Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

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

Comments

[Michale32086]

For those that want an objective look the run-up to the conflict...

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e017.pdf

Michale......

[Michale32086]

@wml209

}}}}
From the same article above:

"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."
{{{{{

You should review the ROME STATUTE of the Articles of the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS....

"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 significantly diminished due to the aggressor"s culpability in launching the attack."
International Criminal Courts, ROME STATUTE

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

With respect, ma'am, your information is inaccurate..

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008

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.

-Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

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, Israel STILL kept the border crossings open until approx mid-November.

Michale......

[ParkeBurgess]

So we now know, "Israel started it." But where does that leave us?

Violence is always very expensive, prohibitively so. But violence used by the powerful to eviscerate the weak is especially vile. To redeem themselves, Israel must take the lead toward peace here, eventually transforming the "Holy Land" into a place remotely deserving of the name. But given the suffering Israel has unleashed in this and many earlier conflicts, they have made their work much, much more difficult.

Parke Burgess
http://www.ourtragicflaw.com/blog

[epony]

Actually, Israel did not "start it"..!

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 information about Hamas's preparations to abduct IDF soldiers through a tunnel, the IDF operated near the border. The operation prevented the planned attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives. Hamas reacted with massive rocket and mortar shell fire... Israel responded by closing the Gaza Strip crossings."

"...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.

[wml209]

From the same article above:

"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."

[epony]

1. "The ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero" -- Sorry to disappoint, but "almost zero" does NOT spell "remarkably effective". In fact, the raw data actually suggests that the first graph is incomplete, and apparently takes into account only rocket fire and not mortar fire, which was in fact more intense than rocket fire in during June-October 2008.

2. The analysis is flawed by only taking killings into account. Thanks to Israeli security forces" efforts, Hamas has been rendered increasingly inept in converting terror assaults on innocent Israeli civilians into "killings". Then again, how effective can Hamas really be when its current modus operandi constitutes mostly of launching rockets and mortar shells on schools, kindergartens, hospitals in Israel from within schools, mosques, hospitals and private homes in Gaza?

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 information about Hamas's preparations to abduct IDF soldiers through a tunnel, the IDF operated near the border. The operation prevented the planned attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives."

"...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.

[peteradler]

Please also note that the report states: "We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side". But we don't know if these periods were actually free of attacks. (Should Israel only respond to attacks that actually succeed in killing Israelis?)

[rickmag]

We should help the palestinians build their homes. The United States should make efforts in improving the lives of palestinians. I may be naive about the whole situation, but I understand that with better living standards, people often stop fighting.

[notginffuh]

that is naive... look at Iran

[pburman505]

People in Bangladesh don't blow themselves up in restaurants or launch missiles on their neighbors. Ditto India, Africa, Mexico and other places around the world where people live in abject poverty.

[merav]

I wonder why 1 to 8 rockets when fired from the Hamas' side are not considered a violoation of the cease fire but rather an impressive achievement. Had Israel launched an immediate response - would it be considered as breaking the ceasefire ? I assume not. Responding after 8 rockets? I suppose not. But when it responded after 11 and not immedaitely, it was considered a violation of the ceasefire in this analysis.
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.

[Becka]

Well then sceptics let the Israeli report speak for itself about Palestinians holding truces.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e017.pdf

16. Networks belonging to Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were the most prominent and
central in violating the lull arrangement. ****17. During the first period Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives
were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the
terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from
violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement,
but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating
weapons. For example, a number of times Hamas"s security services detained Fatah/Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigades operatives, including Abu Qusai, an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades spokesman,
who claimed responsibility for rocket fire (June 29). Detained operatives were released after a
short interrogation and no real measures were taken against them. However, it was clear that
throughout the first period Hamas sought to avoid direct confrontations with the rogue
organizations (especially the PIJ) insofar as was possible, lest it be accused of collaborating
with Israel and harming the "resistance." Hamas therefore focused on using politics to
convince the organizations to maintain the lull arrangement and on seeking support for it
within Gazan public opinion (including issuing statements by its activists regarding the lull"s
achievements).

[lisaware]

It's not "who kills first", it's "who shoots first". Israel simply has better aim/weapons.

& whether or not you are shooting at civilians should make a difference, too!

[mouselion]

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2009/01/rocketscience.html

[notginffuh]

lol, that's genius

[jaberman]

This cartoon on Mother Jones is a childish attempt to rehash the old saw that "both sides are at fault and both sides need to stop the violence." I say childish because it ignores the rather adult themes that come when you listen to or watch the information that comes out the mouths of the adults involved. The grown-ups on the Hamas side, like the little scrappy rocket, continue to spout the line about "if even one of us lives, it will be a victory!" (okay, the tough little terror didn't use that line, but it's subtext) They remain committed to the destruction of Israel, and the children"s TV shows endorse and encourage their children to die for the cause.

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 trajectories are altered mid-flight when it becomes apparent that there are civilians around their targets. Pick your friends.

[goedel]

Nancy Kanwisher's comparison fails for the following reason: Israel does not target civilians; it targets only Hamas terrorists. The truce only applies to the targeting of civilians, which Israel in any case does not do. Israel had not agreed to cease-fire against known Hamas leaders and their terrorist following. When Israel has good intelligence that a Hamas leader may be found at a given place, it strikes. If there are civilians with the target, then they may also be killed or wounded. Civilians should not voluntarily associate with Hamas militants. If they do, then they expose themselves to danger. More significantly, Hamas ought not embed their terrorists and leaders in the civilian population as they do. Finally, the casualties among Gaza civilians are many times the Israeli casualties, because Hamas does not provide shelters for its population as do the Israelis. On the contrary, Hamas endangers its own civilians by taking refuge among them.

[sanych]

Mark Twain said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

The key do understanding this article is in the following phrase - "the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero."

People perceive violence or thread of violence as something that either exists or does not exist. From mathematical point of view it is a boolean value - true or false. Kanwisher replaces it with a number. And the number can be interpreted many ways - is one Qassam per month a lot or not? What about 8? 20? And so on...

So, the argument becomes not about somebody trying to poke your eye out, but how often this happened. Also, this directly leads into "proportionality" - if someone tries to make me blind, are you justified in kiling that person. And so on...

The bottom line - does not matter what Jews do, they will be wrong - and Kanwisher will find a "scientific" explanation.

[lwalsh]

agreed! excellent argument..

[baqad]

Yeah you are right "almost zero" can be anything but the there is evidence for those who wish to have an objectively analysis that it was broken by other non Hamas elements within Gaza notably Fatah.

[FairTalk]

Thank you for the stats that you have presented. I would agree that en extended ceace fire is most ovten ended by Israel, who claimes they are making a self defensive pre emptive strike.

I believe the problem to be two fold, First, there are those in Israel that do not want peace with Palestinesns, but want them to go away. They want all the land which they refer to as greater Israel.

Second, Peace without justice is not peace, but oppression, and cannot be sustained. There is no balance of power in Israel/Palistine, therefore, any peace that Israel forces on the Palestinians is under duress. It means that a lsating and durable peace can only be realized when Israel enters into peace negotiations in good faith. So far Israel refuses to do so, demanding precondoitions before any talks. These preconditions include renouncing the right of return, which is unfairly intrepeted by Israel to mean the denial of Israel's right to exist.

It is time for all grievances to be on the table for discussion and meaningful resolutions.

[ccdaniels65]

Sorry Nancy, you have overlooked some major issues here. Whilst I am not going to deny the statistics that you have presented, as we all know, it is all in the presentation not the figures.

You define a break in the ceasefire as the first side to kill again. This is ridiculous. A break in the ceasefire is the first side to break their side of the deal. If this is not to fire rockets, then the firing of a rocket, regardless of whether it kills or not has broken the ceasefire. What about sniper activity that wounds, and the return fire kills the sniper. Who broke the ceasefire there?

You have fallen for the classic trap of sensationalist headlines and figures that I say, with great certainty, won't stand up to scrutiny. If you can produce another piece that proves me wrong, and shows Israel broke the ceasefires in 80% of cases according to the real defintion of breaking a ceasefire - then I stand corrected.

[ritzl]

Excellent work. The pattern is clear, and has been for some time. Frontline (PBS) did a timeline show a couple of years back that showed the events leading up to the assassination of Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas. It was the same. Largely successful cease fire, Israeli killing, then renewed and envigorated violence.

There is another piece of missing analysis that these authors seem equipped to handle, that of the deaths specifically related to the blockade/occupation of Gaza. This too is overlooked in the overall analysis of the situation. The blockade causes death that is completely unreported, let alone incorporated into our national discussion.

[daniel q]

5. There are few dead israeli people because they know when palastinian shoot and they got into underground covers.
6. Israel have very suffisticated weaopnds who kills in every shoot. The don't miss.
7. The palastians weapond are not good.. They miss a lot.

Those are the reasons for figure 2.
Your conclusions from this figure are simply don't true.