Antony Blinken meets Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv, Israel, August 19 2024.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has described his government’s proposed new “ceasefire deal” for Gaza as being agreed upon by Israel. Blinken, who has visited Israel for talks at least nine times since October 7, has stated that Hamas’s refusal to sign the deal is all that is preventing a ceasefire from being put in place rapidly.
But arguably this can be seen as deeply misleading. In reality, the so-called deal appears to be neither a ceasefire nor a deal. Instead, it is so heavily weighted in favour of Israel’s political goals and military objectives that it would amount to a capitulation by the Palestinians of Gaza to a new reality that would leave them under even greater control and occupation than what has been imposed on them for the best part of two decades.
Yet despite this, according to Israeli media reporting of comments by Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, Israel is still refusing to agree the deal — reporting completely at odds with the claims of the US government spokespeople and the Democrats, the US party of government.
As it stands, according to details leaked to US “papers of record” and international media, the “deal” involves only a temporary truce to allow the release of Israeli captives. Netanyahu said at the time of Blinken’s announcement that he will not accept any deal that means Israel ending its war on Gaza before “Hamas is destroyed.”
But despite the killing of what the Lancet’s medical experts calculate to be almost 200,000 people so far, Israeli military leaders have quietly admitted that they are nowhere near achieving the destruction of Hamas and are likely further from it than ever, due to the impact on Hamas recruitment of so many young people who have seen loved ones and even entire families destroyed.
It is debatable whether the Israeli government is seriously concerned about the release of its citizens from Gaza. The families of captives certainly do not believe it is and continue to protest against the perceived lack of seriousness in this regard of Netanyahu and his cabinet.
Last Tuesday, Israel’s media reported that the military had admitted that its bombs killed another six Israeli hostages in a single attack. On the same day, former hostage Noa Argamani told a gathering of G7 leaders that the injuries she had suffered in captivity were caused by Israeli bombs and missiles. She was subsequently forced to correct media claims that she had been “beaten” by her captors.
Any close analysis of the deal, would highlight that the US proposal lacks any commitment by Israel to release Palestinian hostages arbitrarily arrested, held without charge or trial and reportedly tortured by Israel.
The deal would also leave Israel’s years-long blockade in place, which has been intensified to the point of siege since the genocide began, and would set in stone the structural fragmentation that Israel has imposed since October 7. Israel would retain control of the Rafah border and the international aid that needs to pass through it to reach the two million Palestinians who need it. The danger of that can be clearly seen both in the actions of settlers who have blocked and destroyed most of the aid for months, and in the comments of Israeli politicians.
In early August, government minister Bezalel Smotrich said it might be “justified and moral” to starve the entire population of Gaza. Even more explicitly, former defence minister Avigdor Lieberman called last week for the complete blockade of all essentials for life, even water: “No electricity, no crossings, no water, no fuel and no goods, complete disconnection.”
Israel would also keep control of the “Philadelphi corridor” that runs along the border with Egypt — an outcome that Palthink for Strategic Studies founder Omar Shaban says that Egypt would reject as well as the Palestinians — and of the so-called “Netzarim corridor” that splits Gaza into northern and southern parts and is used by Israel as a conduit and launching point for murderous raids north and south. The deal would allow Israel to search every person trying to cross and to refuse transit, leaving many residents of northern Gaza, who moved south to “safe zones” that were still heavily bombed, permanently unable to return to what remains of their homes and communities.
Israel has been accused of regularly sabotaging ceasefire deals since the first discussions began. Even the generally pro-Israel New York Times reported earlier this month that documents from the negotiations that it had seen showed that Israel had added new demands to the current proposal at least five times, including the retention of control of the Egyptian border, “moving the goalposts” to effectively put agreement out of reach.
This is not new behaviour. It is argued that in addition to changing terms when agreement might be in sight, Israel routinely steps up its violence in Gaza during negotiations. Al-Shabaka and Middle East Institute policy fellow Tariq Kenney-Shawa put it succinctly: “Israel has always ratcheted up the intensity of attacks on their opponents in the lead-up to ceasefires … Netanyahu has repeatedly made it clear that he does not want the war to end, both because Israel has not achieved its stated objectives, apart from the complete destruction of Gaza, and because of his political fears.”
The “political fears” include the likelihood that Netanyahu will face prosecution on corruption charges soon after he leaves office, an outcome that would result from the break-up of his coalition with far-right parties that will not accept any end to the hostilities.
Hamas has reportedly said it will accept any deal that involves a permanent end to the killing of Palestinian civilians, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the return of people to their home areas and the reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure Israel has destroyed — provisions that were included in the original ceasefire deal it agreed at the turn of the year but that were then rejected by the Israeli government.
Many have questioned Blinken’s role as an honest broker for peace and have argued that the Gaza “ceasefire deal” isn’t a ceasefire or a deal. As The Intercept put it “…[f]or anyone paying attention, it is now abundantly clear that the US-led Gaza ceasefire talks have become a tool for the perpetuation of Israel’s genocidal war … The so-called ceasefire negotiations are a form of camouflage that is being deployed by Biden and Harris to distract from the reality of their support for Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza…”
As the US continues to reject any meaningful arms embargo that might force Israel into genuine negotiations, the recent Democratic National Convention, held in Chicago, would likely be seen as presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s first major test in relation to the situation in Gaza and pathway to a meaningful ceasefire.
Throughout, the Democrats continued to talk of the US’s commitment to protecting Israel against the consequences of its actions and even refused to allow a Palestinian-American speaker, at the convention. This sent shockwaves for those who had clung to the notion of hope.
The commitment of Republicans to support Israel’s actions was never in doubt, but the Democrats’ continued refusal to stand up against genocide or even to listen to the demands of the Uncommitted movement, which protested outside the event, has so infuriated supporters of Palestinian rights that even the “Muslim Women for Harris” group has disbanded and withdrawn its support for the Democratic nominee.
In her keynote address to the convention, Harris asserted: “…I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organisation Hamas caused on October 7… At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination…”
There was no mention of the US supplied weapons that made possible the devastation in Gaza!
The British government, for its part, could play a significant role in bring a meaningful ceasefire closer by announcing the arms embargo that international law requires and that would increase political pressure on other arms-supplying nations to stop arming the genocide.
However, Keir Starmer made his position amply clear when he sabotaged the SNP’s ceasefire motion in February. In power, he has kept hidden the advice of government lawyers on the legality of continuing to supply weapons that he and then-shadow foreign secretary David Lammy insisted in opposition that the government should release. In reality, his government will follow US policy, whoever is president.
Meanwhile, Israel has continued to kill hundreds of refugees, bombing schools and markets, with yet another school bombed at the weekend as talks in Cairo were breaking up — and assassinated Hamas’s chief negotiator Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
The real prospects for peace, in the absence of political will among Western leaders to take the steps necessary to create a real willingness for peace on the part of Israel’s government, seem remote. This means that the mass popular movement against the genocide must continue and even intensify protest and dissent to ensure that the news agenda is not allowed to move on and make the issue of Gaza mere background noise.
Claudia Webbe is the former member of Parliament for Leicester East (2019-24). You can follow her at www.facebook.com/claudiaforLE and twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe.
Source: Morning Star