Pressure is mounting on Hamas to accept an Israeli three-phase deal which was first unveiled by United States President Joe Biden on May 31 in a televised address from the Oval Office.
During a meeting on June 24 with Israel’s visiting Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, US Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin said, “The onus is on Hamas to accept this roadmap to a durable end to this war. The failure of Hamas to accept this important proposal is prolonging the agony of Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians.”
Similar statements have been made by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan. The ball-is-in-Hamas’-court refrain has also been voiced by the State Department and White House spokespersons.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of basic facts. Let’s
Before we get to Biden’s May 31 announcement, it is important to note two facts: one, Hamas has consistently put forward its five-point peace deal from day one: a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, unrestricted return of displaced Gaza Palestinians to their homes, more aid for the besieged enclave and the start of a reconstruction process.
This is a matter of record.
What’s also a matter of record is that Israel and the United States have consistently rejected Hamas’ formula, especially the point about permanent ceasefire. Israel has insisted on continuing the war until the complete destruction of Hamas, even as it has put forward securing the release of all captured Israelis as an objective of war.
While Biden administration officials urged Israel to protect civilians and allow more aid to Gaza, they made no move to place conditions on military (lethal and non-lethal) aid to Israel to further those goals. In fact, the Biden administration danced around the issue when a State Department report issued in May, despite being critical of Israel’s conduct of war, stopped short of determining that Israel was breaking the rules for using US weapons.
Until late March this year, the US had vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions calling for a permanent ceasefire and cessation of hostilities. On March 25, the US let a UNSC ceasefire resolution pass by abstaining rather than vetoing it. This was not any fundamental reset by the US but a warning shot across Netanyahu’s bow for domestic political reasons.
This point was also clear from the substance of US actions in support of Israel. While Biden administration officials urged Israel to protect civilians and allow more aid to Gaza, they made no move to place conditions on military (lethal and non-lethal) aid to Israel to further those goals. In fact, the Biden administration danced around the issue when a State Department report issued in May, despite being critical of Israel’s conduct of war, stopped short of determining that Israel was breaking the rules for using US weapons.
This, as experts pointed out, was done to ensure that the Leahy Laws did not kick into play. Leahy Laws are US human rights laws that prohibit the Departments of State and Defence from providing military assistance to a foreign country that violates human rights with impunity. They are named after their principal sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy.
Let’s now get to Biden’s May 31 announcement.
Biden said that after months of negotiations, “Israel has offered a comprehensive new proposal. It’s a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages.”
The fact is, Netanyahu, as has been noted by a number of former high-ranking Israeli officials, does not want this war to end. In an interview with CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet chief, called Netanyahu a “toxic leader” who “does not want this war to end.”
The three-phase proposal entailed a six-week ceasefire during which Israel would withdraw its troops from populated areas of Gaza, and a number (33 by most account) of the roughly 120 remaining captured Israelis — primarily women, the elderly, and the wounded — will be released by Hamas in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons. Alongside this, the volume of humanitarian aid to Gaza would be greatly increased. In phase two, there would be a permanent cessation of hostilities in exchange for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, including male soldiers. Phase three involved the beginning of the reconstruction of Gaza’s destroyed infrastructure.
The proposal, as announced by Biden, was very similar to the one Hamas had agreed to on May 6. But that deal fell apart when it turned out that the text Hamas had agreed to was different from the one Israel had green-lighted. This time around the text shown to Hamas was the same one Biden had outlined.
Following Biden’s announcement, the US ratcheted up international pressure by putting the deal up for a vote by the UN Security Council. Interestingly, Netanyahu kept quiet on Biden’s assertion that the three-phase proposal was an Israeli plan. After months of frustrating world opinion on a permeant ceasefire, the US got Resolution 2735 passed on June 10, with only Russia abstaining.
Hamas welcomed the resolution and said it would study it and respond. Later on June 11, Hamas gave its formal response, which included some “amendments”. It was, rightly so, troubled by the wording of clause 2 (b) which stated “upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities…” (italics added). Hamas told the mediators that it wants Israeli troops removed from Gaza’s border with Egypt in the first week after the deal is signed and to completely withdraw from the strip before the second phase begins, instead of making such withdrawal contingent upon an unlikely agreement.
Netanyahu, even against the wishes of members of his erstwhile war cabinet, has been dissembling the whole time regarding a deal. The cabinet was dissolved after Benjamin “Benny” Gantz, leader of Israel’s Resilience Party and a former IDF Chief walked out of the cabinet.
This concern was substantiated by statements from Netanyahu who continued to reject any suggestion that Israel would withdraw from Gaza or agree to a permanent cessation of hostilities until the complete destruction of Hamas. He went on record saying that any idea of a peace deal until “the destruction of Hamas’ military and governing capabilities” is a “non-starter”. Israeli officials also indicated that the US had tried to box Israel in by making this announcement and subsequently putting it to a vote at the UNSC.
Netanyahu, even against the wishes of members of his erstwhile war cabinet, has been dissembling the whole time regarding a deal. The cabinet was dissolved after Benjamin “Benny” Gantz, leader of Israel’s Resilience Party and a former IDF Chief walked out of the cabinet. On June 23, Netanyahu said he “partially” supported the current deal. Later, he walked back his statement in the Knesset plenum, pledged his support for the deal, and finally admitted that it was actually an Israeli proposal.
The fact is, Netanyahu, as has been noted by a number of former high-ranking Israeli officials, does not want this war to end. In an interview with CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet chief, called Netanyahu a “toxic leader” who “does not want this war to end.”
Hamas is not exogenous to Palestinians or to the resistance. It is the resistance. As the serving IDF spokesperson Danial Hagari said, “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It's rooted in the hearts of the people — anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”
Despite constant flipflopping by Netanyahu, the US officials are trying to drag Hamas into accepting the deal without addressing Hamas’ concerns. Hamas has stood firm with Ismail Haniyeh stressing last Tuesday that any deal which did not guarantee a permanent ceasefire from the start “was not an agreement.”
What next?
It should be clear that the US, some of its allies and Israel are deliberately obfuscating. They know they have to make a deal with Hamas. But how can Hamas be expected to agree to a deal that gets Israel one of its war objectives (getting back the captured Israelis) while allowing Israel to continue its savagery until satisfied that Hamas has been destroyed? As I have written previously, one doesn’t need to understand negotiation theory to figure out the absurdity of such a deal.
The second problem is the US-Western-Israeli approach to Hamas, the unworkable idea that somehow Hamas can be prescinded from any peace deal involving Gaza and, more broadly, Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is patently nonsensical. Hamas is not exogenous to Palestinians or to the resistance. It is the resistance. As the serving IDF spokesperson Danial Hagari said, “Hamas is an idea, Hamas is a party. It's rooted in the hearts of the people — anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong.”
The third problem is the two-state shibboleth. Israel understands it to be what it has been since the PLO signed the Oslo Agreements and effectively relinquished any idea of Palestinian sovereignty. Even Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the agreements and paid for his life, made clear in a Knesset speech just twenty-nine days before his assassination that the concession by Israel was merely to an administrative authority, not a sovereign Palestinian state.
This, inevitably, has led to Israel colonising every aspect of Palestinians’ lives, expanding illegal settlements and reducing the Palestinian Authority to Israeli collaborators.
To put it simply: Israel’s vision of a two-state solution is dead and buried.
Any solution, instead, must be along what Professor Mahmood Mamdani calls “South Africa’s one-state response to apartheid”.
“The South African moment challenged the assumption that cultural difference must translate into political difference, cultural identity into political identity. By contrast, the purpose of Zionism is precisely to make this translation: to make the experience of being Jewish— historically a matter of religious practice, upbringing, and lineage—into an experience of nationhood and to tie this nation to a state.” [Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities]
Either that or this war with its many battles will continue.