Israel and Australia do not support a ceasefire in Gaza
Suppose Hamas said that it would not agree to a ceasefire with Israel as long as it remained a Jewish state. It would only agree to a ceasefire if Israel agreed to dismantle all elements that make it a Jewish state that privileges Jews over other citizens and residents— the racist land laws, the Nation State Basic Law, the right of return for Jews only, and so on. Hamas would also require the return of 5 million Palestinian refugees to wherever they used to live in historic Palestine. No one would consider this a position in favour of a ceasefire. If Hamas took this position, one would reasonably conclude that Israel would not agree to this, because the government would never agree to it, and they would be backed by the overwhelming opposition of Israeli society. It would be reasonable to conclude from this position that Hamas intended to fight until it achieved total victory over its foe, unless the position was just interpreted as some kind of negotiating tactic. Either way, this position would properly be interpreted as public opposition to a ceasefire, and if its proposed terms were sincere, this would be interpreted as driven by a hope to win the war.
Let us draw out very simple principles from this. A side that wants a ceasefire must actually want a ceasefire. If one side claims to want a ceasefire, but will only accept terms that require the complete defeat and surrender of its enemy, then it should be clear that it is not actually seeking a ceasefire.
From this, it is apparent and obvious — for months — that Hamas wants the war on Gaza to end. In a typical dispatch from Ha’aretz’s military correspondent Amos Harel, he writes
As in previous rounds of proposals, the crux of the gap between the sides relates to the uncompromising position of Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’ leader in Gaza, that the release of hostages (in two stages) must also lead to the end of the war — implying the survival of his rule in the Strip. This is a demand Netanyahu has no intention of meeting, which is why the fighting will apparently continue.
Hamas is meanwhile gradually toughening its demands for a withdrawal and for guarantees. Given Israel’s numerous hints that an agreement will not hold for very long, it’s no wonder that Hamas will not make do with the somewhat vague formulations in Biden’s proposal.
In another report, we learn why Israel considers Hamas’s position unreasonable:
Hamas said that its demands were aimed at ensuring that a cease-fire would be enacted and that Israel would not return to combat when the deal was completed. The militant group is now demanding that China, Russia and Turkey serve as guarantors for the deal. Moreover, Hamas demands that Israel withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip within a week of the truce’s start, or it will stop releasing hostages, including hostages’ bodies.
Hamas has been clear about what it considers reasonable terms, having accepted a similar proposal in May.
What is Israel’s position? Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately made it clear — the proposal was a ‘non-starter’, because Israel would not accept a ‘permanent ceasefire’ until Hamas was destroyed, and ‘Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel’.
This was repeated at the UN as the official position of Israel.
In theory, the ceasefire proposal came from Israel. It is possible Israel has privately given assurances one way or another. Yet its publicly stated position is that the war will continue until Hamas is defeated. There will be no permanent ceasefire until then. Might there be a temporary ceasefire? Possibly. That is why Hamas is determined to make sure that any ceasefire agreement and hostage exchange ends the war. And that is why it cannot be said that Israel supports a ceasefire. Its terms for ending the war are total military victory — which it has not achieved. Hence, it is not willing at this time to end the war. Israel may say that it wants peace. It just wants peace on Israeli terms. As per above, this is not the same as actually wanting a ceasefire. Wanting a ceasefire now would mean willingness to make concessions. Wanting total victory and the surrender of the enemy means wanting the war to continue.
Does Australia support ending the war? Again, there is a very simple test. Do they support realistic terms, short of total victory, that could end the war on a long-term basis?
For months, Wong called for a ‘humanitarian ceasefire’. It is not clear what this meant, but it seemed consistent with a short-term ceasefire, rather than an end to all military engagements. More recently, Wong has said ‘this war must end’. That sounds like supporting a ceasefire in principle, and she supported the proposal that was backed by the US and the UN Security Council.
However, let us apply the same basic test to Wong and the Australian government. Do they support a ceasefire based on ending the fighting on realistic terms, or do they support total victory for one side?
Wong’s position is basically that of Israel’s — a ceasefire is possible once Hamas is defeated. This is Wong in May
Journalist: Is it realistic to expect a future Palestinian state to have absolutely no influence from Hamas?
Foreign Minister: Well, I’ve said what I’ve said, which is Hamas has no place in the future governance of Gaza. What I would also say is what I said in my opening. There is a role for the Palestinian Authority here. Progress towards a two-state solution requires reform and it requires them to lead in a way that is consistent with peace with Israel.
Wong expects the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza. Here is Wong in April
Sara: Would you agree that Hamas needs to be removed from power in Gaza?
Foreign Minister: Hamas has no place in Gaza.
Also in April
Foreign Minister: I have been clear that Hamas has no role in the future of Gaza and that Hamas must release hostages. What I’m talking about is what is the long-term pathway to peace, and that’s the discussion the international community is having.
This goes back many months — in November, Wong explained in an op ed, peace ‘will require the dismantling of Hamas — which doesn’t represent the Palestinian people — and a reformed, legitimate Palestinian Authority that disavows violence.’
What can one make of Wong’s position? If Hamas has ‘no role in Gaza’, then presumably Israel is right to continue to wage its offensive until Hamas is wiped out. Which means Wong’s position is like Israel’s — she supports Israeli victory, not a ceasefire. It may be said that in supporting the UN Security Council Resolution, Wong’s position has been upgraded to ambivalent — she is in favour of a pathway to a ceasefire, even if she also objects to a ceasefire where Hamas remains the governing authority in Gaza under occupation. Even this generous interpretation of Wong’s position should be enough to note: the Australian government does not support a ceasefire. Australia is publicly legitimising Israel’s grounds for continuing the war to total victory. In this, Australia has acted and is acting as an accomplice for the war and genocide to continue. If Australia is paying lip service to wanting a ceasefire — like the US does, like even Israel does sometimes — that is not the same as supporting a ceasefire.
Update:
After writing this, Albanese released a statement for Muslims. It says that the government is ‘resolute’ in calling for a ‘permanent ceasefire’. This is the first time the government has called for a permanent ceasefire, though as I note above, Wong also said the war ‘must end’.
As per above, this is still not meaningfully supporting a ceasefire, as they have yet to make clear that they support an end to the war now, rather than Israel achieving victory.
