WASHINGTON WATCH
After eight months of the Biden Administration’s frustrating moves toward Israel’s war on Gaza, in recent weeks they unveiled the most confounding move of all.
On May 31, in a televised speech to the nation, President Biden announced a three-stage “peace deal” that he said would lead to an end to the conflict. The plan, he said, had already been approved by Israel and the burden was now on Hamas to accept its terms. The White House publicized the president’s proposal. Here is the exact language of the plans outline:
PHASE I
- A complete ceasefire
- Withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza
- Release of some hostages and some remains of hostages
- Palestinian civilians can return to their homes in Gaza
- A surge in humanitarian aid
PHASE 2
- A permanent end to hostilities
- Exchange for the release of remaining living hostages
- Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza
PHASE 3
- Major reconstruction plan for Gaza
- Final remains of hostages are returned to their families
Shortly after the president released his plan, Netanyahu released a statement that essentially rejected Biden’s proposal. The Israeli PM noted in a social media post that the “actual” plan to which he agreed stipulated: no end to the conflict until Hamas had been eliminated; no permanent ceasefire until all hostages were freed and victory was achieved; and no end to an Israeli security role in Gaza. Some of this was noted in a June 1 statement issued by the Prime Minister’s office which read:
We are left with serious questions that require answers: What exactly was the “deal?” Was it what the White House announced or was it what Netanyahu said was the “actual proposal”? If Israel’s disagreements with the plan were known to the USA, why were Security Council members asked to vote on a resolution that claimed it had Israel’s acceptance? If the goal was to pressure both Israel and Hamas, why not put the deal forward as a US and Arab negotiators’ plan and demand both Israel and Hamas accept it? And, finally, why the confusion? Or was it intentional deception?
“Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel. Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”
When asked for clarification about the discrepancy between what the president and the Israeli PM were saying, both the White House and State Department spokespersons appeared to accept Netanyahu’s terms. On national television, the president’s National Security Advisor called Biden’s proposal the “Israeli cease-fire and hostage deal” and said that “It’s an Israeli proposal…The Israeli government has reconfirmed repeatedly, as recently as today, that proposal is still on the table, and now it’s up to Hamas to accept it, and the whole world should call on Hamas to accept it.” The State Department spokesperson elaborated further, noting that if Hamas were truly committed to saving the lives of their people instead of simply saving their own position, then they should accept the “deal.”
To make matters more confusing, on June 10, the USA was able to secure passage of a UN Security Council resolution which referred to the May 31 ceasefire proposal as one “which Israel accepted” and “calls upon Hamas to also accept it and urges both parties to implement its terms without delay and without conditions.”
The resolution then elaborates the three phases of the ceasefire proposal as follows:
PHASE-1
An immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community.
PHASE-2
Upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
PHASE 3
The start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families.
While Israel is not a member of the Security Council and could not vote, nevertheless its ambassador made a point of stating that Israel rejected this resolution, noting that it ran counter to Israel’s goals. And Netanyahu continued to publicly insist on Israel’s goal of “total victory” in Gaza. Adding confusion, the USA leaked what they said had been Israel’s detailed response to the proposals put forward by US and Arab mediators. It differed principally in that it only offered a limited withdrawal in phase one and that a complete withdrawal of its forces would only occur in phase two subject to negotiations— none of which were in either the Biden plan or the UN resolution.
For its part, Hamas largely accepted the announced “Biden plan” and the UN Resolution with some caveats. For example, they insisted that the end of the ceasefire as described in both be “permanent,” and that there be a complete withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza.
While the gaps might have been the subject of further negotiations, it was confounding to hear US Secretary of State Blinken say “Israel accepted the proposal as it was.” Adding “Hamas could have answered with a single word: ‘Yes.’”
We are left with serious questions that require answers: What exactly was the “deal?” Was it what the White House announced or was it what Netanyahu said was the “actual proposal”? If Israel’s disagreements with the plan were known to the USA, why were Security Council members asked to vote on a resolution that claimed it had Israel’s acceptance? If the goal was to pressure both Israel and Hamas, why not put the deal forward as a US and Arab negotiators’ plan and demand both Israel and Hamas accept it? And, finally, why the confusion? Or was it intentional deception?
