Largely unnoticed or relatively marginalized by major news channels, a cease-fire between Hamas in Gaza and Israel came into effect last week. Gideon Levy's position piece from Haaretz (Sunday, June 22) calls attention to the dismissive, negative interpretation of this development by Israeli functionaries, with Israel's press following suite. While focused on Israeli responses, the existence of this piece also illuminates the type of, or lack of, attention paid to the cease-fire in prominent media worldwide. As Levy writes of Israel, elsewhere too, "The outbreak of war is received … with a great deal more sympathy and understanding, not to say enthusiasm, than a cease-fire."
Levy reiterates the deep-running militarization driving the official Israeli response, "when the all-clear is sounded … we are all worried. That says something about society's sick face: Quiet is muck, war is the most important thing."
Advocating the release of Palestinian prisoners and reframing this prospective step as well as "lifting the terrible siege on Gaza" as "an Israeli achievement, not only a Palestinian one," Levy outlines the possible positive dynamic that a few months of quiet might allow; "a Palestinian government of national unity … a real and not virtual partner, the representative of the entire Palestinian people and not half of it. … An agreement [that] will not be an agreement of puppets."
However, he warns, this process will only stand a chance if Israel extends the cease-fire agreement to the West Bank as well as Gaza. In resisting its extension, Israel, he writes, is clearly telling the Palestinians: "You want calm in the West Bank? Please fire Qassams at Kfar Sava, too." His concluding rhetorical question proposes that this, in fact, is what the militarized Israeli security establishment and state are seeking, given their consistent choice to prioritize the use of force and war.
Rela Mazali
-----------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994858.html
Quiet is muck
by Gideon Levy
Haaretz
22.6.08
A great disaster has suddenly come upon Israel: The cease-fire has gone into effect. Cease-fire, cease-Qassams, cease-assassiations, at least for now. This good, hopeful news was received in Israel dourly, gloomily, even with hostility. As usual, politicians, the military brass and pundits went hand in hand to market the cease-fire as a negative, threatening and disastrous development.
Even from the people who forged the agreement - the prime minister and defense minister - you heard not a word about hope; just covering their backsides in case of failure. No one spoke of the opportunity, everyone spoke of the risk, which is fundamentally unfounded. Hamas will arm? Why of all times during the cease-fire? Will only Hamas arm? We won`t? Perhaps it will arm, and perhaps it will realize that it should not use armed force because of calm`s benefits.
It is hard to believe: The outbreak of war is received here with a great deal more sympathy and understanding, not to say enthusiasm, than a cease-fire. When the warmongers get started, our unified tom-toms drum out only encouraging messages; when the all-clear is sounded, when people in Sderot can sleep soundly, even if only for a short time, we are all worried. That says something about society`s sick face: Quiet is muck, war is the most important thing.
Even before the cease-fire was attained, everyone was raising the blackest of black scenarios: The agreement will not hold, it will be broken immediately, Hamas will arm, Israel has given in. Not one of these assumptions is necessarily reality. Not one prophet of doom could suggest a better alternative to the cease-fire, except more and more unnecessary bloodshed on both sides.
Calm will be maintained only if it is a prelude to further positive developments; therefore, more than anything, calm needs the tailwind of goodwill and constructive statements, not destructive ones. If we continue being so dour, the pessimism will fulfill itself. Much depends on us.
Hamas wants the calm because it serves its goals. That is not necessarily bad for Israel. A few months of quiet and the lifting of the terrible siege on Gaza could create a new reality. Noam Shalit`s protest is understandable, but the new atmosphere of calm is precisely the time to finally secure the release of his son Gilad and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners - two positive developments for the two peoples.
Yes, the zero-sum game between us and them ended long ago. It is a shame we are the only ones not to have internalized it. And yes, even the release of Palestinian prisoners, a step always presented on our side as a `price,` can be an Israeli achievement, not only a Palestinian one. A new and somewhat better life in Gaza will assure a new life for Israel, too. It is not for nothing that the days when the fence was breached between Gaza and Egypt were the quietest days the Negev had known in two years.
In the wake of the cease-fire, a Palestinian government of national unity may arise and be a real and not virtual partner, the representative of the entire Palestinian people and not half of it. True, Hamas will not quickly abandon its hard-line positions, but under the aegis of a unity government it may surprise people, at least in a passive way. An agreement with such a government will not be an agreement of puppets between Ramallah and Jerusalem, the one known as the `shelf agreement.` If it is attained, it will be a real agreement. The cease-fire has already proven that not only is Israel willing to negotiate with Hamas, Hamas is willing to negotiate with Israel. Is this not good news?
If I were prime minister, the kind that believes that without a two-state solution Israel cannot continue to exist, as Ehud Olmert has declared, I would do everything to extend the cease-fire immediately to the West Bank. It is not at all clear why the attainment of calm in Gaza, without extending it to the West Bank, is considered an achievement for Israel. An achievement? A disaster. As long as calm is not achieved in the West Bank, calm in Gaza will totter. In Gaza they will not be able to keep quiet over violent acts by Israel in the West Bank. Is that the reason Israel does not want to extend the cease-fire?
The very thought that has taken root among us, that calm is surrender, should be rethought. Is our strength only in assassinations? Are we headed only toward bloodshed? The opposition to extending the cease-fire to the West Bank also shows, again, that Israel only understands the language of force: It will agree to calm in the West Bank only after Qassams are fired from there as well. What message does that send the Palestinians? You want calm in the West Bank? Please fire Qassams at Kfar Sava, too.
So this about something much deeper than only a cease-fire. This is about Israel`s image. The negative Israeli response to the cease-fire once again raises a deep suspicion: Perhaps Israel actually does not want peace?
................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net
No comments:
Post a Comment