Don't be fooled by the word "ceasefire"

Thankfully and finally, the Israeli attack on Gaza has come to a halt after three weeks of constant and horrific violence. Hamas and other allied political forces in Palestine have responded by offering a conditional ceasefire of their own. Like any sane person with a conscience, I am relieved. Hopefully, the pause in the violence will at least allow United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) staff and other rescue workers to provide basic humanitarian aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza and prevent more senseless deaths. However, Israel's offering of a supposed "ceasefire" is no cause for celebration. History shows us that there is little reason to accept Israel's public pronouncements at face value. As Justin Podur reminds us in his column on Z Net today, "Israel used the word "disengagement" in 2005 to mean continued occupation, control of movement, periodic massacre, and blockade [of Gaza]". An examination of the specifics of the "ceasefire" demonstrates that Israel has agreed to cease very little.

First and foremost, a unilateral Israeli cessation of military operations is by its nature weak and designed to give the the Israeli armed forces as much freedom to act as possible and avoid having to make concessions to Hamas, as Al Jazeera pointed out. Israel showed no interest in participating in an Egytpian-moderated ceasefire with externally verifiable conditions. Rather, by acting on their own, they have imposed their own conditions, or lack thereof. For instance, Israel has not agreed to end its land, sea, and air blockade of Gaza, or even to ease it. Israeli troops also remain on the ground in Gaza, armed to the teeth. This fact is the main reason why Hamas has only offered a conditional ceasefire; Hamas has stated it will resume its attacks on Israel unless they withdraw all of their troops from Gaza within a week (which appears highly unlikely). As such, the root cause of Hamas rocket fire, Israel's imprisonment of the people of Gaza, not only remains in force but has gotten worse thanks to the presence of Israeli soldiers in the strip. Of course, I do not condone Hamas's indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas. Nonetheless, As Israeli professor Neve Gordon argued on Democracy Now, the firing of rockets is an act of resistance to the increasingly severe Israeli occupation, the "primordial act of violence".

Given the conditions stated above, I believe it is likely that Israel will resume its assault on Gaza within a week, though at a lower intensity. However, even if Israel does not resume military operations within the strip, there is little chance life in Gaza will get better any time soon. Since Hamas was elected in 2006, Israel has been blockading the Gaza strip, collectively punishing the Palestinian people for voting in the wrong political party. The United States has openly supported this war crime and most European and Arab governments have been complicit in it. Further, all of these actors behaved similarly in the face of Israel's assault on Gaza, a far more intense and visible act of aggression than the less dramatic, though still deadly blockade. As such, I agree completely with Justin Podur that it's highly unlikely that any of these important regional and/or global actors will take any serious action to halt the intensification of Israel's occupation of Gaza, even if it involves the long-term re-introduction of Israeli troops.

Of course, the United States could fundamentally alter its policies towards Israel once Barack Obama is sworn into office this Tuesday. Unfortunately however, the likelihood of such a dramatic shift in American foreign policy is slim to none. The U.S. has supported Israeli aggression and blocked a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over forty years and many powerful interest groups in the United States support and/or benefit from Israeli violence. But hey, I can dream can't I? And in all honesty, is there anything Obama could do which would more clearly and dramatically demonstrate that his administration represents "change" from business as usual in Washington than ending our support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine? At least in terms of foreign affairs, I think not. Everyone who cares about this issue ought to realize, though, that a fundamental shift in American policy in the Middle East will only happen if average Americans organize a large movement in solidarity with the peoples of the region and, as Produr put it, "raise the cost" of imperialism. Only then will we get change we can believe in. Here's to hoping that the convergence of widespread public outrage at the recent round of overt Israeli violence and the election of Barack Obama will bring about a new era in America's relationship with the Middle East.