A stalemate in ceasefire negotiations

Last week the Biden administration claimed that the three-phase ceasefire plan was 90 per cent agreed by Hamas and Israel and that the final 10 per cent should be sorted shortly.

However, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied this claim while repeatedly stating he is determined to hang on to the Gaza-Egypt border zone, the Philadelphi Corridor, which was identified as the main obstacle. 

He doubled down on this demand by securing the approval of his Cabinet a week ago days after six Israeli captives were killed by Hamas as Israeli troops neared their location in a tunnel. 

His diktat is opposed by Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant, the sole Cabinet member voting against Netanyahu, army chief Herzl Halevi, and Israel’s negotiators Mossad head David Barnea and Shin Bet boss Ronen Bar.

A majority of Israelis reject Netanyahu’s demand and call for a ceasefire which would bring home the 101 Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

However, a recent opinion poll revealed that 73 per cent of Israelis are not optimistic about Netanyahu’s acceptance.

Writing in the Israeli liberal daily Amos Harel said , “Practically speaking, there is almost no contradiction between the message to the Israeli public and the message to the Qataris, because the bottom line... is that he appears to have no intention of reaching an agreement at this time.”

Harel concluded that his “major consideration is his political survival”.

His extreme right -wing coalition partners Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir hold seven Knesset seats and threaten to bring down the government if he agrees to a ceasefire.

Netanyahu refuses to test them although he knows full well they could be bluffing.  If they collapse his government, they would lose their powerful positions:  Ben Gvir as security chief and Smotrich as finance minister.

Furthermore, they are unlikely to enter government again once this Cabinet falls or reaches the end of its term in office.

This is the first time these two extremists have risen to governance, and they have alienated many Israelis by the radical policies they promote.

They were awarded Cabinet posts only because Netanyahu was desperate to have a firm majority in the 120 seat Knesset.   

Other Israeli politicians would be unlikely to follow his bad example any time soon.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, told The Washington Post that the administration had not exerted sufficient pressure on Netanyahu to compel him to agree to the deal.

Biden admitted that his was the case, but he refused to use the provision of munitions and weaponry to Israel as leverage on Netanyahu.

“By not calling out [his] intransigence, the administration has] given him political cover to continue to stonewall,” Van Hollen said. “It’s a mystery to me as to why the administration doesn’t call him out more clearly, when the hostage families themselves know what an impediment he has been.”

Having been foiled for two months by Netanyahu, the Biden administration now accuses Hamas - which accepted the president’s unmodified ceasefire plan on July 7th - of creating a fresh obstacle by insisting on more than 150 long term Palestinian prisoners should be freed in exchange for Israeli hostages in the first phase of the plan. Hamas has denied this charge. 

Hamas has previously said it should decide which Palestinian prisoners would be released in exchange for hostages.

Hamas has been leery since last November’s release of 240 Palestinian prisoners who were largely youths serving short terms, administrative detainees, and women rather than veteran prisoners with long sentences for attacking or murdering Israelis.

For example, Hamas has requested the release of Fateh’s Marwan Barghouti and the Popular Front’s Ahmad Sadat, both given life imprisonment.

Israel has rejected freedom for these high value prisoners and proposed deporting others out of Palestine upon their release. 

Hamas had previously argued that Israeli soldiers would be exchanged for long serving prisoners; now it says Israeli civilians could also be freed for such detainees.

The message coming out of Washington is that both Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and Netanyahu do not want a deal now.  

However, there is no evidence of that Sinwar is to blame for the lack of progress.

Netanyahu admits he is the culprit and is greatly pleased with himself for taking a hardline so he can carry on with his Gaza war.

The war has put him and Gallant at risk of arrest warrants being issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention which governs the behaviour of occupation regimes in captured territory. 

Warrants should compel governments of the 124 countries which are signatories to the ICC’s Rome statute, including most of Europe and Britain but not the United States, Russia and China.

Rejection of warrants by signatory states would undermine whatever is left of the rule of international law the West claims it upholds.

Prosecution of Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes is far more serious for Israel than the public relations debacle of Netanyahu’s ongoing trial for bribery fraud, and breach of trust by a Jerusalem court. 

While he could be sentenced for a maximum of 10 years if found guilty on the charges and/or to pay a fine, Israel would suffer the loss of victimhood and impunity the country has enjoyed over the past 76 years.

Israel’s brutal and cruel conduct of the Gaza war has already erased the false notion that Israel should be immune from criticism and demands for accountability.