Are Israel and Hamas buying time for the next round?

 

West Palm Beach, Florida

November 25, 2012

 

Detached from a wider Arab-Israeli peace framework, the recently brokered cease-fire, between Hamas and Tel Aviv, stands on shaky grounds. Threats to this rushed settlement come from all sides. 

A day after basking in the glory of success in brokering a tough truce Egyptian President Morsi issued a decree to acquire immunity from the courts. Cairo street demonstrations are calling for Morsi to return to his senses. This is a fresh and clear indication that Egypt is too unstable to guarantee a tenuous truce between two parties who seem to have resorted to sign a peace document in order to buy time.

Hamas is exhausted from devastating air strikes and Israel is afraid to get bogged down in Gaza. The eyes of Jerusalem are focused on Tehran, perceived as the primary threat to Israel.

Within hours of the cease-fire announcement, the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, bragged about the victory of the resistance and full readiness for future battles with the Jewish state.  He said:

"This is a round that will be followed by more rounds; the victory brings victory and the defeat brings defeat, and Israel has been defeated in Gaza twice."

Israel’s leaders emerged from this crisis with equally irritating, triumphal sentiments. Prime Minister Netanyahu warned the people of Gaza that his defense forces will return with a heavier blow if violence erupts again.

On either side, there seems to be no sign of change in attitude, learning from the past or attention paid to the political context which underlies the crisis: an occupation blocking the birth of a Palestinian state and leading Israel to perpetual insecurity.  

The Netanyahu government calls the West Bank by its Biblical name “Judea and Samaria”. Israel’s sense of entitlement to the land grows as the occupation lingers. Building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues.  Despite their official pronouncements to the contrary, Israel’s current leaders do not believe in a two-state solution.

The cease-fire has no chance to survive for long in a climate of a moribund peace process. The language of the cease fire is left vague perhaps because neither side believes it is realistic.

A central feature of this shaky settlement is lifting the siege on Gaza to allow free “access of people and goods”. Will Israel open its borders to a party it insists on considering to be a terrorist organization?

Another crucial term in the agreement is the termination of Hamas’ smuggling of arms from Iran and elsewhere. Will Hamas stop secret import of arms while Israel threatens to attack Gaza any time in the future? Hamas has lost much of its arms and infrastructure; rearmament is expected in a position of high vulnerability.

An early break in the cease-fire is not expected; it would threaten the re-election of Netanyahu. Calm may prevail for two to three months to allow current leaders of this Israeli government to receive a new mandate for “disciplining” Iran and its allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. The next Israeli adventure is planned for Iran.

Three simultaneous developments are required to save the cease-fire and widen the chances of a regional peace:

First, the two rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fateh, must rush for unity to establish a common front for assertive peace negotiation with Israel.  The upcoming submission of an application for Palestinian non-member status in the United Nations Assembly, scheduled for November 29, may divert the efforts of the Palestinians and give Israel an excuse to undermine the Palestinian cause.

Second, a re-elected, more comfortable President Obama must take urgent steps to revive the Arab-Israeli peace process. By helping Egypt broker Gaza’s cease fire, it is imperative that Washington provide the appropriate context for achieving a wider peace

Third, Israel should start negotiating directly with Hamas, if it intends to address the interests of all the Palestinian people.

The Gaza cease-fire will soon atrophy if it remains in a narrow political context.