A Point of View: Preventing the weapons flow to Hamas

In a media world which features images of destruction of human beings and property, the words "cease fire" have an understandable allure. Israel itself succumbed to that allure six months ago to bring respite to Sderot.
    
Whether a cease-fire is a good thing or instead an event that makes the next conflict inevitable at a higher level of violence depends almost entirely on whether it will provide mechanisms to ensure its reliable implementation.
     
Look at Lebanon and UN resolution 1701 which generated the cease-fire there. Its two most important components were barring Hizbullah from entering territory south of the Litani river and from getting weapons from Syria and Iran.

 
As to no Hizbullah presence south of Litani, there are mixed views as to whether that has been fulfilled. Still, the presence of UN forces and Lebanese army forces in that area has served as a deterrent to large-scale Hizbullah reentry. While the UN forces have surely not been as aggressive as they might be, the tools for a successful implementation are there.
   
On the other hand, when it comes to preventing the rearming of Hizbullah from Syria and Iran, no structure or responsibility was set in place, making a mockery of the intent of the resolution. By all accounts, Hizbullah today has a larger and more sophisticated store of weapons than before 2006. Interdiction of the flow of such weapons has been non-existent. Consequently, Hizbullah is increasingly dominant in Lebanon and if hostilities should, at some point, break out again with Israel, Hizbullah's ability to harm Israeli civilians will have significantly grown.
    
This is the kind of cease-fire that must not come out of Gaza. Yes, Israel, as in Lebanon, will surely look to create a space on Israel's border where Hamas and other terrorists will be barred from penetrating in order to launch rockets at Israel. Some kind of supervisory mechanism, whether as in southern Lebanon or otherwise will have to be put in place to make it work.
   
But for the longer haul, the big issue in Gaza, as in Lebanon, is whether there will be the prevention of the smuggling in of more and more sophisticated weapons. Ultimately, the success of any cease-fire should be judged by the success of this goal.
  
Looking around the world and from where the calls for a cease-fire are coming, it is not too encouraging to believe that a real mechanism with teeth will be put in place. The Arab League is calling for a cease-fire. So is the EU. I suspect the Security Council will, at some point, move in that direction. Even though it should be in the interest of all these parties to prevent Hamas from rearming, their past records give cause for cynicism.
  
That brings into play the US administration at a time of transition. Reports indicate that the State Department is pushing for a cease-fire. If so, it is critical that the US ensure that a supervisory mechanism be put in place that will prevent the rebuilding of tunnels and any other path toward the smuggling of arms to Hamas. This would include the right and obligation of the supervising authority to use force, if necessary, against Hamas to stop arms flows.
  
The crashing of a Chinese Grad rocket in Beersheva should be a wake-up call. It's an indicator that Hamas is in the beginning stages of procuring more lethal, longer-range rockets.
 
In the final analysis, Israel may decide that the only way it can deal with the Hamas threat is through a major ground assault. Either way, when the issue of a cease-fire is on the agenda, the test as to whether Hamas will or will not escape from this conflict to fight another day, thereby threatening Israel and any chance for peace, will be whether new weapons are prevented from entering the Gaza Strip.