Ceasefire Now: A Disaster for the West

Even the staunchly progressive U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, a harsh critic of Israel, recently asserted that there is no possibility of having a permanent ceasefire with Hamas.

UN General Assembly adopts a resolution on “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations.” (UN Photo/Loey Felipe)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free and zero-advertising for all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Spotify.

---

On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to demand a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, a pronounced demonstration of global support for ending the Israel-Hamas war.

In other words, the UN held an emergency meeting to inform every terror group on Earth that there are few consequences for massacring, raping, and abducting civilians.

This non-binding vote within the 193-member world body was 153 in favor, 10 against, and 23 abstentions.

Apparently, ambassadors and other diplomats burst into applause as the final numbers were displayed, proving beloved Israeli diplomat Abba Evan’s timeless observation: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring the earth was flat and Israel had flattened it, it would pass by 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions.”

In addition to the United States and Israel, the short list of countries which opposed Tuesday’s resolution reads like a Ph.D. geography course: Liberia, Micronesia, Nauru, and Papua New Guinea, among others.

If there was ever an example of “voting against your own best interests,” this was it — with Western countries and those with Western values voting in favor of the resolution including Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. No less those which abstained, such as the UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Even the staunchly progressive U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an outspokenly harsh critic of Israel, asserted on Sunday that there is no possibility of having a “permanent ceasefire with Hamas.”

Hence why, in no sugarcoated fashion, a ceasefire now would be nothing short of a disaster for the West. It would embolden Iran and its aims to destabilize the Middle East, including all the business being done in Israel, Dubai, and other places, with the potential to hurt gas prices and all products and services that rely on fuel.

The Iranian coverage of the war has been interesting, noted Seth Frantzman, a senior Middle East correspondent and analyst at The Jerusalem Post. In their media reporting, the Iranians are not bragging about Hamas’ success, which means that Iran now knows it must gamble on a ceasefire and hope to influence world opinion against Israel.

“So far, since Iran has not been able to draw the U.S. or Israel into a wider conflict, it is concerned,” wrote Frantzman. “Tehran now appears to think that it needs to focus more on the strategic global agenda and less on Hamas in Gaza. It wants to use the besieged coastal enclave and the suffering there for leverage. But even the suffering is not highlighted in the Iranian regime media. This is a new shift as well.”¹

What’s more, a ceasefire now would set a precedent for more terrorist attacks across the world. Terrorists have repeatedly used attacks against Israel as prototypes for plans against other places in the West. In 1976, for example, terrorists hijacked an Air France flight en route to Israel, which many believe gave Osama bin Laden inspiration for the 9/11 blueprint.

Barring a defiant end to the Israel-Hamas war, other terrorists will likely deploy some of the tactics used by Palestinian terrorists on October 7th to plan future attacks across the West.

A ceasefire now would also further demonstrate that the U.S. cannot be relied upon as a bonafide ally — not to Israel, not to Ukraine, not to South Korea, and not to Taiwan. The very notion that U.S. dominance in international affairs is tiring will only buttress the hegemonic ambitions of Iran, Russia, and China.

In addition, a ceasefire now would seriously arouse Muslims and Arabs who live in Western countries. Across England, for instance, critics say cops aren’t enforcing the law fairly against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, while cops say they are scared to.

The crowds in these Western countries demonstrating on behalf of Gaza are not motivated by peace or justice. They celebrated the murdering, raping, and beheading on October 7th — and they are dangerous. A ceasefire now would make their so-called cause even more so.

“I’m absolutely sure that we’re building toward something worse,” said a British senior government official. “It feels like a pressure cooker right now.”²

A ceasefire now would hamstring Jewish safety in many places across the world, causing a multitude of Jews to feel unsafe in the Diaspora and in Israel, a return to our pre-1948 days when we quietly lived in trepidation.

Sensing this, antisemites and their associates would double down on their actions and words, making us feel even more unsafe and inspiring others to get into the antisemitism game.

Furthermore, a ceasefire now would clearly paint the West as torn, weak, and doomed, because it no longer has children, no longer has values, does not distinguish between men and women, and is keen on backing down from wars in the name of “humanity” — ultimate proof that the West has lost its desire to defend itself.

In the process of “learning” the global culture wars in the West, many non-Western politicians not only define their countries as proudly anti-Western; they’ve also acquired a precise vision of the West as spiritually hollow and failing.

Lastly, a ceasefire now would weaken Israel. And a weak Israel is a weak free world.

According to many experts, the blows dealt to Israel by the October 7th Palestinian attacks have ignited a debate about the overall feasibility of further Arab normalization with the Jewish state.

Jon Hoffman, a policy analyst in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, said the primary objectives of normalization are twofold: First, Arab states aim to enhance their ties with what they perceive to be a formidable global player; and second, they seek to forge closer bonds with Washington through the conduit of normalization with Israel.

But this narrative began to unravel — at least in part — on what has become known as “the day that stunned Israel.” The Jewish state’s now-sudden vulnerabilities, and lack of prudent backing from much of the West, are translated into perceived Western weakness across the Middle East.

At a time when emerging powers like China and Russia are gaining global prominence, Middle Eastern and North African countries might look to increasingly bolster ties with Washington’s greatest competitors.

“There is no question that the geo-strategic landscape is rapidly shifting against Western interests in a manner perhaps not seen since the 1970s,” according to Gabriel Elefteriu, deputy director at the Council on Geostrategy in London.

“It also does not help that the United States, the chief custodian of post-World War II global order, is having to deal with these momentous events through people like Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor, who just a week before Hamas’ barbaric attacks claimed that ‘the Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.’”³

In Israel’s previous wars, Western powers were typically caught between a rock (supporting Israel) and a hard place (Arab threats, such as oil embargoes, to not support the Jewish state against Arab opponents). This time around, though, many Arab countries are secretly rooting for Hamas’ destruction. That is, an Arab defeat.

The only true obstacle to an Israeli defeat of Hamas, as well as other terror groups such as Iranian-backed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, is the growing number of Western politicians (including President Biden) who seem to be getting cold feet.

“Setting aside the fact that it was Hamas, not Israel, that caused the Gaza crisis in the first place, the very notion of calling on Israel to observe a ceasefire so soon after it has suffered such devastating losses is not only hypocritical, but morally bankrupt,” wrote Con Coughlin, The Telegraph’s defense and foreign affairs editor.

“Yet, just because it is Israeli cities and towns, and not Western capitals, that find themselves under attack by Islamist terrorists, a different set of rules seem to apply — where the emphasis is on ending hostilities at the earliest opportunity, rather than helping Israel to achieve victory against its bitter foe.”

In late October, FBI director Christopher Wray told the U.S. Senate loud and clear: Hamas poses the greatest terror threat to the West since ISIS emerged nearly a decade ago. Thus, the task to uproot Hamas from Gaza is as beneficial to the West as it is to Israel.

Unless Hamas decides to surrender, its resounding defeat can only be accomplished through the most dominant of military means — not by ignorant, overinflated, and artificial agony about a ceasefire.

---

1. “Iran is gambling on ceasefire to keep Hamas from defeat - analysis.” The Jerusalem Post.

2. “British Police ‘Are Giving in to the Mob.’” The Free Press.

3. “The West can’t allow itself to seem weak: Biden and Blinken’s humiliation in the Middle East must be answered in kind.” Brussels Signal.