In a pessimistic era, a temporary pause to fighting has become the most anyone is trying to achieve.
NEWYORK TIMES MAGAZINE:
It is hardly the bloodiest conflict going on in the world right now, but the story of its recent “cease-fire” is a depressingly familiar one.
On July 28, the prime ministers of Thailand and Cambodia agreed to a pause in hostilities in the border conflict that has stretched on for decades and, this summer alone, left at least 43 dead. The agreement was brokered by China and the United States, which are uncommonly aligned in a shared desire for peace in the economically important region. Only hours later, the first reports of violations surfaced. Thailand accused Cambodia of firing into its territory and deploying troops toward the border; Cambodia then accused Thailand of putting up barbed wire and detaining a group of its soldiers. Only after military leaders met the next day did fighting actually halt. A tenuous cease-fire remains in place — for now.
This is both a textbook case of what passes these days for peacemaking and a demonstration of the outsize role that cease-fires have come to play in contemporary politics.
Ever since Israel began its retaliatory invasion of Gaza in October 2023, the call for a “cease-fire now” has animated protesters and politicians around the world. Over the past several months, as Israel’s bombardment and blockade of the territory have created a humanitarian crisis and, especially, widespread starvation, demands for a cease-fire have only grown. Last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain announced that his country would recognize Palestinian statehood if Israel continues to rebuff plans for a cease-fire and block the delivery of aid. Other world leaders are making the same demand.