Why a ceasefire in Israel won’t work --- for now
On October 7th Hamas terrorists engaged in a large-scale attack on Israel, specifically targeting civilians and a few military sites leading to the deaths of an estimated 1400 Israeli citizens.
Within a few days of the initial attack, people in the region and members of America’s left mindlessly, and very quickly, called for a ceasefire.
Some may have genuinely wanted a cessation of hostilities, but their comments were directed at the Israelis. The Israeli had not conducted operations at that time, so this would have meant only that Hamas terrorists got the first and only punch thrown in the episode.
Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in one her more sophomoric statements, called for “an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation” that was “urgently needed to save lives” on October 7th, the day of Hamas’ brutal attack on Israeli civilians.
Likewise, Democrat congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, in one of her posts on X, wrote on October 16th, “(w)e must legislate to save lives now. Calling for urgent de-escalation and facilitating a ceasefire is how we do it.”
Ceasefires are often seen when negotiations are possible and wanted. Some ceasefires are initiated when neither side wants to surrender and both sides simply want it all to end.
In a political sense a ceasefire has a degree of permanence. It can be for a short duration, but the implication is that it is a pathway to cessation of hostilities.
One example is the settling of the Korean War. The South Koreans, backed by U.N. forces (mostly the U.S.), and the North Koreans, backed predominantly by China, were persuaded to stop open hostilities, and govern their respective areas as they saw fit in 1953.
Thus, a ceasefire has existed on the Korean peninsula for 70 years.
In the Hamas war on Israel neither side seeks to stop the fighting. Hamas and their international backers call for ceasefire as a battlefield tactic.
A ceasefire would allow Hamas forces to regroup, rearm, and resupply. It would also allow their leaders to survive to fight another day.
Hamas has no desire to negotiate anything.
A Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad, said on LBC International (TV), October 24, 2023, (translated by MEMRI TV) as much as said Israel must be destroyed.
“Israel is a country that has no place in our land,” Hamad said. “We must remove that country because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe, to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this with full force.”
When asked, “Does that mean annihilation of Israel?” Hamas said, “Yes of course. The existence of Israel is illogical.”
The Hamas terrorists are incapable of repelling the Israel Army and are instead engaged in an information campaign, unfortunately supported at some U.S. college campuses and by a few, but vocal, U.S. politicians.
The messages are not based on facts, most of which are either observably untrue or are merely attempts at tactical advantage.
Message: “Israel is conducting a genocide against the Palestinians.” This is a red herring. If Israel truly sought genocide, their forces were and are very capable of doing so in quick fashion using air, missiles, and rockets.
In the context of war, Israeli forces rooting out Hamas leaders and destroying sites that have a military use. Civilians have been killed – as they have in almost every war, and this is indeed war but it is clear that targeting of civilian is not central to Israel operation. Only Israel is being admonished to follow the rule of war. Not a word from the same people calling for ceasefire is aimed at Hamas.
Let’s not forget who initiated this war.
Message: “From the river to the sea.” It is clear that the meaning of this phrase, as Noa Tishby, an Israeli actress wrote on X, is that it “means from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, will be free from Israel, where nine million Jews, Muslims, and Christians live.” It is a death chant.
This phrase works best with internal Hamas audiences and sympathizers.
Despite the obvious meaning, Rashida Tlaib wrote on her own X account, “(f)rom the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.” A discernable lie.
Message: “There is a need for a humanitarian pause” The aforementioned call for a ceasefire is becoming a call for an intentionally vague “humanitarian pause.” It has all the same advantages as a ceasefire for Hamas in the sense of the pro-Hamas crowd.
Combat pauses, or truces, have long been seen in combat, after the battle of Gettysburg for instance, there was a pause that allowed the North and South to collect their dead on the battlefield. No one considered that as having permanence and all were sure the battle would rage on.
Nobody on the pro-Hamas side is looking at something so simple. They want it all and they are not shy about saying so. They are also not in the state of mind to discuss it.
James Hutton is a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jehutton
Very well written, sir. I appreciate your point of view.
There is a huge disconnect between the two sides on this one. True anti-Semites think Israel shouldn’t exist and now have the pro-Muslims to back them up. Why are there pro-Muslims? Who knows?