WORK MUST continue urgently to secure a ceasefire to end the fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, despite yesterday's decision by both of them to reject the UN Security Council resolution. The appalling loss of life in Gaza, including emerging news of human rights atrocities, and the continuing rocket attacks on southern Israel, make this imperative.
While the UN resolution addresses an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, an end to the rocket attacks and international control of the Egyptian border with Gaza, it fails to satisfy the Israeli government on firm guarantees that these would in fact happen. Hamas says the resolution will not end the blockade of Gaza and demands a greater role in the negotiations to ensure it is recognised politically.
These reasons for rejecting the security council resolution are instructive, in that they express clearly the main issues at stake and provide clues on what could be done to improve the terms for a ceasefire. Israel must see an end to the rocket attacks but still wants to achieve this by decisive military action rather than diplomatic negotiation. It cannot succeed in this without a much more extensive land operation, many more civilian casualties and a consequent deepening of international hostility towards such a violently disproportionate war. The better alternative is to lift its punitive blockade of Gaza in return for guarantees that the attacks will cease. If that involves indirect negotiations with Hamas, so be it. Peace will not be made without their involvement.
Hamas leaders are also tempted towards an extended military campaign in a densely populated terrain of their own choosing. This, too, is a profoundly inhumane approach, since the organisation cannot succeed in this without exposing its own civilian supporters to utterly unacceptable risk and the whole of Gaza to physical devastation. If a ceasefire agreement ends the rocket attacks it should also contain internationally validated guarantees that the supply of these weapons has been cut off. That tradeoff should be accepted by Hamas, especially so if in the process it secures greater international recognition.
A valuable feature of the ceasefire resolution negotiations in New York has been their stress on achieving political as well as security progress. The initiative calls for a ceasefire within 48 to 72 hours and the opening of border crossings to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. During the truce, Egypt would hold separate talks with Israel and Hamas to reach a long-term agreement and resume talks between Hamas and Fatah over a Palestinian unity government.
It must be recognised that Hamas has a valid representative role in Gaza and that the territory cannot be governed or secured without its co-operation. That may be unpalatable or unacceptable to Israel, Fatah, the Egyptians or the international quartet of the UN, the US, the EU and Russia which has been trying in vain to resurrect a peace process. But it is the political reality on the ground. If Gaza is not to become completely and even more dangerously ungovernable this lesson must be learned by all of these parties to the conflict.