I keep hearing demands for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, mainly from the pro-Palestinian left. Generally speaking there's nothing wrong with this. As Churchill said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
But is there any reason at all to think that Hamas would agree to a ceasefire? I mean, neither would Israel, but the demand implies that only Israel is standing in the way of jaw-jaw. Does anybody have the slightest evidence for this?
Since Israel has been the bully for so many years, I think it's time for them to take a first step. My opinion only.
"My opinion only."
Indeed.
Those are the kind of opinions you might want to keep to yourself.
I can't think of a reason Hamas wouldn't agree to a ceasefire, now they have little opportunity for further successful offensive operations. Unless of course their strategic goal is to draw the IDF into a long period of urban conflict, in which case it's the Israelis who should think long and hard about continuing the conflict.
Concur.
I think, though, our good host's phrasing leaves it up in the air whether he's saying Hamas is *proposing* a ceasefire, as the heading seems to imply, or whether they'd *agree* to one. There's a world of difference. Are they proposing it, or angling indirectly for it? There's plenty of reason for them to try sidling into a ceasefire, and accepting a brokered ceasefire would have absolutely zero implications for what they ultimately want to do. At the very least ceasefires have been good chances to resupply and reposition, so why not?
Or do these proposals come from groups that don't have any connections to Hamas, or might even be committed enemies? I can think of plenty of reasons why pro-Palestinian groups across the spectrum might propose a ceasefire completely independent of anything Hamas says or wants.
I don't know what Hamas would actually do but agreeing to a cease fire would be the smart move.
Agreeing to a ceasefire soon isn't a smart move for Hamas. They want the Islamic Street raging against Israel (and America) to kill off the various Arab-Israel normalization deals in the works. The longer the fighting goes on—the higher the Palestinian body count—the nearer they come to this goal. Also, Hamas senior leadership by all accounts are safe in Qatar. Hamas's strategy is similar to Al Qaeda's 22 years ago: provoke a largescale kinetic war. So far Bibi is obliging them.
"Agreeing to a ceasefire soon isn't a smart move for Hamas. ..."
Sure it would be. Israel would be exposed as a paper tiger, ill-prepared to be attacked and unable to respond effectively.
As a ceasefire is unlikely to be particularly long-lived, a ceasefire for them is likely useful and normalisation has already taken a huge hit. A regroup before Israeli ground attack that is apparently inevitable has utility.
This is not how Israel operates.
Even IF both sides wanted a wartime ceasefire (Hamas does not, they are finding success drawing Arab nations toward their cause), Nili is still going to spend the next 2-3 years killing every Hamas fighter involved in this vile attack on civilians.
Well, yes, a ceasefire likely is used by Hamas for regroup to prepare (more) for ground operations, which was certainly their 2nd step expectation
Not to offer a defence of the hypocritical Netanyahu governments series of faux negotiations, but Hamas is no more reliable nor honest an actor than Netanyahu Faction.
In the 90s when the 2-state solution was agreed-to, Hamas kept sending suicide bombers to upset the pact. It worked. Of course, Israel's far-right worked to sabotage it too.
I think a large majority of Israelis at this point have given up on peace and gone all in on the notion that the only way out is to get rid of Hamas. They don't want a cease-fire, they want to end Hamas right now.
The only way a cease-fire can work is if it's parallel to negotiations to restart the 2-state solution. Short of that, I doubt the Israeli public would support a cease-fire.
"The only way a cease-fire can work is if it's parallel to negotiations to restart the 2-state solution."
Given the states of things there, I don't see how this is even remotely possible. Before the recent Hamas attacks, Hamas rule the Gaza strip as their own personal, authoritarian fiefdom. There were no elections, little freedom, no transparency, and no checks and balances. At the same time, Hamas still stated their goal for the destruction of Israel. Even school kids are taught to hate Jews in Israel. Why would Israel even consider recognizing Gaza as a part of a new Palestinian state?
For now, the failure of democracy in both Gaza and the West Bank has doomed hopes for a two-state solution. Maybe if Israel wipes out Hamas, some new Gaza/West Bank unity government can be formed and revive some hope for a two-state solution. This implies the opposite of a cease fire is needed. Not claiming I know the best path forward.
Failure of democracy in West Bank???
The failure of Israeli (Netanyahu faction) policy in West Bank as expansion of settlements has made nonsense of any Palestinian Authority - a powerless puppet in the face of occupation has no credibility in the end.
Wiping out Hamas is functionally impossible unless there are other options and there can not be other options when the only path open is inch-by-inch expansion of occupation behind the tattered facade of a pretence of negotiations etc. Population will desperately turn to any promise of a way out, Hamas, Islamic Jihad whatever.
The two most serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis foundered on the fact that Israel insisted on keeping settlements they built on occupied territory. These negotiations accepted that there would have to be a period of transition. Abbas' proposal didn't really give the Palestinians a state, it just set conditions that could eventually become a state.
What makes peace impossible is that Israel insists on keeping settlements that were built to make peace impossible. Olmert's offer was better than Barak's but neither was likely to lead to peace.
What you are pointing to are excuses. Hamas controls Gaza. The PA controls the West Bank and under Abbas has cooperated on security with the Israelis. If the Israelis wanted peace then the West Bank would be moving towards something that could be the foundation of a Palestinian state. In the real world every Israeli government has changed facts on the ground to make the West Bank less suitable for peace.
Hamas wants Israel to disappear: this goal is stated in the Hamas charter. I am not clear how a ceasefire puts Hamas, a terrorist organization, closer to their goal.
"...I am not clear how a ceasefire puts Hamas, a terrorist organization, closer to their goal."
It leaves them in charge of Gaza. From where they can brag about their tremendous victory and plan their next attack. While seeing how much they can extort for the hostages they hold.
I don't know what Hamas would actually do but agreeing to a cease fire would be the smart move.
The initial assault was meant to draw in the attack...we've only seen the opening moves. There is no other way to look at it. What the endgame is I haven't a clue.
Aside from that the solution must be radical. And invasion, occupation, and martial law is not radical, it's status quo. Waking up entrenched and now entirely horrified and fearful minds to think differently is very close to impossible.
I have read two theories of Hamas’ object, a) that the scale of the killing and the atrocities against civilians would provoke such a vicious response by Israel that others (Hezbollah? Iran?) would be compelled to launch large-scale attacks of their own; b) that Hamas has been holding secret, advanced weapons in reserve, ready to be unleashed against the expected Israeli invasion. The US has certainly taken a) seriously, and has warned third parties against entering the conflict.
It seems to be generally thought that Hamas spent a year or more planning their assault; one would think that they must have thought about the likely consequences, at least on occasions.
“One would think they must have thought about the likely consequences, at least on occasions”.
Yet extremist radical groups often tend to follow their own irrational logic while ignoring the obvious consequences; as a prime example consider our own Republican House majority.
I'd guess they expected the Arab world to rally to their cause, disrupt the normalization of relationships between Israel and Gulf nations and have other actors take up arms against Israel.
They have goaded Israel into a ground invasion and have protests against the Israeli response going on around the world already. People in Gaza may not like Hamas rule, but they definitely do not like being bombed. I don't know how Israel could leave once the invasion happens, nor how they could stay. Even by "losing" Hamas could still be furthering its goals.
Since Israel's ally, the United States, has vetoed a UN attempt to get a temporary cease fire for humanitarian reasons, it seems reasonable to assume Israel is not interested in a cease fire.
When I was in small business (Plumbing and Electrical contracting) I learned the Iron Rule of the Marketplace: People want what they want. It might not be what you think/know/believe is right/good/whatever, but you have to deliver what they want. Even when you think it's wrong.
Indeed. (Well one can choose not to do the business of course)
After fulfilling their sole military objective, the murder of as many Jews as possible (1400 men, women, children, babies) and kidnapping 200 more, a ceasefire could possibly be beneficial to Hamas.
It is likely that their ultimate goal is to spark a much wider conflict, involving Hezbollah , Syria, and Iran and all their client terrorist, and such spark will require a massive Israelis ground assault and thousands of civilians (human shields) in locked in place for the eventual large casualty count. The call for a ceasefire is solely from the Palestinian supporters in Europe and the US who refuse to believe that this wider war is their ultimate goal.
I imagine since hamas has achieved a hugely successful suprise attack and is now suffering from massive retaliation, they would agree to a ceasefire, but would adhere to the agreement exactly as long as they found it advantageous.
Regardless of what Hamas wants, there will not be a ceasefire till Israel has their chance to get into Gaza and investigate every piece of land they want to investigate. This will primarily consist of destroying tunnels and bunkers, though there is probably a list of squirrely above-ground features they also wish to investigate.
As always in politics look at the details. Sure Hamas would love an agreement that ends their pounding. But are they willing to give up their secrets in Gaza (ie let the Israeli's come in and destroy whatever they want)? No? OK, then it's not a serious offer, and won't be treated as such.