By Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki
As Israel and Palestine suffer a hideous new spasm of terror, misery, and mayhem, it is important to ask how this situation came about. Perhaps an understanding of recent events will afford lessons for the future.
How did the recent ceasefire unravel? The mainstream media in the US and Israel places the blame squarely on Hamas. Indeed, a massive barrage of Palestinian rockets were fired into Israel in November and December, and ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this account leaves out crucial facts.
First, and most importantly, the ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months (see Figure 1, from a factsheet produced by the Israeli consulate in NYC). So much for the widespread view, exemplified in yesterday's New York Times editorial that: "There is little chance of restraining Hamas without dealing with its patrons in Syria and Iran." Instead, the data shows clearly that Hamas can indeed control the violence if it so chooses, and sometimes it does, for long periods of time.
Second, and just as important, what happened to end this striking period of peace? On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.
Figure 1. Number of Palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008 (adapted from The Israeli consulate in NYC [pdf])
Thus the latest ceasefire ended when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel. However, before attempting to glean lessons from this event, we need to know if this case is atypical, or if it reflects a systematic pattern.
We decided to tally the data to find out. We analyzed the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem (including all the data from September 2000 to October 2008).
We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations. As shown in Figure 2, this analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.
Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.
The lessons from these data are clear:
First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time.
Second, if Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill.
Note: For a detailed account of the breakdown of the ceasefire and the precise numbers of rockets fired in November from the point of view of the Israeli military, see http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e011.htm
Loading comments… 
http://www
Michale...
}}}}
From the same article above:
"Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmi
{{{{{
You should review the ROME STATUTE of the Articles of the INTERNATIO
"Our thumb is on the scale in favour of the defender", such that the magnitude of the response may exceed the degree of danger created by the initial attack"
" the personal interests of the aggressor are significan
Internatio
Michale...
During the "Cease Fire", rockets were still being fired at Israel, from Gaza. It was supposed to be a CEASE Fire, not a FIRE LESS Fire...
http://en.
Further, the Nov 4 incident you are referring to is as follows:
On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action.
-Intellige
Finally, it's important to note that HAMAS also did not release Cpl Shalit as required by the truce, nor did it cease smuggling in weapons and missiles, as was require by the truce.
Even if HAMAS didn't commit terrorism against Israel, it would still be in complete violation of the CEASE Fire..
Even with all the violations
Michale...
Violence is always very expensive, prohibitiv
Parke Burgess
http://www
Tucked away at the very end of this piece is the Israeli account of the events leading to the erosion of the ceasefire:
"...on November 4. Following informatio
"...on November 12, when the IDF killed four Hamas terrorist operatives who tried to lay an IED near the border security fence."
These accounts finally shed the right light on various claims that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire. It also puts an end to the fraudulent claims that the Gaza Strip has been under a continuous siege for months, including during the ceasefire.
"Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmi
2. The analysis is flawed by only taking killings into account. Thanks to Israeli security forces’ efforts, Hamas has been rendered increasing
3. Hiding behind a link at the end of this post, one can find the reason behind Israel's so-called "breach" of the ceasefire with Hamas:
"...on November 4. Following informatio
"...on November 12, when the IDF killed four Hamas terrorist operatives who tried to lay an IED near the border security fence."
These accounts finally shed the right light on Hamas' claims that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire.
This makes me realize that where Israel had gone wrong according to this statics wrong is in waiting - and hence being considered in the article as the one that broke the ceasefire.
http://www
16. Networks belonging to Fatah/Al-A
central in violating the lull arrangemen
were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the
terms of the arrangemen
violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangemen
but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscati
weapons. For example, a number of times Hamas’s security services detained Fatah/Al-A
Martyrs Brigades operatives
who claimed responsibi
short interrogat
throughout the first period Hamas sought to avoid direct confrontat
organizati
with Israel and harming the “resistanc
convince the organizati
within Gazan public opinion (including issuing statements by its activists regarding the lull’s
achievemen
& whether or not you are shooting at civilians should make a difference
Israeli grown-ups are showing how things came about, how land troops are used to minimize civilian deaths, which would not be necessary if Hamas didn’t hide their launchers and missiles in schools, mosques, and hospitals, and apartments swarming with civilians. The mutual cry of “You kill civilians” is right as far as it goes; but Hamas TARGETS civilians, where Israel is targeting the launch and storage sites of missiles. That there are civilians there who suffer and die is not celebrated in Israel. But when civilians die because of Hamas’ efforts, there is dancing in the streets. There are video clips of Israeli missiles whose trajectori
The key do understand
People perceive violence or thread of violence as something that either exists or does not exist. From mathematic
So, the argument becomes not about somebody trying to poke your eye out, but how often this happened. Also, this directly leads into "proportio
The bottom line - does not matter what Jews do, they will be wrong - and Kanwisher will find a "scientifi
I believe the problem to be two fold, First, there are those in Israel that do not want peace with Palestines
Second, Peace without justice is not peace, but oppression
It is time for all grievances to be on the table for discussion and meaningful resolution
You define a break in the ceasefire as the first side to kill again. This is ridiculous
You have fallen for the classic trap of sensationa
There is another piece of missing analysis that these authors seem equipped to handle, that of the deaths specifical
6. Israel have very suffistica
7. The palastians weapond are not good.. They miss a lot.
Those are the reasons for figure 2.
Your conclusion