Words and Wording

 

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.