Ceasefire or Surrender. What’s it Gonna Be?

 As appeared on my Times of Israel blog.

 

Many people, including pro-Hamas/Palestinian demonstrators, governments, politicians, and the mainstream news media are calling for a ceasefire to the Hamas-Israel war. While Israel and Hamas have been back and forth to the negotiating table, what should be the best outcome to such discussion? Words like “ceasefire,” “permanent ceasefire,” and “comprehensive ceasefire” are being thrown around.

Where are the fervent demands for Hamas to “surrender?” They were the ones who launched a brutal attack on October 7, 2023. During that invasion, and up until today, they are violating nearly every international law and humanitarian convention.

What should really be happening at the negotiating table?

According to the laws of war, a truce, ceasefire, and surrender refer to very different concepts related to halting combat. Let’s define and explain each term:

Truce: A truce is a temporary agreement between warring parties to stop fighting for a certain period or in a specific area. Truces can be used for various reasons, such as allowing humanitarian aid, evacuating civilians, or facilitating negotiations for a longer-term resolution. Unlike a ceasefire, a truce might not necessarily indicate a broader intention to end the conflict, but rather to create a brief pause in hostilities.

Ceasefire: A ceasef­­ire is an agreement to halt fighting, typically as a precursor to peace talks or negotiations. They do not necessarily imply that the conflict has ended. Ceasefires may be indefinite (i.e. permanent) or for a specified duration. They are to be considered broken or violated if one or more parties resume hostilities. 

Surrender: Surrender refers to one party in a conflict agreeing to give up its position, weapons, or personnel to another party. This can happen when a nation or military force formally agrees to stop fighting and submit to the authority of the opposing party. Surrender can be unconditional or involve conditions or terms that govern how the surrendering party is treated and what happens afterward, such as disarmament, imprisonment, or replaced governance (Mandate). Surrendering parties are often afforded certain protections under international humanitarian law, such as the Geneva Conventions, to ensure humane treatment.

Ever since Israel retaliated to the horrendous and numerous attacks of October 7, Hamas has been demanding a complete withdrawal by Israel, insisting on a "permanent ceasefire," and a number of other terms usually dictated by a victor to a surrendering enemy. The return of the inhumanly treated hostages are almost a Hamas afterthought.

However, unlike a surrender, the term "permanent ceasefire" does not guarantee that fighting will never resume. It merely indicates a commitment by the parties involved to cease hostilities permanently. But such agreements can easily break down due to various factors, including changing political dynamics, breaches of agreement, or resurgence of underlying tensions. While a permanent ceasefire can be seen as a milestone on the path to lasting peace, it requires ongoing commitment, monitoring, and sometimes third-party mediation or peacekeeping to maintain stability.

For any ceasefire to succeed and really be permanent, it requires that the parties involved stop trying to kill each other. That is easy for Israel to agree to as its actions have always been defensive: don’t fire rockets or invade or engage in terrorist activities and we will leave you alone. In fact, Israel has been quietly providing Hamas’ Gaza with water and electricity for many years before the October 7 conflict started.

The same attitude needs to be demanded of Hamas. Their 2017 “policy document” of charter (see Articles 2, 3, 19, 20) all call for the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel. A simple internet search will spell it out in gory detail.

Without demanding a complete and comprehensive change to the Hamas charter (as well as those of other terrorist organizations also under the command of the puppet master, Iran) the time, effort, and money spent on any type of ceasefire is obviously futile.

The question must be asked: Why are the world powers (especially the United States) pressuring Israel (as evidenced by the US repeatedly trying to weaken Israel’s negotiating hand) to agree to a “ceasefire” of any sort when only “surrender,” including return of hostages, demilitarization, leadership trials for crimes against humanity and international law, and reeducation of the populous to not want to kill their neighbor is the correct course of action?

If such a course of action would be taken, then the economic rebuilding of Gaza (like the world has done for the aftermath of conflicts in Vietnam, Germany, and Japan), which is the better solution for any innocent civilians of the area, can begin.

 

 

# # #

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Getting Beyond the Conflict. Its them. Not us.

Mitchell Bard’s recent article ( War-gaming ‘hasbara’ December 8 JNS) puts forth a very interesting concept: Treat government Hasbara (public diplomacy) as one more weapon in the military arsenal. Therefore, make the messaging part of the military’s planning and execution to be prepared before (similar to air force bombardment softening the ground for a ground invasion) and during the events. However, Israel seems to always be in the middle of some event. His idea is very interesting, needed, and should be explored. It adds to Melanie Phillips’ insightful article “ Why Israel needs a strategy to shape the narrative ” (JNS November 26, 2021) where she correctly proclaims “it is absolutely astounding that Israel still has no centralized communications strategy. Instead, different agencies feud with each other to put out largely uncoordinated responses to the propaganda onslaught that has hijacked language and all but rewritten the Jews out of their own historic story.” Unfortunat...
Read more

Yishuv ≠ Settlement. Israelis ≠ Settlers.

Appeared in the Jerusalem Post , August 15, 2023 under the headline: There is no such thing as an Israeli ‘settler’ in the West Bank   According to the Cambridge dictionary a settler is a person who arrives, especially from another country, to a new place in order to live there and use the land. A settlement, according to vocabulary.com, is a colony or any small community of people . However, these definitions take on negative connotations when it pertains to Israel and Israelis. Even Israeli media has headlines such as “Settlers arrested after deadly clash in Palestinian village.” Various Biblical texts refer to Israel as a “land flowing with milk and honey.” This description is in stark contrast to Mark Twain’s observations in 1867 that Israel (then called Palestine) was a desolate and barren country in both people and vegetation. It was only after the start of the aliyah movement in the late 1800’s, when many Jew...
Read more

Palestine By Any Other Name Is Still Israel

What’s in a name? An often-asked question whose answer is complicated. Why does the media call them Arab towns but Israeli settlements ? Why did Greece protest when a new country, located to their north, named itself Macedonia, and then forced by the outcry to rename itself North Macedonia? Why does my mother insist I am David and not Dave? The simple answer: Words have meaning. There is history and nuance behind words and names. So here is a little light history. The ancient dates below are approximate. Timeline through history. When Abraham, the first monotheist and Jew, answered G-d’s call it was the beginning of Judaism; 2075 BCE. After 410 years of slavery in Egypt, traveling through the desert for 40 years and receiving the 10 Commandments, the Jewish people (aka The Children of Israel), settled in the Promised Land (Israel) around 1250 BCE and established their kingdoms. When Constantine proclaimed the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, considered by many to be the beginn...
Read more