War on Gaza: Why Biden's ceasefire speech was a sham
5 June 2024
It is not even clear that Israel accepts the terms of the proposed deal, which is beset by glaring omissions
US President Joe Biden speaks in Washington on 2 May 2024 (Drew Angerer/AFP)
US President Joe Biden last week announced that “Israel
has offered a comprehensive new proposal” - one that “brings all the
hostages home, ensures Israel’s security, creates a better ‘day after’
in Gaza without Hamas in power, and sets the stage for a political
settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike”.
Why Biden decided to present this as an Israeli proposal instead of a US
one is unclear. In the past, Middle Eastern politics was accustomed to
US mediation and facilitation; now, Washington appears to be limiting
itself to presenting Israeli proposals.
To a certain extent, this lends credibility to the argument that the
US has always been Israel’s best lawyer. But the reality this time could
be a bit more nuanced.
It is possible that what Biden presented is an American version of an
Israeli proposal, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was compelled
to draft by members of his cabinet but could not make public due to the
risk of breaking the fragile coalition.
The US administration might have decided to present it to corner both
Netanyahu and the leadership of Hamas, as Biden seeks to calm domestic
tensions ahead of November’s presidential election, while setting up
Hamas to take the blame if the ceasefire proposal is not accepted.
It is not yet clear whether Hamas
will accept the proposal, although its first reaction was described as
positive; more news should hopefully come soon from Cairo and Doha.
Meanwhile, following its usual misleading script, the Netanyahu
government is sending mixed signals about “its own” proposal. Some sources close to the prime minister say that Israel has accepted it, but that it would require some revisions.
Major obstacle
The ceasefire proposal envisages three phases, and it is not yet
clear whether all of them have been accepted - not to mention the fact
that according to far-right members of the Israeli government, this
proposal is a non-starter.
Yet, these issues are objectively irrelevant, as three decades of sad
experience suggest that a long process of beating around the bush will
follow the proposal, with different interpretations floating around, as
the usual blame games are played to attack one side or the other if the
process reaches an impasse.
According
to a post on X (formerly Twitter) by Israeli journalist Barak Ravid:
“Netanyahu told the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee that
Biden didn’t present in his speech all the details of the Israeli
proposal and stressed that on day 16 of phase 1 negotiations on a
permanent ceasefire will begin and Israel will present its conditions.”
Thus, for the moment, it would be reasonable to assume that only the six-week first phase
of the ceasefire proposal is workable, including a withdrawal of
Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza; a release of female,
elderly and wounded hostages in exchange for the release of hundreds of
Palestinian prisoners; the return of Palestinian civilians to their
homes, including in northern Gaza; and a surge in humanitarian aid,
comprising 600 trucks a day, into the besieged enclave.
The omissions in the proposed deal look like chasms, with the Palestinian political perspective ignored
The real problems will come with the second phase, which foresees “an
exchange for the release of all remaining living hostages, including
male soldiers; Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza; and as long as
Hamas lives up to its commitments, a temporary ceasefire would become …
the cessation of hostilities permanently”.
The notion of a “permanent” cessation of hostilities represents a big
obstacle, because according to Israel’s longstanding position, only the
complete destruction of Hamas could make this possible. The problem is,
nobody has yet defined what the “complete destruction”
of Hamas would look like - and nobody is in a position to
unquestionably certify the total elimination of the Palestinian group.
The proposal that Biden presented aims to end the conflict, get the
hostages home, facilitate massive aid delivery to Gaza, and eventually
start the territory’s reconstruction. In other words, it aims to restore
the status quo prior to 7 October 2023. This is precisely the deal’s
limitation: not what it offers, but what it omits.
Failed policies
It is widely known that in order to work, diplomacy sometimes needs
constructive ambiguities - but in this case, this tool seems overused.
It is also tempting to ask why Hamas would accept a proposal whose clear aim is to create “a day after in Gaza without Hamas in power”, with the Israeli corollary of the group’s complete destruction?
As to the aim of reestablishing the status quo ante, it is worth
noting that it is precisely this decades-old, untenable (for
Palestinians) situation that triggered the 7 October attack by Hamas,
which is considered a terrorist group in the UK and other countries. Simply re-establishing such a situation is certainly not a recipe for peace.
The omissions in the proposed deal look like chasms, with the
Palestinian political perspective ignored. Biden’s speech never
mentioned a two-state solution or a Palestinian state, with just one
single, vague reference to Palestinian self-determination.
![]()
Biden’s war on Gaza is now a war on truth and the right to protest
Read More »
The only honest words he uttered were in addressing the Israeli
people, as opposed to their government: “And to the people of Israel … I
ask you to take a step back and think what will happen if this moment
is lost. We can’t lose this moment. Indefinite war in pursuit of an
unidentified notion of ‘total victory’ … will only bog down Israel in
Gaza, draining the economic, military and human resources, and
furthering Israel’s isolation in the world.”
The speech was truly disheartening, focusing almost exclusively on
Israeli security, with an ultimate goal to ensure “Israel could become
more deeply integrated into the region, including … a potential historic
normalisation agreement with Saudi Arabia. Israel could be part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by Iran.”
Biden was then generous enough to dedicate 27 words to outlining a
political perspective for Palestinians after decades of Israeli occupation:
“And all of this would create the conditions for a different future and
a better future for the Palestinian people, one of self-determination,
dignity, security and freedom.”
This “path”, of course, will only be available after the “Israeli
proposal” is accepted by Hamas - when it is not even clear that it is
accepted by the Israeli government - and likely then only after an Israeli-Saudi deal. In other words, the US is sticking to decades-old failed policies and practices.
Thus, the Palestinian people’s path towards their own state and an
end to the occupation - the only conditions that can create a real and
sustainable security for Israel - will continue to be long and painful,
and most probably will never see the light at the end of the tunnel. The
US approach of restoring the status quo risks leading to another 7
October tragedy in the future.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.