As a linguist, I am acutely aware of the importance of words
and wording. This aspect has been at the forefront in recent days because
politicians are also past masters in the manipulation of words.
So far nothing has come of the UN ceasefire resolution for
Gaza and, as is to be expected, the onus has been placed squarely on the
shoulders of Hamas. However, just how fair is this?
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the main groups combatting Israel’s
invasion of Gaza, initially expressed their pleasure at the resolution being
passed so overwhelmingly, and later sent their response to their mediators,
Qatar and Egypt. To date Israel has not issued any official response, despite
the fact that Antony Blinken has been repeating that Israel is “on board”, has
“accepted the proposal” and that Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his support
for the deal. No public statement was made by Netanyahu in over a week,
however, and, even if it had, an individual opinion is completely irrelevant
when any acceptance or rejection must come from the Israeli government as the
decision to declare war was taken by the government.
Hamas’s response made a number of alterations to the
proposed plan. The most important of these are:
·
An immediate and definitive ceasefire
·
Withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Gaza
strip.
What is the reasoning behind these requests?
By asking for an immediate ceasefire, Hamas is basically
proposing to go directly to what would be Phase two of the proposed plan, thus
indicating a willingness to put a permanent end to the conflict.
There is a good reason for this. The US proposal wants a six
week ceasefire, and phase two would only come into effect if accepted by both
parties. Basically this is a way of giving Israel what it has said all along
that it wanted. From the outset Israel has stated that if a ceasefire were to
be put in place to secure the release of Israeli hostages, they would immediately
resume the war once the stipulated period was over. By asking for a complete
ceasefire Hamas is trying to avoid resumption of conflict.
The US proposal stipulates that Israeli forces should
withdraw from all “populated” areas. In an interview with Dr Lorenzo Kamel,
professor of International History at the University of Turin in Italy, he
stated that when a place has been destroyed, which is the case in Gaza where
hardly a building has been left standing, those places are no longer classified
as populated areas. This means that there is no “populated” place left in Gaza
so the Israeli army could remain indefinitely.
Antony Blinken’s statements and declarations regarding
Israel’s readiness to engage in the plan are by any measure untrue. When
finally Benjamin Netanyahu made a ststement on Israel’s stance, he simply reiterated
what he has been saying all along, i.e. that it is his intention to continue
the war in Gaza until all his war objectives have been realised. Ministers
Smotrich and Ben Gvir have said that if a ceasefire deal were accepted, they
would withdraw from the government leaving Netanyahu high and dry in a
vulnerable position politically. They also said that since the operation to
release four hostages was such a ”resounding success”, (four hostages released
and 274 Palestinians killed and over 700 injured) there was no need to reach
any kind of deal. Immediately after the resolution was passed, the Israeli
representative at the UN said that Israel would continue its war regardless. It
is also worth pointing out the Ben Gvir, the Minister for National security, is
also an illegal settler!
So, when Antony Blinken says that some of Hamas’s proposed
amendment are “not workable”, what he really means is that they are not
acceptable to Israel for the reasons outlined above.
Qatar and Egypt have been the mediators with Hamas, and the
US has presented itself as the mediator with Israel. However, how can a country
be an objective arbiter or mediator when it is itself supporting the party that
it represents with arms and financing? These two roles are incompatible, but
this reality does explain Blinken’s attitude throughout this affair.
So where does this leave the ordinary people of Palestine?
As has been the case for the past 75 years, defenceless and dispossessed.
Meanwhile, hospitals continue to be bombed. Over 15,000 children have been
killed and over 3,500 children have had one or more limbs amputated. Amputations
are now being done without anaesthesia as there is none. What trauma must this
leave on the psyche of young children? Caesarean sections are also being carried
out without anaesthesia with the risks this entails for both mother and child
in an environment where there is little to no sanitation.
The bottom line is that Israel does not want to end this
war. Why not? Because from the outset in the nineteenth century Zionist policy
has stated its aim to possess the whole of historical Palestine with no
Palestinians or as few as possible. Hence the massacres we have been seeing
over the past eight months are simply a step in that direction.