Can a ceasefire end colonial genocide? , Gaza

The ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel is, first and foremost, a welcome relief for the Palestinians in Gaza who are suffering the most brutal and horrific genocide. For 15 months, they endured daily bombings, killings, threats, imprisonment, starvation, disease, and other hardships that are difficult for most people to even imagine, let alone live and survive.

The deal will not take effect until at least Sunday, January 19, 2025, not coincidentally the day before the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States. While some are attributing the success of the agreement to the Trump administration’s unique ability to put pressure on Israel, it is important to underline that Trump is a master of political theater and undoubtedly wanted Israel to agree to a ceasefire just before his inauguration. So that he can use it. This is to boost their political capital. In other words, Trump did not pressure Netanyahu to accept the deal because he genuinely wants peace and order, or even because he is genuinely committed to all three phases of the deal. Rather, he likely acted out of personal political calculations to enhance his reputation and advance his administration’s agenda.

We do not know what was said and agreed upon behind closed doors between the Trump team and Israeli officials, but we can assure that the Trump administration is not interested in establishing a fully sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders , and is not against Israel’s plan to annex large parts of the West Bank. In fact, some reports suggest that the Trump administration may have promised Netanyahu US support for the annexation of some areas of the West Bank in exchange for his acceptance of a ceasefire agreement, which Israel may not adhere to even during Phase 1. Is. The scenario, if it actually occurs, is that Trump gets what he wants, which is a political victory, and Netanyahu gets what he wants, which is the continued colonization of Palestine.

The main reason for pessimism about this agreement is that it does not guarantee Phases 2 and 3, where Israeli forces will completely withdraw from the Strip, displaced Palestinians will be allowed to return to all areas of the Strip, and Gaza will be completely rebuilt. Strip work will be done.

It is important to emphasize that Gaza has been reduced to rubble during 15 months of genocide. A large part of the strip is not habitable. People cannot easily return to areas that have been leveled, buildings that have no running water, no functioning sewage systems, or no access to electricity and fuel; There are no schools, universities, clinics or hospitals to access, businesses to run, etc. The economic system has collapsed and people are completely dependent on foreign aid for basic survival. Diseases are widespread and many silent killers, such as toxins from Israel’s bombs, are circulating in Gaza’s atmosphere, soil and water. Israel’s indiscriminate attacks have left families decimated, others torn apart, many children left orphaned. A large number of people have become disabled and unable to support their families. How a “normal” life will be possible for Palestinians after this destruction is unclear.

Questions about the governance of the strip still remain unclear, and there is certainly nothing in the deal that addresses the core problem or leads to a long-term solution. The question of long-term solution is very serious. At best, this agreement might end this specific genocidal operation, but it certainly says nothing about the core of the problem: the structural genocide of Palestinians by Israel.

The structural genocide of Palestinians, what Palestinians call the ongoing Nakba, does not refer to just one or two specific incidents of genocide such as the Nakba of 1948 or this genocidal attack on Gaza, but rather refers to a settler colonial structure of genocide Who wants to eliminate Palestinian sovereignty, eliminate the right of Palestinians to return to their land, expelling them from much of their lands, and claiming exclusive Israeli-Jewish sovereignty from river to sea. This structure of genocide operates through various methods of eradication and expulsion.

A genocidal campaign as the world has seen and continues to see in Gaza, involving physical mass slaughter, mass displacement and massive destruction that renders the land uninhabitable, is obviously one of those tools, but it Is not the only one. It also involves incremental displacement and removal; prevention of economic growth and creation of economic dependency; the erasure of Palestinian history and culture; fragmentation of the Palestinian population; Depriving those under occupation of rights, freedoms and dignity so that they feel pressured to leave; Political obstruction to Palestinian sovereignty, etc.

So, the real question becomes: Can a ceasefire, even if it goes through all three stages, end this structural genocide? The answer is clearly no because the armistice agreement does not address any of Israel’s other instruments of structural genocide.

This structural genocide must be continually named, exposed, and resisted. As long as Israel’s settler colonial project continues to be hidden or downplayed in diplomatic and public discussion, the core problem will continue to persist, and we will return to this moment of absolute horror and unspeakable suffering, assuming that we This will also provide an important relief. Armistice agreement. Without serious and sustained pressure on the Israeli state, without economic and political isolation of the Israeli state by states and institutions around the world, until Israeli colonialism is destroyed, we find ourselves with a continuing structure of genocide, a pressure Will be found stuck in the cooker. Ultimately there will be release in an even greater war of total destruction. For the international community, now is not the time to celebrate or be self-congratulatory, but to take serious political and economic action against Israel to stop the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people in various forms.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.