Daily Times

As I write this on Thursday afternoon, a UN requested ceasefire of six hours has gone into effect with Hamas agreeing to cease firing its rockets and Israel holding back its aerial attacks. Before this ceasefire however, the figures of attacks carried out and the damage done in Gaza — 1,800 targets hit, killing 222 and injuring some 1,700 — and in Israel –1,250 rockets fired, one Israeli killed and 120 odd Israelis treated mostly for anxiety attacks — showed the disproportion between the military capabilities of the two sides. UN figures say that 80 percent of the casualties in Gaza have been civilians, the most recent being the killing of four boys on an otherwise safe beach by Israeli naval shelling. Human Rights Watch, the reputed NGO, has said that Israeli targeting in Gaza could constitute war crimes, a charge that Israel has tried unsuccessfully to counter.

Earlier, the ceasefire proposed by Egypt and accepted by the Israeli cabinet in a six to two vote was said to have called for an immediate cessation of hostilities followed within 48 hours by Egypt-mediated talks to flesh out details along the lines of the 2012 ceasefire also mediated by Egypt — but then an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood with sympathy for Hamas. There was much talk about the divisions within the Hamas ranks on the acceptance of the Egyptian proposal on which they had not been consulted. Apparently, the military leaders prevailed. The futile rocket attacks continued and, after a six-hour pause, Israel resumed its aerial attacks.

Was there a sound rationale for the Hamas position? Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said in a television address on Monday: “The problem is not the ceasefire, the problem is the situation in Gaza.” Gaza residents talk of Gaza being “an open air prison” from which they cannot move out and in which every aspect of life faces restrictions. Israel occupied Gaza in 1967 and withdrew its forces only nine years ago. It still controls Gaza’s borders, airspace and its sea front. Its tough restrictions have reduced imports and exports, and have prevented all but a few Gazans from being able to leave the territory.

Hamas had apparently hoped that a ceasefire would include such things as an easing of the restrictions on border crossings both by the Egyptians and by the Israelis, the release of prisoners that Israel had rearrested after the kidnapping by unknown forces of the three Israelis that triggered the present crisis, and the transfer of funds from the Palestine Authority and other sources to allow Hamas to pay the salaries of the 40,000 odd Hamas employees in Gaza.

None of this was apparently included in the ceasefire proposal. Some observers even suggested that the ceasefire proposal drawn up by Egypt in consultation with the Israelis included, as one of the topics for discussion in the post-ceasefire talks, the complete disarming of Hamas before the lifting of the siege under which Gaza was currently living. Egypt’s present government is hostile to Hamas, which it accuses of fomenting trouble in Egypt’s troubled Sinai Peninsula and which will not, as far as one can see, lift the restrictions on its borders with Gaza until border control on the Gaza side is exercised by President Abbas’ Palestine Authority in place of Hamas.

Perhaps, as part of its psychological war, Israeli military spokespersons have told the media that the possibility of a ground invasion and reoccupation of Gaza was becoming more evident. Reservists for the Israeli defence forces have been called up in large numbers and estimates have been offered that the defence forces could take over Gaza in a matter of weeks if not days, even while conceding that stabilising the occupation would take many months. The Israeli foreign minister, occasional ally and occasional rival of Prime Minister Netanyahu, voted against the acceptance of the Egyptian ceasefire proposal and has advocated a ground operation, stating, “You can eliminate the terrorism infrastructure only when you deal with it from the ground.” Other Israeli leaders have echoed this sentiment.

The US has made repeated telephone calls and has called for restraint. President Obama has pledged to use “all of our diplomatic resources and relationships to support efforts of closing a deal on a ceasefire”. But, as always, this has been prefaced with the assertion that “Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks.” The US has no direct contact with Hamas, an organisation they label as terrorist and therefore have to use ‘relationships’ in the region with countries like Egypt, Qatar and Turkey to influence the Hamas leadership.

In this context, President Abbas has met Hamas Deputy Chief Moussa Abu Marzouk in Cairo and, according to anonymous sources, has tried to sell the proposition that the ceasefire be accepted, followed by talks to repair the rift between Hamas and Abbas, and give control over Gaza’s borders to the Palestine Authority. This would then enable Egypt and Israel to reopen the borders, persuade Israel to release former Hamas prisoners and perhaps allow the transfer of funds that could allow Hamas to pay its employees. There is no indication that this will be accepted.

What is certain, as these various developments continue to unfold, is that the prospects for a two state solution of the Palestine crisis will recede further, that there will not, given the divisions within the Palestine ranks, be any movement towards a third Intifada, but that the disarray in the Muslim world will be exacerbated and radicalisation will get a fresh impetus not only in Gaza but everywhere in the Arab world and the larger Muslim world.

President Obama has asked Congress for five billion dollars to support efforts by regional partners in the Muslim world to counter terrorism. This would be a futile exercise if events in Palestine provide fresh ground for recruitment into the ranks of the extremists.

Peripherally apropos, observers will note that the US Congress is on the verge of approving another $ 175 million — in addition to the $ 720 million already disbursed — for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system, which has been 90 percent successful in bringing down the few Hamas rockets that could have hit valuable targets in Israel. Hardly a measure that will win the US new friends in the Middle East.

The writer was foreign secretary from 1994 to 97 and also served as Pakistan’s ambassador to Iran