Truce without reconciliation

The Israel-Hamas ceasefire is a temporary reprieve

Even as world leaders welcomed it, the four-day ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is an unlikely harbinger of a longer truce to the conflict. Almost before the ink was dry on the agreement to allow the exchange of hostages and the flow of humanitarian aid into the embattled Gaza strip, fierce fighting resumed in northern Gaza. Israel signalled that the hostage exchange would be delayed until Friday — it was due to come into force on Thursday at 10 am local time. Under the pact, Hamas agreed to release 50 women and children under the age of 19 in return for 150 Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons. The fragile nature of the understanding was evident in the fact that agreements about timing and methods were still to be worked out.

The deep distrust is palpable on both sides. Israel has said the ceasefire and flows of aid will begin only after Hamas releases Israeli hostages to the Red Cross. The Hamas leadership has clarified that it has agreed to the truce but its “hands will remain on the trigger”. At issue are the estimated 190 remaining Israeli hostages captured by Hamas on October 7. Israel, meanwhile, had imprisoned 5,200 Palestinians before October 7 and arrested another 3,000, including 145 children and 90 women after that date. There is a possibility that the ceasefire could be extended by another day for every 10 additional hostages released — to this end, Israel has issued a shortlist of 300 Palestinian prisoners in its custody.

The deal, brokered by Qatar and Egypt, may mitigate the humanitarian disaster in Gaza in a small way but hopes of a lasting cessation of hostilities have been frustrated by the refusal of Israel, backed by the US, to countenance a longer truce, arguing that it would give Hamas time to rearm. In such circumstances, any talk of a lasting solution to this 75-year-old crisis, including the two-state solution, has become moot. Inevitably, the diplomatic fault lines in the conflict are expanding. This much has been clear in voting patterns in the United Nations. On Wednesday, the Brics special virtual summit on the war in Gaza highlighted other divergences within the Global South. Attended by nations that have been invited to join the grouping next year — Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates — a joint statement unequivocally “condemned any kind of individual or mass forcible transfer and deportation of Palestinians from their own land”.

This is strong diplomatic language, indicating the reluctance of several developing countries to align themselves with the developed nations’ support for Israel. The strongest criticism came from South Africa, which has labelled Israeli action against Palestinian civilians a “war crime” and referred Israel to the International Criminal Court last week. China’s Xi Jinping called for an end to the “collective punishment of the people of Gaza” and Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described the war as a “human catastrophe”. India, represented by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, was notably muted, reiterating New Delhi’s stance condemning civilian deaths and Hamas’ terrorism but refraining from blaming Israel. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed hope the next day that the Israel-Hamas war would not spill over to the region, but that is probably optimistic, given how the dispute has evolved so far.