A more durable cease-fire replacing the current fragile truce in Gaza could have been announced by now but a monkey wrench thrown by Israel has stalled progress and added to the already tenuous atmosphere. The sudden announcement by Israel ruling out a long-term truce in Gaza without the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has stalled a month’s worth of negotiations toward a longer-lasting cease-fire. Meanwhile, the inconclusive Israeli general election has created what could be a prolonged period of political uncertainty, compounded by a fresh bout of tit-for-tat violence in and around Gaza. And now, at the 11th hour, Israel comes up with the slogan of no deal without Shalit to make the already shaky situation shakier.
Egypt has been mediating indirect cease-fire talks between Hamas and Israel since they unilaterally halted the three-week offensive in Gaza. Under the emerging truce deal, Israel would have gradually eased the border blockade it has enforced since Hamas took control of the territory in mid-2007. An 18-month halt to the violence was the reported target. Progress had been reported in those negotiations to the point where an official announcement was to have been made as early as yesterday. One remaining dispute focused on several prisoners involved in direct attacks on Israelis. Shalit, who was captured by Palestinians in 2006, was supposedly removed from the Gaza truce deal, and that if he were to have been released, it would be in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
It is odd that Israel waited until the last moment before announcing there would be no deal without Shalit. The soldier had been on Israel’s list of conditions from Day One of the negotiations, but having gone this far in the talks without his name being mentioned, at least publicly, it appeared that Israel was ready for a deal first; the Shalit affair, it seemed, would be dealt with later. A comprehensive prisoner exchange seemed to be the alternative solution and a definite possibility; however, this is no longer the case. Hamas and Egypt had sought, and appeared successful, in separating the truce deal from the prisoner swap. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has struck down any accord with the announcement that the two were inextricably linked.
Hamas’ urgent priority was to reach agreement on a long-term cease-fire accompanied by arrangements to open up access to the Strip, including the Rafah Crossing, and lifting the Israeli blockade. This is primarily in the hands of Israel, which does not want to give the resistance movement the benefit of claiming victory over the invasion and of ending the siege. The height of irony is how Shalit is being perceived by the Israelis. It would have been thought that his captors would use the Israeli soldier as the ace up their sleeve to wrest as many concessions as possible. But it is in fact the other way around. It is the Israelis, those supposedly seeking his release, who are using Shalit as their own personal bargaining chip to reach not only a cease-fire of their liking but a final settlement that would meet the best Israeli condition, one consisting of the cantonment of the Palestinians in a pseudo-tribal homeland.
That Olmert agreed to a truce last month should not be read as a prelude to a pragmatic attempt to search for ultimate peace. The war against Hamas would have happened regardless; another war is not out of the question. Throwing a last-minute baseball curve in the cease-fire works can only mean Israel is keeping the option open.
