Building Bridges: Accept the cease-fire

The recent Knesset decision opposing a major IDF invasion of Gaza was not made in vain. Even if the reasons to go ahead with such plans seem justified and public support is wide, the ministers along with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak know that the chances of a large operation achieving its goals are slim.  

If IDF soldiers were to enter the crowded refugee camps, they would be forced to contend with a society that is hostile and starving under a suffocating siege that has been in place for over a year, a society that thinks that it stands nothing to lose. Beyond the hundreds of casualties that both sides would suffer, an Israeli offensive would unite Palestinian society as a whole behind Hamas and the images of Israeli tanks chasing Palestinian children will once again return to TV screens worldwide.

However, even if we were to ignore international criticism against us and dismiss the damage it can cause to us, there are still high doubts as to whether a major operation in Gaza would work. Many figures in the military echelon, past and present, agree that even during such an operation, Kassams would continue falling on our residents, that the IDF would absorb many casualties and that there is a high chance that it would seal the fate of Gilad Schalit.

Moreover, the morning after the completed invasion, the Israeli government would have to face the question of when and how to leave Gaza and how to ensure the safety of those living on the Gaza periphery. Sinking in the Gaza mud with no military or political way out would probably be the only option left. Today's Gaza will quickly turn into the 2000 version of south Lebanon.

Before the government sends its military to fight a small but deadly terror militia in the heart of a hostile and crowded civilian population, MKs must thoroughly consider a ceasefire with Hamas. According to the Egyptian agreement, Israel's part would consist of the full lifting of the siege and the opening of the crossings for commercial use. In exchange Hamas would be allowed to keep its weapons but would commit to the cessation of all terror activities against Israel, especially the use of Kassams and mortar shells. The quiet on both sides would enable them to conduct negotiations over Gilad Schalit and over the economic situation of Gaza residents. Simultaneously, the ceasefire would give Israel time to improve its defense system and to find an operational solution to the projectiles.

The concern that Hamas will take the time of the ceasefire to rearm and regroup is baseless. Even in daily battle against Israel, Hamas succeeds in bypassing the closures and smuggling in weapons and ammunition with hardly any difficulty. The opening of the crossings would serve the Gazan economy first and foremost and would provide a little hope to over 1.5 million people who are living under a suffocating siege, with no means to support themselves.

The Israeli government should implement the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War and not embark on military adventures without an exit plan. We should do this not out of defeatism or fear but out of responsibility and understanding of the limitations of military power.

Residents of Sderot and the Gaza periphery are right in saying that they feel abandoned by a government that does not care for their security. The government must make a courageous and immediate decision that can bring an end to the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel and an end to the bloodshed on both sides.

Therefore, Barak and Olmert must forgo the momentarily popular considerations and respond positively to the ceasefire agreement with Hamas, as proposed by the Egyptians.