Cease Fire vs Peace Deal
Why Short-Term Ceasefires Prolong the Agony of War?
We often mistake a momentary pause in violence for genuine peace. But what if this illusion, meticulously crafted by political actors, only serves to perpetuate conflict and mask a deeper moral decay? This article delves into the critical distinction between a temporary ceasefire and a true peace agreement, exposing how the West’s strategic ambiguity in places like Gaza traps us in an endless cycle of suffering.
The Dangerous Allure of the ‘Ceasefire’
In the relentless churn of global crises, the term ‘ceasefire’ often emerges as a beacon of hope, promising a respite from the bloodshed. Yet, as military intelligence expert Jacques Baud incisively argues, this term is frequently misused, conflated with the far more profound and demanding concept of a ‘peace agreement’. The difference, he insists, is not mere semantics; it is the very chasm between fleeting appeasement and durable resolution, a distinction with life-and-death consequences for populations caught in the crossfire.
Consider the recent arrangements in Gaza, widely touted as a step towards peace. Baud dismantles this narrative, revealing it not as an accord but a ‘pseudo-ceasefire’ with a singular, politically expedient objective: the release of hostages to appease a domestic government. This narrow focus, devoid of any underlying, ratified peace process, condemns the region to a perpetual cycle of violence, a dangerous illusion that merely pauses the conflict rather than resolving it. The immediate, verifiable violations that followed underscore the fragility and ultimate futility of such a limited approach.
Defining the Divide: Ceasefire vs. Peace Agreement
Jacques Baud, with his extensive background in strategic intelligence, compels us to adopt precise, juridical terminology when discussing the cessation of hostilities. This is not pedantry; it is a vital act of clarity in a world awash with deliberately ambiguous language. He draws a crucial line between a ceasefire (cesser le feu) and a peace agreement (accord de paix or processus de paix).
A ceasefire, as Baud defines it, is inherently a temporary measure. Its objectives are limited, specific, and often tactical—a pause to regroup, to exchange prisoners, or to allow humanitarian aid. It lacks the institutional depth and mutual commitment required for lasting peace. The recent arrangements in Gaza exemplify this: a ‘pseudo-ceasefire’ whose sole, explicit goal was the release of prisoners and hostages, primarily to serve the political agenda of the Netanyahu government. It was, from its inception, a fragile pact designed for immediate political optics rather than long-term stability.
In stark contrast, a peace agreement demands an underlying, binding structure, ratified by all parties involved, and committed to a durable resolution. This isn’t just about stopping the shooting; it’s about establishing a process – that defines the parameters for a lasting settlement. Without this foundation, any ceasefire is merely ‘very thin ice,’ as Baud describes it, prone to immediate collapse. The Gaza arrangement, critically, lacks any such ratified process. It has no depth, no genuine commitment from both sides to a defined path forward, and thus, it can never truly be called a peace agreement.
The Gaza Paradox: A Case Study in Calculated Stagnation
The situation in Gaza serves as a chilling exemplar of how a lack of true peace architecture perpetuates suffering. The ‘pseudo-ceasefire’ was, by Baud’s analysis, inherently unstable. Its limited scope meant it was ripe for violation, and indeed, within a short period, it was reportedly breached numerous times, leading to further Palestinian deaths. This outcome was not an unforeseen tragedy; it was a predictable consequence of a mechanism designed for political expediency rather than genuine conflict resolution.
When agreements are stripped of mutual commitment and foundational processes, they become instruments of tactical advantage rather than pathways to peace. For those of us observing, it becomes clear that such arrangements offer little more than a momentary alleviation of visible violence, only to plunge the affected population back into the abyss. The ongoing cycle of violence in Gaza illuminates how superficial ‘pauses’ can be more insidious than open conflict, offering false hope while cementing the status quo of oppression and suffering.
A Mirror for Ukraine: The West’s Conflicted Desires
The intellectual framework Baud presents is not confined to the Middle East; it offers a potent lens through which to examine other major global conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine. Here, we witness an intriguing inversion of desires that underscores the West’s strategic inconsistencies. While Europeans and Ukrainians fervently desire a ceasefire—a pause in the fighting—they often envision it without the immediate imperative of a comprehensive peace process that might involve difficult concessions.
Conversely, Russia has consistently demanded a formal peace agreement, with a defined peace process, as the prerequisite for any lasting ceasefire. This mirrors Baud’s core argument: a ceasefire, for Russia, must be nested within a larger framework that addresses fundamental geopolitical and security concerns, not merely a temporary halt to combat. The West’s readiness to accept a limited, process-free ceasefire in Gaza, while simultaneously demanding a ceasefire in Ukraine without always advocating for a comprehensive peace process first, reveals a profound double standard.
This inconsistency is not merely intellectual; it is deeply moral. It suggests that different standards apply to different conflicts, based on geopolitical alignments and perceived self-interest, rather than universal principles of international law and humanitarian concern.
Architects of Ambiguity: How Peace Processes Are Undermined
The erosion of genuine peace processes is often the result of deliberate manipulation by powerful actors. Baud provides a compelling account of how an initial 21-point plan, meticulously negotiated with Arab Gulf countries, was systematically dismantled. Under the Trump administration, this comprehensive framework was privately renegotiated with Benjamin Netanyahu, resulting in a truncated 20-point plan.
The crucial detail here is the deliberate omission: point 18, which stipulated Israel’s commitment to refrain from striking Qatar, simply vanished. This single act speaks volumes. It demonstrates how essential elements of a holistic peace framework, including those vital for regional stability and security, can be unilaterally removed to favor one party. Such backroom dealings, far from fostering peace, plant the seeds of future conflict by removing mechanisms for accountability and mutual respect.
This manipulation highlights a profound weakness in international diplomacy: when the pursuit of political advantage overshadows the principles of equitable negotiation and transparent agreements, the very foundation of peace is corroded.
Hamas’s Strategic Gambit: Credibility in the Face of Collapse
Amidst this landscape of diplomatic ambiguity and strategic manipulation, the actions of groups like Hamas take on a complex, almost Machiavellian, dimension. Baud points out that Hamas, fully aware that the ‘pseudo-ceasefire’ was constructed without their input and largely unfavorable to Palestinian interests, nonetheless accepted it. Their reasoning was strategic: they calculated that Israel would likely violate the terms, as indeed it did, placing the burden of responsibility for the ceasefire’s failure squarely on Israel’s shoulders.
This calculated move allowed Hamas to —to enhance their credibility—in the eyes of the international community. By appearing willing to take a step forward, even under unfavorable terms, they exposed the inherent instability and lack of genuine commitment from the opposing side. It was a stark lesson in how desperate actors can leverage the hypocrisy of more powerful nations to their own advantage, even if it means enduring continued suffering.
In the theatre of geopolitics, sometimes the most profound act of resistance is to expose the emptiness of the opponent’s promises.
– Jacques Baud
The Moral Vacuum: Western Hypocrisy and International Law
Baud’s most scathing critique is reserved for what he terms the ‘decrepitude of the West’ concerning its own proclaimed values. This decay manifests in a systemic failure to apply international law consistently and to hold all actors accountable. The assertion by Israel, as noted by Baud, that international law does not apply to the Jewish people due to a perceived superiority, allowing them to justify ‘any action,’ is not just a legal aberration; it is a moral catastrophe. The very function of law is to provide common reference points, a universal standard against which actions can be judged. To selectively apply or disregard it is to dismantle the edifice of global justice.
The West’s complicity in this moral vacuum is alarming. Reports, even within the Israeli press, of soldiers committing egregious acts against children ‘for pleasure’ or as a ‘hobby’ are met with deafening silence from governments like Switzerland and Germany. This lack of objection is not merely oversight; it is a tacit endorsement of impunity. Furthermore, the double standards applied to charges of genocide are ‘astounding,’ with some Western countries arguing that events in Gaza do not qualify ‘because there are not enough deaths.’ This chilling calculus transforms genocide into a numerical threshold, stripping the term of its moral gravity.
The Cost of Inconsistency: Erosion of Trust and Global Contempt
This ‘two weights, two measures’ approach—where some can be massacred, and others cannot—extends beyond the battlefield and into cultural arenas like sports. While Russian and Belarusian athletes face exclusion from international competitions, similar standards are rarely applied to Israeli athletes, even those allegedly involved in criminal acts. This blatant inconsistency reveals a deeply ingrained bias that undermines the West’s moral authority on the global stage.
The consequences of this hypocrisy are far-reaching. The deep support for Israeli actions by Jewish communities in France, Germany, and Switzerland, despite actions documented as ‘clearly against international humanitarian law’ and resulting in ‘genocide,’ has, as Baud argues, extended global contempt toward these communities. This is not to conflate individual actions with collective identity, but to highlight the dangerous erosion of trust that occurs when communities, or the states that represent them, are perceived to be supporting egregious violations of international norms. It creates a global environment where moral principles are seen as transactional, bought and sold in the marketplace of geopolitical power, leading to widespread cynicism and resentment.
Reclaiming Integrity: Towards a Genuine Peace Process
The path forward, illuminated by Baud’s incisive critique, requires a radical shift in perspective and policy. First, we must insist on linguistic precision. To call a temporary halt to violence a ‘peace agreement’ is to engage in a dangerous delusion that prevents us from addressing the root causes of conflict. True peace requires a deliberate, inclusive, and ratified process, one that involves all relevant parties and is underpinned by a commitment to international law.
Second, the West must confront its own moral inconsistencies. Applying universal standards of accountability, regardless of geopolitical alliances or perceived self-interest, is not just an ethical imperative; it is a pragmatic necessity for restoring global trust. This means holding all states and actors to the same standard when it comes to human rights, international law, and the conduct of warfare. Without this, the ‘decrepitude of the West’ will only deepen, further alienating populations and undermining the very institutions designed to maintain global order.
The Urgent Call to Discernment
In an age saturated with information and disinformation, the ability to discern the essential difference between a ceasefire and a peace agreement becomes a critical civic duty. Baud’s analysis is not merely an academic exercise; it is an urgent warning to all who believe in justice and lasting peace. The illusion of temporary truces, masquerading as genuine resolutions, prolongs agony and entrenches cycles of violence. It is a cynical game played by power brokers, and we, the citizens, must refuse to be its passive spectators.
We must demand transparency, accountability, and the consistent application of international law from our leaders. Only by understanding the nuanced realities of conflict, as Baud meticulously outlines, can we truly advocate for pathways that lead not just to a pause in the fighting, but to a profound, durable, and just peace for all.