Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were relieved in the aftermath of the truce. They hope it lasts, and that it will be followed by an opening of the crossings, which means a return to normal life, after their lengthy suffering under sieges, killings and destruction.
Many believe that the truce will not hold for a long time, as a result of mutual distrust with regard to each side’s intentions toward the other, in addition to their distant and virtually contradicting positions.
Yet, all sides hope that the truce survives and that both parties make an effort to make it succeed.
Such success is in the benefit of all sides, and is supposed to be the start of more positive developments.
Three days after the truce, we heard the deposed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya announcing that his movement would not stop the smuggling activities in the Gaza Strip, because Hamas did not commit itself to such an obligation, and that smuggling exceeded the capabilities of any party.
A swift response came from the Israeli prime minister who countered that the tahdia means an end of smuggling and that any other interpretation could lead to undermining the truce.
The Israeli pretext is that smuggling, whether through tunnels or otherwise, means the strengthening of the military capabilities of Hamas and, consequently, makes any future confrontation with the movement more difficult.
This was behind the insistent Israeli demand that Egypt should intensify its efforts to stop the smuggling as a precondition for an Israeli acceptance of the truce.
Here might be a potential bone of contention between the Haniyya’s statements and the Israeli demands. It could indicate that the truce could potentially collapse because of a different interpretation of it from Hamas and the Israeli side.
We hope, and demand, that the truce will last, that the concerned parties, especially the Palestinians, not give the Israelis any pretext to undermine the truce. Our people in Gaza have suffered more than enough during the last year.
Israel and Iran
There were several reports recently about Israeli preparations and military exercises to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Iran responded with a clear and decisive threat that any Israeli strike would initiate a horrible retaliation. Other Iranian sources played down the Israeli military abilities maintaining that Israel was too weak to attack the Iranian reactors.
It is obvious that tensions are escalating with regard to the Iranian activities and that an encounter with Iran might alter some aspects of the Israeli policies, whether it relates to the negotiations with Syria, or even the truce in Gaza. Western nations seek to isolate Iran, and neutralize all its allies.
It is also obvious that any strike on Iran would never be a pleasant picnic. The most apparent consequence would be the closure of the global oil pathways in the Arabian Gulf which would complicate an already complex oil crisis.
Moreover, any such step could engulf the entire region through either the Iranian counterattack or the reaction of the allies of Iran, especially the Lebanese Hezbollah.
A strike on Iran would be a lunatic step, something that would overturn the political balance in the region. We earnestly hope that nobody would undertake such a foolish action.
Ibrahim Deibes is a veteran Palestinian journalist. This editorial first appeared in Al-Quds.