Today, several backbench MPs as well as the major opposition parties in the UK Parliament are putting down amendments to the Kings Speech calling for either a significant humanitarian pause in the war or full and a formal ceasefire. These motions have little chance of passing and even if they did would change very little substantially both in terms of UK foreign policy and the reality on the ground in Gaza. In that sense, they are primarily about virtue signalling, which whilst often used pejoratively isn’t necessarily a bad thing, politicians and parties want to signal the virtues they value and even if they have no power in this situation, it does help us to know how they would act in contexts where they did have a level of power to change things.
I understand the sentiment behind many of the calls for a ceasefire. It’s important that we take them at face value. Those making the calls want peace but there again who isn’t in favour of peace? The question though is what will a just and lasting peace look like and does a ceasefire move us further towards that or further away.
Once again, it’s important to recognise the complexities of the situation. It’s worth pondering “why now?” From an Israeli perspective they are closing in on their objectives. In fact, with their troops now in face to face combat with Hamas units in Gaza city itself, any pause on their part without a clear exit strategy is likely to put not just their operation at risk but the lives of the men and women in the IDF. Perhaps some of us may feel that “well after all they got themselves into this mess” but we need to recognise that this moves us from any sense of a neutral position. It’s also important that we care for the lives of combatants, especially when they are in effect conscripted, not just civilians.
Now, crucially, any form of ceasefire is going to require trust. This is a commodity in short supply right now. Few of the key players in the Middle East and particularly Palestinians really trust Israel. That is understandable given the track record of settlers in the West Bank. However, it means that Israel are always going to have the challenge. Even when they say that they are taking humanitarian measures, their word is doubted. Their claims about the nature of their operation are not believed. This is particularly noticeable in terms of what has been happening around the hospital complexes. Israel insist that Hamas are using these hospitals as bases and have tunnels underneath. They’ve shown evidence, we even have had the BBC, perhaps unwittingly giving evidence for this by describing in today’s live feed how Hamas have run their press conferences out of the Al Shifa hospital. Yet, many, perhaps most people are unconvinced that Israel are not intentionally targeting civilians.
Of course trust cuts both ways. If people don’t trust Israel, a recognised democratic state, then how much more are they likely to distrust Hamas. Therein is the rub. A true ceasefire requires both sides to cease hostilities and that means respecting the spirit as well of the letter of the agreement. Most of us suspect that Hamas are unlikely to stop their own rocket attacks and even if they do, it will be to enable them to regroup for a future fresh offensive. So, perhaps the Labour Party motion is the most honest in recognising that at best all we can do is call for Israel to introduce more humanitarian pauses. Given that no one seems to really expect Hamas to comply, all calls for a cease-fire are heard not as a request for a bi-lateral response but rather as a demand for Israel to give up on her objectives.
Some of the motions, see for example the Liberal Democrat led one, insist that the aim should be a political solution where Hamas are no longer in power and in control of Gaza. The desire there is commendable but leaves two big questions. First of all, “How will that be achieved?” Hamas are unlikely to comply willingly. It seems that some form of military operation will be required but by whom? Then what happens after Hamas have left? Who takes charge? It doesn’t seem that the Palestinian Authority will be in a position to do so anytime soon and they have already been rejected by Gaza Palestinians. It would be unacceptable for most to see Israel returning to a full occupation of Gaza and this would probably be unpopular in Israel itself. Israel are unlikely to trust any of the surrounding nations and a return to Egyptian occupation would be as problematic as a new Israeli one.
In effect, the solution would require some form of UN force to be involved but remember that this would still be made up of troops from different countries. The same questions concerning trust, especially in relation to the UK and US would apply. Furthermore, those countries have to be willing to commit boots on the ground into an unstable and dangerous situation?
So, whilst it is easy to call for a ceasefire on marches and in parliamentary debates, actually achieving one is not so straight forward.
Faithroots 