Why hastily declared ceasefires tend to be fragile
Ceasefires that are suddenly declared tend to be pretty fragile.
Stable ceasefires usually require a lot of preparation so that everyone on both sides knows what is supposed to happen, and - more importantly - when.
And they normally agree on how it will be monitored so one side cannot seize a quick advantage by breaking it suddenly.
Without such preparations, and sometimes even with them, ceasefires will tend to be breached - perhaps by accident, perhaps because one side does not exercise full control over its own forces, perhaps as a result of false alarms, or even because a third party - a guerrilla group or a militia, say - choose that moment to launch an attack of their own.
1:23
The important question is whether a ceasefire breach is just random and unfortunate, or else deliberate and systemic - where someone is actively trying to break it.
Either way, ceasefires have to be politically reinforced all the time if they are to hold.
0:45
All sides may need to rededicate themselves to it at regular intervals, mainly because, as genuine enemies, they won't trust each other and will remain naturally suspicious at every twitch and utterance from the other side.
This is where an external power like the United States plays a critical part.
If enemies like Israel and Iran naturally distrust each other and need little incentive to "hit back" in some way at every provocation, it will take US pressure to make them abide by a ceasefire that may be breaking down.
Appeals to good nature are hardly relevant in this respect. An external arbiter has to make the continuance of a ceasefire a matter of hard national interest to both sides.
And that often requires as much bullying as persuasion. It may be true that "blessed are the peacemakers".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Startling new satellite pictures show secret activity at Iranian nuclear site that the US bombed to pieces
New satellite photos reveal Iran is trying to piece together its nuclear site after the US bombed it. Heavy machinery was seen at the Fordow site as it appeared Iran has intensified its construction and excavation of the nuclear site after US B-2 bombers struck it last Saturday in Operation Midnight Hammer. Activity was seen near the tunnel entrances and near the points where the buster bombs struck. Construction equipment was also seen digging new access roads to the facility and repairing damage to the main one in order to restore access to the country's main nuclear facility. US President Donald Trump said the strikes 'completely obliterated' Iran's nuclear program and set it back years, but the new satellite images suggest the Middle Eastern country had taken preliminary effort to protect its facility. Iranian media said the sites had been evacuated prior to the strikes and the enriched uranium was transported to a 'safe location.' It is unclear how much uranium was left at the site during the bomb, but officials said there is no contamination after the strikes. Earthwork also showed signs tunnel entrances might have been sealed off before the attacks, Newsweek reported. Similar construction activity was seen at the Fordow site prior to the strikes, where Iranians were seen shipping contents from the nuclear site to another location a half a mile away. Despite the extent of the damage being up to question, International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog - said Fordow's centrifuges were 'no longer operational' and suffered 'enormous damage.' A leaked preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, a US government intelligence group, suggested there was 'low confidence' that that Middle Eastern country's program had been set back. Even Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said the United States hit Tehran's nuclear sites but achieved 'nothing significant.' 'Anyone who heard [Trump's] remarks could tell there was a different reality behind his words - they could do nothing,' the 86-year-old Iranian leader said. The Trump Administration - including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard - pushed back on the report. Hegseth slammed the media for diminishing the strikes. 'Your people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful, it's irresponsible,' he said. 'There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that what we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations,' he explained without offering further evidence that the uranium was destroyed. Trump has threatened to sue The New York Times and CNN for reporting on the preliminary report. The Times reported Thursday that Trump's personal lawyer Alejandro Brito had reached out to the newspaper and said the article had damaged the president's reputation. The letter demanded The Times 'retract and apologize for' the story, calling it 'false,' 'defamatory' and 'unpatriotic.' The newspaper's lawyer responded by noting that Trump administration officials had confirmed the existence of the report after The Times published its findings. 'No retraction is needed,' The Times' lawyer David McCraw said in a letter. 'No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.' A spokesperson for CNN told The Times that the cable news network had responded to Trump's lawyer in a similar fashion. Operation Midnight Hammer marked the end of a 45-year stand-off between the United States and Iran.
BreakingNews.ie
38 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
At least 60 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
At least 60 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Advertisement Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, the president said: 'We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' A man carries the wrapped body of a child who was killed along with others in an Israeli strike that targeted a school in northern Gaza, at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City (Jehad Alshrafi/AP) An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's minister for strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. Talks have been on and since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the dire humanitarian crisis. Advertisement Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to be still alive. They were among some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Mr Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Advertisement Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu says he will end the war only once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Palestinians carry humanitarian aid packages near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution centre in Khan Younis, southern Gaza (Abdel Kareem Hana/AP) Meanwhile, hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for more than two months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Advertisement Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
