Calling for a "Ceasefire" in Gaza is Meaningless

There is no agreement on its meaning, on who is being asked to act or how it connects to the final outcome in Gaza

In general, a “cease fire” is defined as merely ceasing immediate military actions but almost every discussion of “ceasefires” in Gaza include additional actions not usually lumped under a mere “ceasefire.”

In Ukraine, many on the "left" demanded a "ceasefire" that meant Ukrainians stopped fighting and Russia got to keep its occupied territories.

But no one on the left calling for a cease-fire in Gaza is using that definition whereby Israel would maintain its troops there and retain political control of Gaza. In Gaza, most calling for a “ceasefire” take it to mean Israel gives up control of occupied Gaza, withdraws all forces from Gaza, and allows Hamas to retake political control.

But with that “ceasefire" has a completely different meaning, often by the same groups, from how it was used in Ukraine - two conflicts happening at the exact same time.  

Hamas just rejected a Biden-proposed six-week ceasefire and hostage exchange, saying that would only accept it if it included “the withdrawal of Israeli troops” from Gaza, as detailed by the New York Times yesterday.

If the pro-Palestinian side agrees that “ceasefire” means restoring Hamas to political control of Gaza, the reality is that most support in the polls for a “ceasefire” would disappear overnight; nearly every House member and many organizations would rescind their previous endorsements of “ceasefire” resolutions.

What Does the Pro-Palestinian Movement Say When Faced with an Actual Ceasefire

"Cease Fire Now" has been a way to paper over the fundamental disagreements and contradictions within the pro-Palestinian camp and to pretend that in practice, they aren't calling for restoring Hamas control in Gaza. Now that actual ceasefire negotiations are back on the table, it becomes clearer how meaningless that slogan has become.

What's notable up to this point is that much of the pro-Palestinian side has focused almost exclusively on the rhetoric of a “ceasefire” as an immediate goal while being completely vague on what they want the post-conflict world to look like.  Most don't endorse a two-state solution, don't clearly call for a one-state solution including all Jews, Palestinians, and others from the river to the sea- but also don't admit that "ceasefire" means restoring the previous status quo of Hamas controlling Gaza.   

Israelis mass murder in Gaza deserves every word of condemnation it has received but to rectify the long history of oppression the Palestinians have received deserves better than the rhetorical duplicity we have seen in the “ceasefire now” approach to the conflict. There needs to be more than a contradictory, virtually meaningless tactical demand and instead a real debate on what a post-conflict Israel and Palestine will look like. And that vision should reinforce a moral vision of peace, democracy, and self-determination extending from Ukraine to Palestine to every other conflict in the world.

To his credit, Biden actually has a consistent message on what he says the outcome should be in not only Gaza but Ukraine as well:  invading forces should ultimately withdraw their troops and restore sovereignty to those who live in currently occupied areas.  Eastern Ukraine goes back to Ukrainian control and Gaza joins the West Bank under Palestinian control by a democratically elected Palestinian Authority.  

While I think a one-state solution is the better long-term goal for Israel-Palestine, the Biden administration at least has a long-term vision for international self-determination that is more attractive than the hypocrisies of many sectarian left groups that have had to much influence on Gaza messaging.

Moving Beyond Moral Puritanism

Joe Sacco- who produced an acclaimed graphic novel on Palestine two decades recently published this image on his own blog. It inadvertently highlighted the moral blindspots and hypocrisies of many on the pro-Palestine side.

Since my 11th grader spent much of the fall reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, I was reminded of its core message and the irony here is real.  The Scarlet Letter affixed to the adulterous Hester Prynne in the book ends up reflecting far more on the moral bankruptcy of the critics of Prynne. It becomes almost a badge of honor for her as the book goes on for it exposes the hypocrisies of those trying to focus all their feelings of sin on a single individual.

Gaza is horrific but so is Ukraine and so is Ethiopia and so is the situation of the Uyghurs in China - but there is a real moral puritanism (in the worse sense of the word) of trying to reduce all evils in the world to the sins happening in Gaza and by sleight of hand reducing that sin to Biden's supposed failures to act in order to reduce the complexity of global inequality and oppression to a singular problem.  

The lack of self-awareness in this cartoon is just a reflection of a broader lack of self-awareness in much of the pro-Palestinian movement.  I find the silence on Ukraine in particular by many of them to be particularly galling, since the strongest argument for focus on Gaza is that it is an active political issue in the US Congress, but then so is Ukraine.  Any actually moral US left has to have an articulated legal and political program encompassing both of the largest international political issues being debated in our Congress- and yet it doesn't.  It prefers the simplistic Puritanism of focusing on a scarlet letter affixed to a single political leader to that broader debate on what needs to be done globally for peace, justice and democracy.

Calling for a “ceasefire” because it sounds good in public rhetoric but masks other demands, such as restoring Hamas to political control of Gaza, that would be rejected by many of those attracted to the slogan, reflects a degeneration in some (not all) sectors of the left.

This is dangerous since the real power that the left has always had is speaking truth to power, so rhetoric based on deceiving one’s allies (and possibly yourself in some cases) undermines that power.

What is needed is for a pro-Palestinian movement that moves beyond meaningless slogans to agreement on what a post-confict political settlement would look like. That requires more honesty about the real differences among groups fighting the Israeli Occupation and willingness to compromise to build a consensus for substantive next steps for assuring democratic rights and security for Palestinians, Jews, and everyone else in the region, whatever the specific political settlement ends up being.

Simplistic slogans and scarlet letters need to give way to a much harder moral and political debate going forward.