Biden's Gaza cease-fire proposal has a glaring problem

Original Article:

Source: Link

The most important takeaway from President Biden’s speech Friday, which laid out a plan for a cease-fire and the release of prisoners and hostages in Israel’s nearly eight-month-long war on Gaza, is not that there is a plan on the table. Different versions of a deal have been on the table for months now, and Israel and Hamas have, at various times, both balked. The difference now is that Biden himself has made the details of this deal public to pressure both sides to accept. Significantly, as part of making that case, he also made clear that, in his view, Israel’s key war aim has been achieved. But Biden’s pressure will be more effective if he makes clear the lengths he will go to see this proposal become reality. The deal Biden outlined has three stages. In the first, there would be a cease-fire for six weeks, Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza, Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners would be released, and there would be a surge of humanitarian aid. During this time, Israel and Hamas would negotiate the terms of a permanent cease-fire, supported by the U.S., Egypt and Qatar. In the second stage, Hamas would release all remaining hostages, Israel would withdraw fully from Gaza, and the temporary cease-fire would become a “cessation of hostilities permanently.” The third phase involves a major reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of all dead hostages. The president obviously is trying to box Netanyahu in. Biden presented the deal as an Israeli proposal, while also somewhat strangely urging Israeli leaders to support it. It soon became clear why, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, regardless of Biden’s description of the proposal, his conditions for ending the war “have not changed.” Since Friday, the administration has continued to speak as if Hamas is the roadblock to a deal: On Monday, State Department spokesperson Matt Miller repeated the patently false refrain that “the only thing standing in the way of an immediate cease-fire today is Hamas.” But it’s clear that the real pressure needs to be applied to the Israelis. Miller noted that the proposal announced Friday “is nearly identical to what Hamas said it would accept just a few weeks ago” — which Israel rejected. (That agreement reportedly included a cease-fire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, an exchange of captives, reconstruction of the territory and the lifting of Israel’s blockade.) Biden’s remarks Friday made explicit what U.S. officials have been saying to the media, and what many analysts predicted from the start: Hamas will not be eradicated in Gaza. “Indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of ‘total victory,’” Biden warned, “will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas. That will not bring Israel lasting security.” The key sticking point in negotiations has been Hamas’ longstanding demand for a complete end to the war, not just a temporary cease-fire. But now Biden has publicly endorsed that position. The president obviously is trying to box Netanyahu in, to force him to choose a deal which, while clearly the right one for his country, could potentially collapse his own governing coalition. Two far-right members of the coalition, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, have said that they would bolt the government if Netanyahu agreed to a cease-fire before total eradication of Hamas. In response, Netanyahu is doing what he always does when faced with a tough choice: playing for time. By offering negative comments to the media, he is clearly trying to elicit a rejection from Hamas. It’s a familiar play from his previous negotiations with Palestinian leaders: Take provocative steps that indicate bad faith, and when the Palestinians walk away frustrated from negotiations that are going nowhere, blame the Palestinians for abandoning negotiations, backed by the usual chorus of Washington advocates who are always happy to play that song. And unfortunately, the administration’s politically expedient but incomplete and misleading framing of Hamas as the sole roadblock will have cued it up, although even Biden admitted to Time magazine that “there is every reason” to believe Netanyahu is prolonging the war for political reasons. It’s worth noting that Biden has also boxed himself in here a bit, too. By making the deal public, though, Biden is trying to make it harder for Netanyahu to pull the same old stunt. Throughout his decades-long political career, Biden usually has preferred to work behind the scenes. Going public like this is, for Biden even more than most presidents, an escalation. There’s just one problem: At least publicly, Biden has not been willing to describe an “or else.” What happens if Netanyahu simply delays and refuses? Will Biden be willing, at long last, to use some of the considerable leverage that the United States has over Israel, in the form of military aid and diplomatic cover? Past behavior suggests not. A few weeks ago, Biden finally publicly said that he would withhold some of the heaviest U.S. arms to enforce his red line against an Israeli operation in Gaza, only to back down in the face of withering criticism from Republicans in Congress and Democratic donors. It’s hard to imagine Netanyahu being intimidated by another bluff. This time, Biden needs to make clear Friday’s speech was no bluff. It’s worth noting that Biden has also boxed himself in here a bit, too. On Friday, the president said that Israel’s key objective had already been achieved: “At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another Oct. 7.” So, what does Biden do if Netanyahu insists on continuing a war whose main objective Biden himself says has been satisfied? How could he conceivably characterize continuing such a war as “self-defense”? Again, Biden is a politician who often prefers to work quietly, cajoling and convincing out of public view. This approach has produced some surprisingly good results in terms of his legislative record as president. But a Gaza cease-fire isn’t like funding for a new highway overpass. Here Biden’s reliance on old school backroom politicking has an ever-growing body count that already stains his legacy. The Gaza catastrophe would be compounded if understandably outraged voters respond by delivering him a loss in November. Biden must be clear to Netanyahu, Hamas and to the world: There will be consequences for all for refusing this cease-fire agreement. And then he must ready to follow through and impose them.