Re-defining a ceasefire
The west’s saviour complex and double standards for Palestine are clearer than ever.
A ceasefire supposedly insinuates the halting of violence in the context of war. But, throughout this week, people have taken the liberty to redefine that term in accordance with their moral standards.
The ceasefire, which took effect on January 19, aims to establish an immediate six-week stop to any military violence and mandates the exchange of Israeli hostages held in Gaza for Palestinian prisoners—disproportionate in number compared to the hostages—held by the Israeli government. This ceasefire proposal, drafted by authorities from the US, Egypt, and Qatar, also includes a significant increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza, rebuilding the decimated strip of land, and allowing the displaced— which is 90 per cent of the population—to return to their homes. What homes can they return to when over 60 per cent of homes have been destroyed?
To some, the ceasefire has been a point of celebration. To others, it has become grounds of disappointment and discontent. But, as usual, Israel has taken the greatest liberty with that redefinition. Following the ceasefire deal, Israel launched a military operation in Jenin—a city in the West Bank—named “Iron Wall,” which takes its name from Russian Zionist thinker Vladimir Jabotinsky’s essay of the same name. Within 36 hours following the ceasefire, the terrorist state has murdered at least two Palestinians in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, and assumed an attack on the West Bank, murdering at least nine Palestinians and abducting ninety.
Amid all this, the ink on the ceasefire agreement has yet to dry.
And this redefinition by Israel has, conveniently, coincided with notable US-related events; namely the TikTok Ban and Trump’s presidential inauguration. Just like the attack on Rafah that aligned with the Met Gala in 2024, or the siege on al-Shifa Hospital that coincided with the Super Bowl Final, or the escalated attacks on Gaza corresponding with the Oscars, or the 4th of July, or the Golden Globes.
The point stands: Israel does not care about the ceasefire. It simply never cared about any ceasefire, whether that was in regards to Palestine, or Lebanon, or Syria.
For when a fascist, colonial state continues to be excused for testing the limits of dehumanisation, the value of accountability dissipates. Especially when such decisions are backed by a power, the United States of America, claimed to be saviours for declaring a ceasefire deal—the very same saviours that have funded the genocidal state of Israel since before 1948.
Yet, the concept of a ceasefire has also been redefined by the very followers of the Palestinian-liberation movement, where some have responded to the news as a moment of celebration and festivities. There is an inherent insensitivity in celebrating an executive deal that was reluctantly agreed upon; a decision taken 470+ days too late.
Celebrating a breath of mercy assumes that the ceasefire was the ultimate goal. But it never was, not as long as Palestine in its entirety is illegally occupied by Israel. Such celebrations merely mock the sacrifice endured by Gazans and glorify the efforts of global activists.
One must remember that there must be a humility in the capacity of activism, that activism does not suffice but rather contributes to the collective movement. By writing articles, I know that I am a mere contributor to reworking a flawed and harmful narrative. It is just a humble contribution to the grander scheme of global activism.
So, it simply is not our moment to celebrate the ceasefire and certainly not ours to redefine it.
However, the ceasefire and genocide on Gaza has also redefined and proved multiple things in return.
For one, it established that Israel and its allies, the US and Canada included, cannot be trusted, and that their global power in the name of humanitarianism is futile. Their efforts at degrading Palestinian liberation have gone unseen—just like the attempted mockery of Yahya al-Sinwar’s murder, only to be acclaimed as an act of heroic martyrdom by the movement.
The ordeal has also established that antisemitism is open to reinterpretation if it conforms to the criteria of white Zionists; that antisemitism is excusable if committed in the name of Zionism. For when Elon Musk reenacted the fascist Nazi salute, many excused it as the “Roman salute”.
The response of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the largest organization combating antisemitism, further consolidated this redefinition. For when the ADL claimed that student-led encampments were a form of extremism and a threat to Jewish students on university campuses, Musk’s salute was deemed “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”
The glaring double standard doesn’t end here. On social media, the watermelon emoji has come to symbolize Palestinian liberation, and those who use it to bypass the censorious algorithm and express pro-Palestinian takes are routinely accused of antisemitism. Yet, Musk’s Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration—in a room full of right-wingers—was downplayed as simply “extending his heart” to a crowd of elitists sympathies. Why is a watermelon emoji enough to garner accusations of antisemitism but Musk’s salute isn’t enough to garner condemnation for his fascist rhetoric?
Time has proven a final take: that the support for human life is conditional. It encompasses favouring the lives of white communities, of the rich, and the colonial.
The humanity of the West has a benchmark for sympathy, one that Palestinians could not meet. They are cursed for not conforming to the whiteness of power and privilege. Humanity is so malleable in the hands of the Western leaders and governments, that moulding Palestine into a scheme of reimagination has come with ease.
It is no surprise, then, that the ceasefire agreement, amongst many other decision made for Palestinians, was posed with freedom of redefinition. The western hegemonic powers can and will continue to frame their actions—such as this fragile ceasefire deal—through a saviourist, belittling, and ultimately dehumanizing lens. But the movement for Palestinian liberation, and the liberation for all oppressed people, will also continue stretching their hearts and voices for humanity.
Associate Opinion Editor (Volume 50) — Yasmine is a third-year student, majoring in History and Anthropology. Her writing is best described as sometimes sarcastic, sometimes radical, and always an excuse to bring up her heritage (and colonialism). She hopes her work with The Medium will inspire conversations, debates, and a path to abandon our deeply rooted stubbornness. In her spare time, Yasmine enjoys reading, knitting, arguing with uncles on politics, and fangirling.
Beautifully written article (as usual), that successfully expresses the clear hypocrisy and double morale constantly at play. Thank you Yasmine for this beautiful piece.