Blinken’s Lies about Hamas Rejecting a Ceasefire Reveal the Biden Administration’s True Intentions

ANGLO AMERICA, 24 Jun 2024

Mitchell Plitnick | Mondoweiss - TRANSCEND Media Service

Secretary Antony J. Blinken is interviewed by Jalal Chahda of Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar, 12 Jun 2024.
(Official State Department photo by Chuck Kennedy)

The Biden administration is playing a shell game with the Gaza ceasefire that aims to trick the Democratic base into thinking meaningful action is taking place to end fighting while still allowing Israel to continue its genocidal campaign.

15 Jun 2024 – “The proposal that President Biden laid out 12 days ago was virtually identical to one that Hamas had accepted and put forward itself on May the 6th.  So there’s no reason why this agreement should not be reached.  The only reason would be Hamas continuing to try to change the terms.”

So said U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in an interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday [12 Jun]. The statement is part of an extended campaign of deception that Blinken has spearheaded. It featured President Joe Biden’s dramatic unveiling of a ceasefire proposal, followed by a U.N. Security Council resolution and Blinken’s latest tour of the Middle East — all ostensibly to reach a ceasefire.

The subtlety hidden in the term “virtually identical” that Blinken used attempts to hide some crucial differences, and betrays the real point of Blinken’s public relations sojourn.

Biden’s proposal is very similar to the one Hamas accepted on May 6. Notably, the United States at the time explicitly said that Hamas had not accepted the proposal. Blinken’s blatant contradiction of his own agency’s words is typical of the prevarication that the United States and Israel have maintained throughout recent weeks, during which the Biden administration has gone to great lengths to create the illusion of pressing for a ceasefire.

However, there is a key difference between the May 6 proposal and the current one, and it lies in Phase Two of the plan.

Biden’s plan calls for a negotiation during Phase One that would lead to a permanent ceasefire. He even noted, as did the Security Council, that if negotiations need longer to succeed, Phase One, including its temporary ceasefire, will be extended for as long as it takes.

But crucially, the plan also says that if Israel decides Hamas is not negotiating “in good faith,” it can resume its murderous rampage through Gaza. And if that happened, it would be doing so with the full public blessing of the U.S. — a blessing even more explicit than it has given until now.

The May 6 plan, by contrast, sees Phase Two as the final exchange of living hostages and prisoners, the full withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza, and a permanent ceasefire put in place. Phase Two moves forward if the two sides fulfill the practical obligations they would have committed to. In other words, there is no need for “negotiation” because the fulfillment of the terms in Phase One leads to the execution of the terms of Phase Two.

Essentially, the difference is that under Biden’s plan, Israel can free many hostages — though not all — and can then simply accuse Hamas at its own discretion of not negotiating in good faith, thereby resuming the genocide. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this clear.

That has been the sticking point all along. In essence, Israel wants a deal that frees the hostages and also allows it to “finish the job.” Hamas, quite reasonably, wants the slaughter and siege to end, Israel to withdraw, and reconstruction to immediately commence.

Neither side is ambiguous about this. “The Hamas response reaffirmed the group’s stance [that] any agreement must end the Zionist aggression on our people, get the Israeli forces out, reconstruct Gaza, and achieve a serious prisoners swap deal,” a Hamas official told Reuters. That has been the group’s position since the last temporary truce and hostage exchange in November.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also held fast to his position that Israel will not stop its onslaught until all its aims have been achieved. Indeed, when the UNSC passed its ceasefire resolution this week, Israel reiterated this position, as its representative to the UNSC meeting, Reut Shapir Ben Naftaly, said after the vote: “We will continue until all hostages are returned and until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities are dismantled.”

This is consistent not only with Israel’s talking points throughout the Gaza genocide but also with statements from Netanyahu even after Biden presented what he claimed was Israel’s proposal. The day after Biden presented the proposal, Netanyahu’s office stated, “Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions [which the statement described as “the destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel”] 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.”

That directly contradicts Biden’s proposal, which both the President and Blinken have sold as a plan for achieving a permanent ceasefire, making no mention of these conditions. Indeed, the conditions Israel set forth are not possible within any conceivable ceasefire — certainly not one that Hamas would ever say “yes” to.

‘Dead cat diplomacy’

Despite this, Blinken continues to insist that it is Hamas, not Israel, that is preventing the deal from going through. How does that make any sense?

If we look at the proposal on the table with rational eyes, Blinken’s claims cannot be squared with reality. But if we consider the proposal in a more cynical light, it can.

Hamas is clearly unwilling to agree to a deal that does not guarantee an end to the slaughter in Gaza. While we don’t have all the details of the proposed deal (even the UNSC resolution only contained a broad summary of the proposal) or confirmation of the specific amendments Hamas requested, it’s not hard to see that the major difficulty is the same one it’s been all along: Hamas wants an end to the genocide, and Israel doesn’t.

The proposal Biden put forth could guarantee that Phase Two would initiate a permanent ceasefire, if both parties comply with their obligations under Phase One. It is reasonable to assume that Hamas’ proposed amendments are geared toward that outcome. It is eminently sensible that Hamas would not leave the question of restarting Israel’s campaign in the hands of Netanyahu and Biden. They would want clear guarantees, which means specific actions that lead inexorably to a complete Israeli withdrawal.

But Israel is portraying this as Hamas being “unreasonable” while Blinken is characterizing at least some of Hamas’ demands as “unworkable.” And the U.S. is repeating the mantra that Hamas is the only thing standing in the way of a ceasefire, despite being contradicted by Israeli leaders themselves at every turn.

Blinken’s act has a different motive. Aaron David Miller, a long-time diplomat who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations as a leading Middle East envoy, tweeted on Wednesday, “The more this plays out, [the] more it resembles what my former boss James Baker called dead cat diplomacy. The objective is not to reach a deal but to ensure if it fails, the dead cat is on [the] other’s doorstep. Even if a deal is reached, likely won’t go beyond phase 1 for that reason.”

He is likely right about the prospects and certainly is right about the “dead cat diplomacy.” Given the impasse over a guaranteed path to ending Israel’s rampage, all parties are engaging in that game. But the character is different for each.

Hamas has no interest at all in prolonging this campaign but also has no reason to agree to a deal that leaves the decision to resume the violence in the hands of Israel and the United States. If they release the hostages and Israel starts the campaign again, much of the already insufficient protest movement in Israel will dissipate and Netanyahu will have a politically freer hand. It is also likely to reduce American pressure, meager though that is. Yet it’s important for them to communicate to the people of Gaza that they are trying to end this slaughter.

Israel would love to see Hamas painted as the rejectionist party, as it would add more fuel to the bloodlust of those who are cheering their genocidal campaign on and would put more pressure on the few in Washington who are actively opposed to Israel’s war on the civilian population of Gaza.

But it is the Biden administration that is most eager to place the dead cat on Hamas’s doorstep.

Biden’s real red line

Despite the constant disdain that Biden, Blinken, and the entire administration have shown for Palestinian lives, it has become clear that their support for Israel’s genocide is hurting them politically. Yet even the obviously feigned concern they occasionally try to show for Palestinian civilians has not sat well with the pro-Israel corner of the Democratic party.

This creates a dilemma. All things being equal, they would, at this point, prefer to see Israel stop the genocidal campaign, and have tried to convince Netanyahu to do so. All their pleas have fallen on deaf ears in Israel, and it has been embarrassing for Biden and his spokespeople to have to answer reporters’ questions after each massacre, explaining how Israel has not crossed their so-called “red lines.”

Many have observed that what this amounts to is having no red lines at all. But that’s not quite right. There is one red line that Biden will not cross. He will not stop arms shipments to Israel or use any other means to actually force Israel to stop what it’s doing. That is the true red line in all of this.

As long as that red line is there, Netanyahu has a largely free hand. He vacillates between open defiance of Biden in public with some conciliatory words about how he appreciates Biden’s support, and, in private, he doubtless is telling Blinken and Biden enough of what they want to hear for them to be able to report that Israel agrees to this deal that they keep rejecting publicly.

But in the end, Netanyahu does as he pleases and the arms, the money, and the diplomatic cover continue to flow from Washington, free of charge. Lying has never bothered him.

As long as that self-imposed red line is there, Biden needs to find another way to appease voters at home. Miller’s dead cat, Biden hopes, will allow him to appease the moderate liberals in the party who are uncomfortable with genocide but are looking for a reason to vote for Biden out of fear of Donald Trump, even while he continues supporting Israel’s genocide. He also hopes that ongoing support will appease major pro-Israel donors and others who could throw their support either behind Trump or behind Republicans in Congressional races.

What does not figure into this calculus, as usual, are the lives of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who will continue to pay the price for these political games.

Hoping Biden will put actual pressure on Israel is a fool’s errand. Few conceivable events would be more shocking than a halt to arms shipments or trade restrictions from the U.S. That’s exactly why protest movements all over the world, including in the United States and Europe, must join their calls for a ceasefire with demands for an arms embargo, as well as boycotts, divestment, and, especially sanctions.

The UNSC resolution provides a diplomatic basis for such actions. It’s hard to see a ceasefire coming about without them.

___________________________________________

Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author, with Marc Lamont Hill, of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. Mitchell’s previous positions include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Director of the US Office of B’Tselem, and Co-Director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Go to Original – mondoweiss.net

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.