the Middle East is much more than taking credit for a ceasefire proposal. Making some people believe that is a waste of time and energy...
This morning’s big headline is “Israel-Gaza Ceasefire!” a very, very hopeful announcement which is based on an optimistic reading of what looks like a proposal for hostage/prisoner exchange. As of 11 am, Wednesday, January 15, 2025, what we know about the “ceasefire agreement” is this: A certain number of hostages/prisoners held by Hamas will be exchanged for a certain number of hostage/prisoners held by Israel. While these exchanges are happening, military activity between Israel and Hamas will stop.
If this is what is happening, it would only remain a ceasefire as long as no one starts shooting. Even if now one starts shooting, it will not be peace. There are two points – reported in the Washington Post – that are an obstacle to peace, especially peace which lasts past the “next provocation.” The Post says that Israel will establish a “buffer zone” in Gaza. The where, when, how, how long, and how big that zone is are not known right now, but any Israeli occupation of Gaza will not make for peace. Future Israeli control of the Netzarim Corridor, which bisects Gaza, is also an unknown. Any control over Netzarim will not make for peace.
The agreement is said to guarantee Palestinians return and resettlement of their Gaza homes, but the details are sparse, including how the guarantee won’t conflict with the proposed buffer zone and control over Netzarim. There’s no word on Palestinian rights, the right to their own homes, to peace, and to defend themselves from Israeli aggression, including takeover by Israeli settlers, a huge issue in the Palestinian West Bank, which also goes unmentioned in the ceasefire chatter – an insane omission to anyone who knows a bit about this mess.
Two more things, things that are definitely linked: First is that very soon after the press headlined the proposed ceasefire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced “No ceasefire,” which quickly became “We have more to work out.” The second thing is that the current Israeli government is very right-wing, extremely militaristic, pro-apartheid (in practice if not words), totally dedicated to political and territorial Zionism, and addicted to violence.
For both Netanyahu and his far-right allies, Israel’s recent wars have been a grand success. They’ve smashed long-time enemies (Hamas, Hezbollah), crippled an adversary (Iran), and have seen one age old nemesis get run out (Syria’s Assad). They did all this without losing one cent of U.S. aid or seeing many Israelis die. And now they have near control over Gaza, a region that the Israeli-right has long claimed their own.
If it wasn’t for those pesky hostages, Netanyahu and his pals wouldn’t feel compelled to negotiate anything. They’ve won, which is why they get to set the terms of the “ceasefire,” which is why we are not seeing anything that challenges the Israeli right’s territorial claims. Problem for Netanyahu and the right is that, while all believe in a “Greater Israel,” none of them agrees on what that means.
Greater Israel is currently a fiction, an aspiration of the Israeli right, an omen for those non-Israelis who live in whatever Greater Israel is. I qualify “Greater Israel” because factions within the Israeli-right do not agree on what land makes up their ideal Israel. Those who look to the Bible for borderlines (the “Promised Land”) come up with conflicting boundaries, depending on what Old T passage they pimp.
Advocates of a “historical” Greater Israel have a lot of maps to chose from. There’s the map of the first Kingdom of Israel (1047–931 BCE), the second Kingdom of Israel (930–c.720 BCE), and the Kingdom of Judah (930–587 BCE). There’s Israel of the “Second Temple” and, later, the Israel created under the Balfour Declaration and during the British Mandate for Palestine. Zionists in Israel’s early years had their ideas (often in conflict), ideas that don’t mesh with Israeli expansionists of the 1960s and 1970s.
Not only is there tension between Netanyahu/Israeli-right and Gazans/Palestinians, but there’s tensions between the Israeli right as to what a Greater Israel means, how to achieve it, and how that will make for a “lasting peace.” So, yeah, maybe a ceasefire but definitely not peace or even a path to peace. For that to happen, the main players and their visions must change.
Although I disagree with President Biden’s Israeli policy, especially in regards to Israel’s wars, from the get-go he has been trying to stop the violence and destruction happening in Gaza. Most of that work has gone on in private, away from the media or anything that could trip up negotiations. What we know about those negotiations, we know from leaks to the press, which only give us a fraction of the story. We don’t know how hardline or soft Biden’s team have been. We don’t know how difficult either Hamas leadership or Netanyahu have been. Hell, we don’t know who has been in the room or what exactly has been offered and rejected and molded and massaged to get to this announcement.
What we do know is that Donald Trump is taking credit, even though he is not president and not directly involved in anything. Trump announced “his” victory on his social media site, making no mention of Biden or the path to this “ceasefire” – totally expected. And, to be fair, Trump has a small tiny-hand in the talks. The Post reports, “Steve Witkoff, President-elect Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, has also played an instrumental role, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend to express Trump’s interest in attaining a deal before his inauguration on Monday.”
Wikoff being involved makes sense. While Biden’s team has had success moving Hamas towards a ceasefire and “hostage exchange,” there’s toxic tension between him and Netanyahu, tension which Netanyahu has deftly exploited. Trump and Netanyahu are pals. Wikoff is Trump’s man. Wikoff might have some pull with Netanyahu, he might get Israel to agree to something. That said, if Wikoff is Trump’s man and if Wikoff is responsible for getting Israel to agree to something and if Netanyahu is already saying, “No” – if Israel sinks the ceasefire, Trump is to blame. I mean, if you attach yourself to a process, especially when you take responsibility for what could be success, when everything goes to shit, you get the blame, even when you claim victory for negotiations that have been happening for nearly two-years, when you were out of power.
It's situations like this that expose Trump as the man that he is. No one in their right mind puts their name on a “maybe,” especially a maybe as sketchy as Middle East Peace. No one with a clear view of the world believes that their existence negates centuries of tension, violence, and war in Palestine/Israel. No one except Trump, who pulled a similar thing with North Korea.
Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jung Un started off Trump’s first term with a lot of hefty war-talk and insults. The long it went on, the more absurd it became and the more worried the public became. And then, one day, the men started exchanging “love letters,” which led to a meeting, which turned into a Bromance, which saw Trump talking about World Peace and a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump. And then in 2020, Trump lost and the United State’s relationship with North Korea stabilized into the Cold War it has been since the 1950s.
Aside from a brief Bromance between two horrible people, Trump did absolutely nothing that changed the relationship between the two countries, and, yet, he took (and still takes credit) for an imaginary peace process and a fake peace. On the ground, everyone knows this. Just as they know that an Israel/Gaza ceasefire does not mean Middle East Peace. Trump can talk all he wants, the world spins the way the world spins, and he’s not going to change that.
Here's the point where someone interjects, “What about his supporters? His base will still believe that he’s responsible. What about that?” Here’s my answer, a slap-back (slightly edited) that I gave when someone did the supporters-what-about regarding Trump’s fire talk:
Trump’s base doesn’t matter. His base doesn’t matter. His base doesn’t matter. And we don’t matter, as far as what he says. We and they know what we and they believe. Nothing Trump says is going to change reality for his base or for us. However, what Trump says does impact the mainstream. It can, if allowed, become part of the debate. And once it is we go from trying to figure out the best strategy to fight a wildfire or a pandemic, or the best way to move to renewable energy or peace anywhere, to arguing about whether fire is real, horse pills are good for human, if windmills cause cancer, and if Trump is Jesus the Peace Bringer.
Basically, if we stick to Trump, we become stuck in nonsense while everything falls apart around us. When we focus on his base, we start catering to that base, and stop insisting that reality is real while we fruitlessly try to change people who aren’t going to change. Stop. The point is not to change them - that’s bullshit liberal kumbaya garbage - the point is to crush them, and if their defeat makes them wake up, great. If they don’t, who fucking cares.
Whether it be in war, sports, or any other competition: It is folly to focus on what you can’t control. What we definitely can’t control is the “other side.” Our influence over our competitors is limited to “how we play our game.” We get distracted and start trying to change others, and we lose focus, which gives them an opening. We focus on what we can control –what we do and say – we give them no opening. When we focus on our actions, informed by what we know of our opponents, then we have an edge. That is why it is important to discuss this stuff and especially important to clear away the what-abouts/what-ifs, and focus on the only thing we control: Our individual actions.