Why calls for a ceasefire are misguided

As the Israeli ground invasion progresses, a coalition is gradually emerging between those that were reluctant to condemn the 7th October (7/10) terrorist attacks on Israel and even those who, it appears, were prepared to only give lip-service to Israel’s right to defend itself. This nascent and loose coalition is rallying around the call for an immediate unilateral ceasefire.

The call for a ceasefire is based on a flawed interpretation of Hamas as democratic, law-abiding representatives of a civilian population and not the oppressive, terrorist organisation it is – who cloak themselves in the shield of civilians, only to heap tragedy onto misery for ordinary Palestinians. The former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has described the call for a ceasefire as a ‘gift to Hamas’, adding that those who call for a ceasefire ‘don’t understand Hamas’. Clinton noted that a ceasefire would provide Hamas with a clear strategic advantage, allowing them to ‘spend whatever time there was […] in effect rebuilding armaments’ to be used against Israel[1]. Clinton acknowledges with her comments that a ceasefire would only intensify future conflict by allowing Hamas to restock, refuel and restation terrorists across Gaza to make Israel’s legitimate objectives impossible to achieve -its hostages in Gaza, for example, would likely be moved around, wasting weeks of intelligence operations to locate them and bring them home.

Israel has clear military objectives in Gaza: the retrieval of the hostages and missing (including the bodies of the victims of 7/10 taken into Gaza), and the total demilitarization of Hama’s infrastructure. Hamas have refused to release the 240 hostages or demilitarize; therefore, it is apparent that Israel has no other option than to mount a ground invasion to retrieve hostages and dismantle Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure and capability. Any ceasefire would only prolong and ultimately worsen Hamas’s self-manufactured humanitarian crisis in Gaza, given that a ceasefire would not lead to either the return of hostages or demilitarization.

This is why the wider world must do more to uncover the truth about Hamas in order truly understand the nature of this tragic, awful and yet ultimately necessary war.

Currently Hamas has access to between 850,000 to one million litres of fuel, which could be used for diesel-powered generators to operate water facilities or power hospitals – however, Hamas choose not to allocate these resources to civilians[2], instead choosing to inflict further suffering on the people of Gaza by diverting resources to tunnel infrastructure, arms manufacturing and rocket launchers. Under international humanitarian law, if a civilian structure is used for military purposes, then it becomes a legitimate military target; this is the context within which Hamas has chosen Shifa hospital, located in Gaza City, as a command-and-control center and hideout for their commanders – both hijacking fuel to meet their terrorist objectives and attempting to draw Israel into unintentionally harming Palestinian civilians as it pursues terrorists.

Given Hamas’s willingness to let its own people suffer it should come as no surprise that Hamas are willing to block foreign nationals from leaving as civil unrest boils over in Gaza, unless their demands are met (the release of circa 10,000 Palestinian security prisoners from Israeli prisons), effectively holding foreign nationals hostage in a war zone – including 200 British and 600 American citizens[3]. Whilst there are many insightful ironies of the conflict, here they collide in both the nature of Hamas and the nature of the war; the irony that Israel would be releasing terrorists in order to release their hostages, taken as part of a terrorist attack, with every possibility that those freed terrorists would plot further terror attacks on Israel. This is the story of Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza, who was released in 2011 as part of the deal to free captured IDF Soldier Gilad Shalit, and was instrumental in planning the 7/10 attacks.

These examples condemn Hamas, but a final point should act as a condemnation of those that are all too willing to take Hamas at its word and act as its proxy:

While Israel pulls pathologists out of retirement to conduct forensic examinations of charred remains – taking many weeks to identify victims of the 7/10 terrorist attacks – Hamas  spokespersons are confident of large numbers of civilian deaths from rockets almost before impact. The current death toll figures released by the Gaza Health Ministry of 8,000 include combatants as well as civilians, as well as the falsely inflated death toll from the al-Ahli Hospital bombing.  The false attribution to Israel of the al-Ahli Hospital bombing, in itself an example of how perhaps truth should be added to Hamas’s list of things in short supply, gave Hamas a textbook opportunity to leverage media bias against Israel. Blaming Israel for the bombing when it was in fact a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad proved a brilliant PR coo for terrorism, shifting attitudes against Israel in the conflict, and a terrible indictment of politicians, the international media, and supporters of a ceasefire that take terrorists at their word rather than branding them as the unreliable narrators they are.

As calls for a ceasefire grow, other terrorist organisations on Israel’s borders, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State in the Sinai, and Islamic Jihad in the West Bank, wait in the wings to see whether Israel’s allies will limit its ability to dismantle Hamas’ infrastructure. If those calling for a ceasefire are successful, this will send a resounding message to other hostile terrorists groups that similar atrocities to 7/10 can be carried out safe in the knowledge that Israel’s response will be limited by international partners. This would embolden Iran, Russia and other enemies of the west too – not just those bordering Israel. Moreover, this gives credence to the discourse on terrorism, that it is a reasonable tool in achieving political goals, and that havens for terrorism should be allowed to remain unchecked – that is terrifying for us all be that in London, Paris or Tel Aviv.

[1] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-770790

[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-concern-for-humanitarian-situation-how-much-water-and-power-does-gaza-have/

[3] https://www.jpost.com/international/article-770754

Gemma Ricketts, 1st November 2023