The conclusionof a ceasefire, on 26 August, between Hamas and Israel ended the deadliest conflict between the two parties, whoclashed twice, in 2008-2009and 2012. On the Palestinian side, human losses were very heavy, with 2,139 dead, mainly civilians, including 490 children, thousands injured and devastated infrastructure. On the political level, neither side really won the battle. Each achieved some of their objectives but Hamas now seems to be in a better position. Far from achieving its goals, including the complete lifting of the blockade, it managed to get its immediate relief with the opening of crossing points with Israel and Egypt, and the extension of the fishing area of the enclave to 6 nautical miles. Certainly, the military arsenal of Hamas has been badly damaged, including the network of underground tunnels in the border region with Israel, and several of its military commanders were killed, but it held up against one of the strongest armies in the Middle East. In this type of asymmetric warfare, the fact that the most powerful military force, Israel, fails to defeat its enemy, is considered as a victory for the weaker party,Hamas. Logically, Israel hasachieved less objectives. It went to war with the declared aim of silencing rocket attacks by Hamas and other Islamist groups against its territory. But theseshootings continued throughout the conflict. Only the ceasefire, not the military power of the Israeli army, put an end to them. It is not surprising, therefore, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came under fire from critics after the conclusion of the truce with Hamas, because of the inconclusive results of his military offensive against the Gaza Strip. At a timewhen the Israeli economy suffersfromthe effects of the war, a recession and the collapse of tourism revenues, the Central Bank estimates that the growth rate in Israel will shrink by 0.5% this year due to the impact of the military conflict withHamas. The reality is that the Israeli government was using the indirect talks with the Palestinians to maintain the status quo in the Gaza Strip, while militarily weakening Hamas. Tel Aviv thus sought to maintain the airtight blockade of the Gaza Strip. That goal is impossible to achieve, sinceIsraeli aggression and its atrocitieshave pushed Western allies to call for an end of the inhumane blockade imposed on the population of Gaza for more than seven years. American President Barack Obama acknowledged that the situation in the Gaza Strip is untenable due to the Israeli blockade. For his part, the Vice President of the Delegation of the European Union at the United Nations, Ioannis Vrailas, insisted that "the status quo ante is not an option,” referring also to the blockade ofGaza. Israelwas thus obligedtoaccept to ease the blockadein the ceasefire agreement. The impossibility of maintaining the status quo is not only the result of Western pressure, but it also comes from the interest of Israel which feared a social explosion in Gaza because of the blockade. Hamas may pay the price because it could lose control of the enclave, in favor of more radical Islamist groups such as the Islamic Jihad. TelAvivbelieves that only the latter is able to control Gaza, as it is the most powerful and organized Palestinian political faction in the enclave. For Israeli officials, the alternatives to the loss of control by Hamas would be that the Gaza Strip falls into anarchy, where various Islamist groups would control swathes of territory, or under the control of more radicalgroups. Thisis whyIsrael's interest is to keep Hamas in power in Gaza, on one condition though: Israel wants to weaken Hamas to a point where its military no longer constitutes a security threat. The military weakening of Hamas allows Netanyahu's government to claim victory before the Israeli public, even if it is for a limited time. The previous Israeli invasions of the Gaza enclave have shown their limits; Hamas is still able to rebuild and even improve its military capabilities. Although this time, the destruction of smuggling tunnels by the Egyptian army and the strengthening of controls on the border with Egypt will make the task much more difficult. Still, therelative gains thetwo belligerents obtained in the ceasefire agreement are fragile and can be erased with time if the two sides fail to consolidate them in a long-term agreement during the nextresumption of negotiationsin Cairo.It is there that the nitty-gritty will begin: the negotiations onthe major demands of the two sides, on which depends the sustainability of the current ceasefire. These claims have been deferred to a second round of talks because they prevented the conclusion of a cessation of hostilities.This is where the shoe pinches; unlessthe two sides make mutual concessions, such claims are likely to be irreconcilable, derailing a long-term truce and bringing the conflict back to squareone. On the Palestinian side, Hamas insists on afull lifting of the blockade imposed by Israel since 2007 and the construction of an airport and a seaport in Gaza. However, Israel is only considering these possibilities as part of a total disarmament of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. This position is rightly rejected by Hamas and the other Palestinian Islamist groups. For them, this scenario is only possible in the context of a final peace agreement guaranteeing the rights of the Palestinian people.How is it possible for them to waive the right of resistance, including military resistance, to a military occupation? How can it waive a right recognised by international law, although Israel continues to deprive the Palestinian people of their most basic rights, including the right to life and human dignity? The belligerentswere forcedto accept the cessation of hostilities due to the mounting pressures on them. Netanyahu has thus been faced with mounting criticism of the political class, notably the extreme right, his rival in the forthcoming parliamentary election, and of the public opinion, because of the inconclusive results of his offensive. Hamas also could not indefinitely bear the consequences of heavy loss of life and devastation to the Gaza Strip before its public opinion. They have therefore concluded a truce,whose terms are almost similar to those already concluded in the past, in 2012 and in 2009. Unless Hamas and Israel signa comprehensive agreement, the new ceasefire, as fragile as its predecessors, bears in it the seeds of a new conflagration. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/110315.aspx
